Agreed. If TRWs profits are stable at 40MUSD (or whatnot) then it doesn't really matter whether it cost 500MUSD or 200MUSD to build (unless TRW is able to sell its assets at cost that is, i.e that we have a margin of safety in the book value).
However, as RD pointed out; a PE of 10-12 equals (by coincidence) the "investment at cost" (I don't think RD would dream of valuating TRW at 3.4$/share based on "investment at cost" unless it matched a fair PE - I think there has been a misunderstanding there)
As RD eluded; AF4 is booked at "investment at cost" since it doesn't have a track record. At the moment that is too high - at least until they have solved the issues they have there, but TRW has increased its net income since 2016 so the valuation of 3.4$/TRW-share needs to be corrected.
If a PE of 10-12 is fair then TRW should have a value of 350-420MUSD or 3.5-4.2$/TRW-share. Take 18.3M TRW-shares devided by 42M SIAF-shares (49.3 + possible more dilution - collateral) and you have 1.5-1.8$/SIAF-share in TRW-distribution alone (someone might want to look up what TRWs net-income was)
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
