Not accounting losses for tax purposes.
But absolutely a loss in terms of value. If you sit on an investment at 0% return for 10 years, you have no losses to declare, but you are ABSOLUTELY POORER. Both literally as your money is less valuable (inflation) and in terms of opportunity cost. And that is before getting into a Cost of Capital discussion.
NPV is used because its better at analysing actual value.
My company (massive global private equity) cares more about NPV when evaluating acquisitions and projects and I believe this is nearly universally true.
I sit on a deal team to make a living. The problem is you’re looking at this like a F500 financing/project decision or a PE deal at a 14% discount rate. PE raised a fund targeting a 3x/23% IRR in 5 years or a large tech co deciding to sign an office lease and using NPV/IRR to compare investment/allocation options is different from buying a sports team.
Heavily leveraged UNHW private capital buying a legacy asset is not the same thing. Cost of capital is way, way lower and it’s arguable that it’s not calculable. We‘ve funded real estate projects with private wealth vehicles for billionaires and you can accept sub 5% returns bc your cost of capital is nonexistent (you’re borrowing against your own liquidity). You’re happy to do so because you own something you can brag about, combats inflation, and you’re gonna hold for 99+ years.
A billionaire or syndicate of LPs that owns a sports team is likely fine clipping off 1-3% coupon like returns and banking appreciation for the luxury and prestige of owning a big 4 franchise.
I’m not saying Meruelo/NHL is happy with the financial performance but the Coyotes don’t need to hit a 14% hurdle rate over a decade to avoid bleeding because of NPV/TVM. They weren’t comparing it to another decision or allocation. Plus we don’t know the financing structure to calculate free cash flow either, so just going off operating performance isn’t really accurate. Which is what Westhead a reporter and not a finance guy doesn’t get.