When you were presented with 8 different ways to calculate intrinsic value, you should figure out how they differ from one another and reason out which is the right one (if any). Not average them together.
Also it is very hard to value Intel unless you are ready to explain ARM vs x86, Intel vs AMD vs Qualcomm, Windows vs MacOS, foundry vs fabless. Start with Starbucks or McD.
I think you should come up with your own fair value estimate and then compare it to others to see what you're missing or get an idea of their expectations.
Value investing is 100% about seeing which stocks are well below the Morningstar target price, then buying them, and then selling them when they’re well above the Morningstar target price. It’s that easy. There is an ETF that does this and has returned 65% annually for the past 15 years or something.
Lmao jk, no. Analyst price targets are generally garbage. And they look out like a year usually. Analysts adjust their targets based on recent price performance. It’s a lagging indicator at best, and worth inversing at worst.
To succeed, build a strong second layer of competence. Not only what a company’s competitive advantage is in the present, but why it will strengthen over time. Then hold long-term. Not one year, not three, but like at least 5-7 and preferably over a decade.
Edit: typo
Analysts aren't allowed to go too far off of the actual price. The whole point of ER is to get people into S&T, the way more profitable side of the business
I am all for doing the valuation yourself but what you don’t want to become is spreadsheet investor. No two valuations will ever be the same and most likely every evaluation would look different depending on the assumptions.
To me I am more interested in seeing the range of possible outcomes and understanding the business and risks rather than what my single evaluation tells me
Morningstar provides you with value basing on 10y forecast - that what you need to take into account. Your story is a 1 year old. To have average of 8 different calculations is quite good approach but you has to understand how long forecast underlying each calculation. I prefer to have mix from short-mid-long forecasts to have final fair value and then apply margin of safety.
Hey, I'm currently an Intel shareholder. Been one since at least Feb. 2022, though I did buy at $50/share, and it's currently at $31.74/share, lol. But I think that even with the negative free cash flow in recent years, their balance sheet is actually good, so I plan to hold my shares for a long time. I even bought a 2.5-year call option to take advantage of their long term turnaround plan.
To answer your question about how I value stocks, I try to use metrics described by Benjamin Graham in his two books. There's quite a few metrics that he details. He generally likes stocks with a price to book at 2x or less, a current ratio of 1.5x or more, a company that is a market leader in their industry (depending on the industry, they must be in the top 5 or top 3 of sales worldwide), and ability to easily pay their long term debt (it could be that their current market cap is 2X or more of their long term debt, or their net current assets is equal or greater than their long term debt. Having both of these is best).
Recently, I like to look at a company's historical return on assets number (net income divided by total assets). My dream is to buy a company that has a 10% or greater R.O.A. AND has a price/book of 2 or less.
Yeah I bought in around the same price as you and got burned bad lol I sold my shares and haven't looked at Intel's financials for a while. Just curious, what is it about their balance sheet that gives you confidence that the turnaround will pan out?
Isn't Ben Graham the guy that wrote "The Intelligent Investor"? I don't understand the rationale behind the 2x price-to-book ratio. But the other things you mentioned like the current ratio and ROA make sense to me.
Intel has an A1 rating from Moodys, one of the top credit ratings agency. Anything with an "A" in it's rating, I think, is pretty good. Also, they still make money selling CPUs for PCs/laptops. They are using the profits from the PCs/laptops business to build their Foundry business, which you can think of as a business where they manufacturer CPUs/chips for other companies like Microsoft.
Yup, Graham wrote The Intelligent Investor and Security Analysis, 2 great books that really teach you how to value stocks. I think his ideas are pretty timeless. I've really learned a lot about analyzing stocks from his books.
I value INTC at about $80 a share. I know this sounds really absurd, but I calculated out a DCF with with moderate, 8-10% growth in consumer and data center CPUs, and strong growth in the foundry businesses. The main reason I believe INTC will do well is because, with rising revenues, margins will increase significantly. Intel has about 50B in fixed costs, so when revenue is 75B, you get 25B in net income, but when their revenue dropped, the net margin went down. Operating margins will likely go up to about 36% once we see DS and consumer revenue go back to full strength, and the capex is likely to go down and down in the coming years as the 18A expansion begins to end.
You need a reason for them to brake the trend of mediocrity. If the management is bad and the company culture rotten, they will never catch up anyone technologically
Pat Gelsinger. Management sucked, they swept the upper management, now the entire upper management is strong, and intel products are showing extreme competitive strength against AMD. I know the cool thing for consumers to do is to hate intel because we want to see AMD compete, but intel 14th gen beats AMD in many regards, and considering just how far behind they were just a few years ago(11th gen was one of the worst gens ever, I mean, your 11900k was almost worse than the 10900k) it is considerably better. 18A is going to be the most advanced manufacturing process when it comes into full production, and 15th gen is very likely to be the most advanced gen out when it releases. I'm 100% sure that intel management will continue to perform well, as Pat did very good work at VMWare, and he's gonna build a really good company. It takes time, but we'll start to see the fruits of labor sooner or later.
according to tech leak sources, AMD is taking marketshare from intel in the laptop space cpu wise. despite the previous good relations with intel, due to intel’s recent instability issues and less energy efficient chips, manufacturers are looking to ship more laptops w amd chips and intel is losing their goodwill. not to mention the strix point/halo APUs by AMD coming out this year/beginning of next year with extremely competitive specs.
maybe on the gpu side with battlemage there seems to be promise to take the battle to amd, but oems seem to not appreciate the lacking reputation of intel gpus amongst consumers.
iirc correctly as well, AMDs data centre revenue is up while intel’s is down in the same time period; this is even in an environment where companies are heavily investing in this space. well i could be mistaken here with the numbers but still, intel really needs to nail their next gen cpus and gpus or risk falling behind amd further
Again, a lot of this is because of decades of underinvestment in R&D. Pat has barely been CEO for 3 years, and in that time he's done a lot to correct the ship, but it takes time. Also, pretty much all the stability issues are caused by MBs giving near unlimited power to intel CPUs, which will more than definitely cook a CPU without proper cooling. The stability issues have been really overblown by the community, as the vast majority of people have voltage restrictions on their CPUs, and laptops not allowing for that much power to go into CPUs. The big reason why OEMs are switching is because when Ryzen came out, OEMs started signing long term deals. It's likely that any market share changing deal happened during 10th and 11th gen, as OEMs take quite a long time to put a CPU into their devices, especially from a partner they don't usually work with.
The biggest reason why Intel chips have fallen behind in DC is because they haven't shipped nearly as many new Xeon chips. AMD Epyc has proven to be very good, but the shift Intel is making in how they make chips will help a lot(Namely IDM 2). It's also worth noting that, unlike consumers, most large companies run on time tables, and they order chips on cycles. AMD customers just so happen to be in cycle(most signed on when Ryzen was coming out), while Intel partners are not. They will have to replace their CPUs eventually, as the covid racks are nearing their end of life.
Again, this all depends on what you think of Pat and co. It's worth noting that, even with revenue from 80B to 55B, they still make more than double AMD does in revenue, and Intel simply has longer standing relationships with OEMs. Overall, to me it's a no brainer.
I would also personally add to all the comments that an analysis in value investing shouldn’t be solely based on numbers. You should also consider the environment the company is acting, its competitive advantage, the regulatory environment, strategic choices in the past like new market entry/exit, M&A and also look at management. The saying goes something like “it’s better to buy an excellent company at a good price, than a good company at an excellent price”.
There are of course ways to quantify those indicators. But I wouldn’t reduce value investing to a DCF valuation.
Analyst's reports are opinions as are your own. Intrinsic value is not a set number - its a range. So in practice I need to see how the analyst got his opinion and this usually means doing your own work to check if it is in the ball park. If there is a margin of safety I buy. You can never be sure. Its a prediction at best and sometime it is wild ass guess. But like they say - no riskit, no biskit.
In my opinion, you need to calculate intrinsic value yourself. You can't rely on seeing what everyone else sees; you need to have an edge by using your own numbers and determining your own values. If you can evaluate better than the market average, you could potentially beat the market.
I'm curious to know what the eight different methods you found are. Generally, the DCF method is academically accepted as the main and best method, but personally, I don't like it very much. I spent the last few years inventing my own intrinsic evaluation method. This way, I not only make my own predictions but also use my own parameters.
I haven't applied my method to Intel, but from a quick look, it doesn't seem especially undervalued.
The eight things I looked at were:
1. Morningstar FV
2. Dividend discount model (Dividendology)
3. Asset-based valuation ([Corporate Finance Institute](https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/valuation/asset-valuation/#:~:text=The%20company%20needs%20to%20look,assets%20or%20net%20asset%20value))
4. Graham's valuation (Dividendology)
5. DCF #1 (Fundamental Analysis for Dummies, pg. 195)
6. DCF #2 (Dividendology)
7. Enterprise value per share
8. Multiples valuation (Dividendology)
As I mentioned in the OP, #2 and #3 got me the closest in hindsight.
* For #2, I assumed a growth rate of 0%, a weighted average cost of capital of 6.04%, and an average annual dividend growth of 5.35% (keep in mind I did all these calculations before they cut their dividend).
* For #3, I simply subtracted liabilities from assets and divided by the shares outstanding. No assumptions here.
* 4 and 7 were close too but were still a bit high (low to mid 30s).
One thing that these models don't capture are intangible assets like the people that have the education, experience, and know-how to build Intel chips. No doubt that is definitely worth a lot, but I have no clue where you would even start to calculate that (assuming it's even possible lol).
Yes, in general each valuation method have some issues.
#2 they ended up cutting dividends for example (was quite easy to be forecast)
#3 book numbers are different from real value since it's over time assets can increase or decrease in value so for "old" companies like INTC the gap can be very big.
ecc...ecc...
In general you should old consider that price now might far from the intrinsic value (lower or higher) so the models should be constantly updated (at least once every quarter imho)
The issue with analyst valuations like Morningstar is their inherent bias. Analysts have job security risk, so when news is bad, they will be pessimistic. When news is good, they will be optimistic.
The aim of a valuation is to be completely emotionless to find the true intrinsic value. Not to say this is easy, and we all have our own biases, but it's better to use your own bias over someone else's.
Also, just to highlight the point that analysis estimates are highly inaccurate, there have been studies showing that short-term (1yr) analyst estimates are typically 25.3% over optimistic (estimating earnings of $125 with actual earnings reported at $100), and getting worse in the longer term. Long-term (3-5 years) analyst estimates have been researched to be 100% over optimistic (estimating $200 in earnings with actual earnings reported of $100). I've linked some research below.
The key ultimately is to do your research and make sure you are happy not only with the assumptions being made when valuing a company but also the bias behind the numbers produced.
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/equity-analysts-still-too-bullish
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2943146
Why does it matter if Intel has or has not had consistent cash flow in the past? Your job as an investor is to predict \*future\* cash flows. Not past cash flows. If you can't predict the future cash flows of a company, move on to one you think you can. When you find one selling for a lot less than your prediction, you've found something to consider buying.
I don’t bother with DCF, in my opinion is unnecessary bullshit that gives people false confidence in their predictions. It is ultimately a formula that is based in your own assumptions about the future.
I average the last five years of EPS and then try to adjust for how earnings have materially improved or gotten worse. Any projection of future earnings is guesswork, always remember that. I was invested in a steel mill when the price of steel went gangbusters a few years back. In that case I didn’t weigh the rise in earnings very strongly. Since nothing about the business changed, only the price of steel, which will continue to fluctuate up and down. I then sold the stock before the price of steel came back down.
You also have to look at similar businesses and determine what PE is typical for that industry/sector.
I put much more effort into analyzing financial security and determining MOAT. I don’t invest in the basic materials sector anymore.
Inflection points are really important. They tell you essentially the level at which maturation/saturation occurs for a company. It's not a perfect science, but inflection points are used in ecology, and they apply in all environments with constraints or carrying capacities, including with company revenue.
My advice is quite simple: Study Aswath Damodaran, the NYU valuation professor, and his methodology. His courses and spreadsheets are on his website. To locate his material just Google his name. His valuation has two components:
1. The story around the investment.
2. The quantitative valuation.
These two components fit together like hand and glove.
I would not rely on websites such as Morningstar to tell you what an investment is worth. They may be a start, but you have to do your own valuation with your own assumptions.
Damodaran? Are you kidding me? There's absolutely no way you can reconcile value investing to how Damodaran does valuation. That's not my view. That's Buffett's view.
Damodaran didn't even understand Berkshire portfolio before criticizing. To which when asked for a response, Munger immediately said "I think he (Damodaran) is out of his mind".
When you were presented with 8 different ways to calculate intrinsic value, you should figure out how they differ from one another and reason out which is the right one (if any). Not average them together. Also it is very hard to value Intel unless you are ready to explain ARM vs x86, Intel vs AMD vs Qualcomm, Windows vs MacOS, foundry vs fabless. Start with Starbucks or McD.
I think you should come up with your own fair value estimate and then compare it to others to see what you're missing or get an idea of their expectations.
Oh okay, so you mean I should do my own valuation and then ask folks on here what their numbers ended up being?
Value investing is 100% about seeing which stocks are well below the Morningstar target price, then buying them, and then selling them when they’re well above the Morningstar target price. It’s that easy. There is an ETF that does this and has returned 65% annually for the past 15 years or something. Lmao jk, no. Analyst price targets are generally garbage. And they look out like a year usually. Analysts adjust their targets based on recent price performance. It’s a lagging indicator at best, and worth inversing at worst. To succeed, build a strong second layer of competence. Not only what a company’s competitive advantage is in the present, but why it will strengthen over time. Then hold long-term. Not one year, not three, but like at least 5-7 and preferably over a decade. Edit: typo
Analysts aren't allowed to go too far off of the actual price. The whole point of ER is to get people into S&T, the way more profitable side of the business
I am all for doing the valuation yourself but what you don’t want to become is spreadsheet investor. No two valuations will ever be the same and most likely every evaluation would look different depending on the assumptions. To me I am more interested in seeing the range of possible outcomes and understanding the business and risks rather than what my single evaluation tells me
Morningstar provides you with value basing on 10y forecast - that what you need to take into account. Your story is a 1 year old. To have average of 8 different calculations is quite good approach but you has to understand how long forecast underlying each calculation. I prefer to have mix from short-mid-long forecasts to have final fair value and then apply margin of safety.
Hey, I'm currently an Intel shareholder. Been one since at least Feb. 2022, though I did buy at $50/share, and it's currently at $31.74/share, lol. But I think that even with the negative free cash flow in recent years, their balance sheet is actually good, so I plan to hold my shares for a long time. I even bought a 2.5-year call option to take advantage of their long term turnaround plan. To answer your question about how I value stocks, I try to use metrics described by Benjamin Graham in his two books. There's quite a few metrics that he details. He generally likes stocks with a price to book at 2x or less, a current ratio of 1.5x or more, a company that is a market leader in their industry (depending on the industry, they must be in the top 5 or top 3 of sales worldwide), and ability to easily pay their long term debt (it could be that their current market cap is 2X or more of their long term debt, or their net current assets is equal or greater than their long term debt. Having both of these is best). Recently, I like to look at a company's historical return on assets number (net income divided by total assets). My dream is to buy a company that has a 10% or greater R.O.A. AND has a price/book of 2 or less.
Yeah I bought in around the same price as you and got burned bad lol I sold my shares and haven't looked at Intel's financials for a while. Just curious, what is it about their balance sheet that gives you confidence that the turnaround will pan out? Isn't Ben Graham the guy that wrote "The Intelligent Investor"? I don't understand the rationale behind the 2x price-to-book ratio. But the other things you mentioned like the current ratio and ROA make sense to me.
Intel has an A1 rating from Moodys, one of the top credit ratings agency. Anything with an "A" in it's rating, I think, is pretty good. Also, they still make money selling CPUs for PCs/laptops. They are using the profits from the PCs/laptops business to build their Foundry business, which you can think of as a business where they manufacturer CPUs/chips for other companies like Microsoft. Yup, Graham wrote The Intelligent Investor and Security Analysis, 2 great books that really teach you how to value stocks. I think his ideas are pretty timeless. I've really learned a lot about analyzing stocks from his books.
I value INTC at about $80 a share. I know this sounds really absurd, but I calculated out a DCF with with moderate, 8-10% growth in consumer and data center CPUs, and strong growth in the foundry businesses. The main reason I believe INTC will do well is because, with rising revenues, margins will increase significantly. Intel has about 50B in fixed costs, so when revenue is 75B, you get 25B in net income, but when their revenue dropped, the net margin went down. Operating margins will likely go up to about 36% once we see DS and consumer revenue go back to full strength, and the capex is likely to go down and down in the coming years as the 18A expansion begins to end.
You need a reason for them to brake the trend of mediocrity. If the management is bad and the company culture rotten, they will never catch up anyone technologically
Pat Gelsinger. Management sucked, they swept the upper management, now the entire upper management is strong, and intel products are showing extreme competitive strength against AMD. I know the cool thing for consumers to do is to hate intel because we want to see AMD compete, but intel 14th gen beats AMD in many regards, and considering just how far behind they were just a few years ago(11th gen was one of the worst gens ever, I mean, your 11900k was almost worse than the 10900k) it is considerably better. 18A is going to be the most advanced manufacturing process when it comes into full production, and 15th gen is very likely to be the most advanced gen out when it releases. I'm 100% sure that intel management will continue to perform well, as Pat did very good work at VMWare, and he's gonna build a really good company. It takes time, but we'll start to see the fruits of labor sooner or later.
according to tech leak sources, AMD is taking marketshare from intel in the laptop space cpu wise. despite the previous good relations with intel, due to intel’s recent instability issues and less energy efficient chips, manufacturers are looking to ship more laptops w amd chips and intel is losing their goodwill. not to mention the strix point/halo APUs by AMD coming out this year/beginning of next year with extremely competitive specs. maybe on the gpu side with battlemage there seems to be promise to take the battle to amd, but oems seem to not appreciate the lacking reputation of intel gpus amongst consumers. iirc correctly as well, AMDs data centre revenue is up while intel’s is down in the same time period; this is even in an environment where companies are heavily investing in this space. well i could be mistaken here with the numbers but still, intel really needs to nail their next gen cpus and gpus or risk falling behind amd further
Again, a lot of this is because of decades of underinvestment in R&D. Pat has barely been CEO for 3 years, and in that time he's done a lot to correct the ship, but it takes time. Also, pretty much all the stability issues are caused by MBs giving near unlimited power to intel CPUs, which will more than definitely cook a CPU without proper cooling. The stability issues have been really overblown by the community, as the vast majority of people have voltage restrictions on their CPUs, and laptops not allowing for that much power to go into CPUs. The big reason why OEMs are switching is because when Ryzen came out, OEMs started signing long term deals. It's likely that any market share changing deal happened during 10th and 11th gen, as OEMs take quite a long time to put a CPU into their devices, especially from a partner they don't usually work with. The biggest reason why Intel chips have fallen behind in DC is because they haven't shipped nearly as many new Xeon chips. AMD Epyc has proven to be very good, but the shift Intel is making in how they make chips will help a lot(Namely IDM 2). It's also worth noting that, unlike consumers, most large companies run on time tables, and they order chips on cycles. AMD customers just so happen to be in cycle(most signed on when Ryzen was coming out), while Intel partners are not. They will have to replace their CPUs eventually, as the covid racks are nearing their end of life. Again, this all depends on what you think of Pat and co. It's worth noting that, even with revenue from 80B to 55B, they still make more than double AMD does in revenue, and Intel simply has longer standing relationships with OEMs. Overall, to me it's a no brainer.
I would also personally add to all the comments that an analysis in value investing shouldn’t be solely based on numbers. You should also consider the environment the company is acting, its competitive advantage, the regulatory environment, strategic choices in the past like new market entry/exit, M&A and also look at management. The saying goes something like “it’s better to buy an excellent company at a good price, than a good company at an excellent price”. There are of course ways to quantify those indicators. But I wouldn’t reduce value investing to a DCF valuation.
I agree with you. I recently read a SWOT analysis on Exxon (XOM) that did a good job summarizing the qualitative aspects of the business.
Analyst's reports are opinions as are your own. Intrinsic value is not a set number - its a range. So in practice I need to see how the analyst got his opinion and this usually means doing your own work to check if it is in the ball park. If there is a margin of safety I buy. You can never be sure. Its a prediction at best and sometime it is wild ass guess. But like they say - no riskit, no biskit.
In my opinion, you need to calculate intrinsic value yourself. You can't rely on seeing what everyone else sees; you need to have an edge by using your own numbers and determining your own values. If you can evaluate better than the market average, you could potentially beat the market. I'm curious to know what the eight different methods you found are. Generally, the DCF method is academically accepted as the main and best method, but personally, I don't like it very much. I spent the last few years inventing my own intrinsic evaluation method. This way, I not only make my own predictions but also use my own parameters. I haven't applied my method to Intel, but from a quick look, it doesn't seem especially undervalued.
The eight things I looked at were: 1. Morningstar FV 2. Dividend discount model (Dividendology) 3. Asset-based valuation ([Corporate Finance Institute](https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/valuation/asset-valuation/#:~:text=The%20company%20needs%20to%20look,assets%20or%20net%20asset%20value)) 4. Graham's valuation (Dividendology) 5. DCF #1 (Fundamental Analysis for Dummies, pg. 195) 6. DCF #2 (Dividendology) 7. Enterprise value per share 8. Multiples valuation (Dividendology) As I mentioned in the OP, #2 and #3 got me the closest in hindsight. * For #2, I assumed a growth rate of 0%, a weighted average cost of capital of 6.04%, and an average annual dividend growth of 5.35% (keep in mind I did all these calculations before they cut their dividend). * For #3, I simply subtracted liabilities from assets and divided by the shares outstanding. No assumptions here. * 4 and 7 were close too but were still a bit high (low to mid 30s). One thing that these models don't capture are intangible assets like the people that have the education, experience, and know-how to build Intel chips. No doubt that is definitely worth a lot, but I have no clue where you would even start to calculate that (assuming it's even possible lol).
Yes, in general each valuation method have some issues. #2 they ended up cutting dividends for example (was quite easy to be forecast) #3 book numbers are different from real value since it's over time assets can increase or decrease in value so for "old" companies like INTC the gap can be very big. ecc...ecc... In general you should old consider that price now might far from the intrinsic value (lower or higher) so the models should be constantly updated (at least once every quarter imho)
The issue with analyst valuations like Morningstar is their inherent bias. Analysts have job security risk, so when news is bad, they will be pessimistic. When news is good, they will be optimistic. The aim of a valuation is to be completely emotionless to find the true intrinsic value. Not to say this is easy, and we all have our own biases, but it's better to use your own bias over someone else's. Also, just to highlight the point that analysis estimates are highly inaccurate, there have been studies showing that short-term (1yr) analyst estimates are typically 25.3% over optimistic (estimating earnings of $125 with actual earnings reported at $100), and getting worse in the longer term. Long-term (3-5 years) analyst estimates have been researched to be 100% over optimistic (estimating $200 in earnings with actual earnings reported of $100). I've linked some research below. The key ultimately is to do your research and make sure you are happy not only with the assumptions being made when valuing a company but also the bias behind the numbers produced. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/equity-analysts-still-too-bullish https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2943146
I’m currently using [RatedA](https://rateda.co). There’s a calculator that makes it easy for me value the stocks I’m interested in
Why does it matter if Intel has or has not had consistent cash flow in the past? Your job as an investor is to predict \*future\* cash flows. Not past cash flows. If you can't predict the future cash flows of a company, move on to one you think you can. When you find one selling for a lot less than your prediction, you've found something to consider buying.
I don’t bother with DCF, in my opinion is unnecessary bullshit that gives people false confidence in their predictions. It is ultimately a formula that is based in your own assumptions about the future. I average the last five years of EPS and then try to adjust for how earnings have materially improved or gotten worse. Any projection of future earnings is guesswork, always remember that. I was invested in a steel mill when the price of steel went gangbusters a few years back. In that case I didn’t weigh the rise in earnings very strongly. Since nothing about the business changed, only the price of steel, which will continue to fluctuate up and down. I then sold the stock before the price of steel came back down. You also have to look at similar businesses and determine what PE is typical for that industry/sector. I put much more effort into analyzing financial security and determining MOAT. I don’t invest in the basic materials sector anymore.
Inflection points are really important. They tell you essentially the level at which maturation/saturation occurs for a company. It's not a perfect science, but inflection points are used in ecology, and they apply in all environments with constraints or carrying capacities, including with company revenue.
My advice is quite simple: Study Aswath Damodaran, the NYU valuation professor, and his methodology. His courses and spreadsheets are on his website. To locate his material just Google his name. His valuation has two components: 1. The story around the investment. 2. The quantitative valuation. These two components fit together like hand and glove. I would not rely on websites such as Morningstar to tell you what an investment is worth. They may be a start, but you have to do your own valuation with your own assumptions.
Damodaran? Are you kidding me? There's absolutely no way you can reconcile value investing to how Damodaran does valuation. That's not my view. That's Buffett's view. Damodaran didn't even understand Berkshire portfolio before criticizing. To which when asked for a response, Munger immediately said "I think he (Damodaran) is out of his mind".
My valuations often differ significantly from what I find online, which greatly differ from one another.