- "The only appropriate metric to evaluate its value is Adjusted Net Asset Value (NAV)". Do you agree?

I think a better approach would be more like the way I look at Berkshire.

* First, assure yourself that there isn't too much leverage or dumb management. If either of those is a concern, move to next company : )
* Divide the firm into investments, and everything else. (wholly owned operating subs, head office overhead, cost of debt, etc).
* Value investments at market value. If any big position seems plainly over or undervalued, do an adjustment on it, but not necessary most of the time.
* Value the rest based on a multiple of the net earnings on the rest, including all cost of debt etc.

Note that this does not subtract the debt; the thinking is that, having satisfied yourself at the first step that it's plainly at a safe level, the only thing that matters is its ongoing cost.

The reason for this preference is fairly straight forward: for operating divisions, especially for a group that likely has better than average economic characteristics, earning power value is probably better than net asset value.

I would put an asterisk on the characterization of "proxy for the Swedish economy". Yes, if you are interested in the Swedish economy and needed such a "one click" proxy, they're probably be the best. But if you're looking at a phrase that sums up the firm, that might not be sufficiently accurate, because they have a lot of non-Swedish things going on, especially in the listed portfolio. The subs are mostly closer to home.

Note, there are several US brokers that let you buy the shares on the Nasdaq Stockholm exchange.* Interactive Brokers, for one.

Jim

* Owned by Nasdaq Inc, so about 10% owned by Investor AB.