Why we don't show a single “fair value” for RBLX
Even the optimistic scenario of a conservative trailing-FCF model ($14.11) sits far below today's price — the market is paying for growth and durability beyond what this model structure captures. The honest lens is the question below: what growth does today's price actually require? The model scenarios are listed further down for reference.
What would today's price require?
$44.52 is justified only if free cash flow grows about +56.8% a year (fading to 2.5% long-run) at a 11.4% required return — faster than the company has actually grown.
| Scenario | FCF growth (fading to 2.5%) | Discount | Value / share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative | 15.0%/yr | 12.4% | $9.22 |
| Base case | 18.0%/yr | 11.4% | $11.52 |
| Optimistic | 20.0%/yr | 10.4% | $14.11 |
Current Price
$44.52
Market-Implied Growth
+56.8%/yr
vs +22.8% 5Y actual
Base-Case Model Value
$11.52
model output — not a price target
Edit the assumptions to see how they change the estimated fair value. Opens seeded with TGM's data-driven base case for RBLX (growth from its own 5-year record, discount from its beta), so the sandbox starts where the scenarios above leave off. Illustrative model — not investment advice.
Base inputs: FCF $382.7M · 0.71B shares · net cash $197.5M
Estimated Fair Value
$11.52
-74.1% vs $44.52
How the estimated fair value shifts with the discount rate (WACC) and terminal growth, holding your 18.0%/yr FCF growth and 10-year horizon fixed. Green = above today's $44.52; red = below. Your current case is outlined.
| WACC ↓ / Terminal → | 1.50% | 2.00% | 2.50% | 3.00% | 3.50% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9.4% | $13.53 | $14.27 | $15.12 | $16.10 | $17.25 |
| 10.4% | $11.90 | $12.46 | $13.09 | $13.81 | $14.62 |
| 11.4% | $10.60 | $11.04 | $11.52 | $12.06 | $12.67 |
| 12.4% | $9.55 | $9.90 | $10.28 | $10.70 | $11.16 |
| 13.4% | $8.68 | $8.96 | $9.27 | $9.60 | $9.96 |
