What to Do About PayPal?

Value Trap or Value Opportunity?

PayPal has taken an extraordinary beating over the past few years as the share price has gone from a peak of $307.82 (closing price on 23 July 2021) all the way to $39.90 (closing price on 5 February 2026). The share price has even outperformed the market cap due to share buybacks, showing just how truly devastating this period of time has been for the valuation of the business. It’s been a staggering 87% drop in just four and a half years or so in the share price, and approximately 89% drop in market capitalisation. Following a 20% single day drop in the stock price last week, the question has to be asked: is this battered stock a potential value opportunity or a value trap disguised as a bargain?

With shares trading at a trailing P/E ratio around 7.5x and a forward P/E of approximately 7.5-10x (depending on earnings assumptions), the valuation appears extraordinarily cheap on the surface level. To give context, that is significantly lower than the current S&P500 P/E ratio, which is sitting around 30 and its own 5 year average has been roughly 31x. However, unlike some value situations with tangible asset bases providing downside protection, for example, factories to liquidate, property portfolios to monetise, and inventory to sell, PayPal’s worth rests almost entirely on its ability to generate future earnings. There are no physical assets to fall back on, just software, brand equity, network effects, and an increasingly challenged competitive position. This fundamental situation transforms the valuation question from how tangibly cheap is it right now to will the business survive and generate sufficient cash to not only justify investment at these depressed share prices but provide adequate return?

Business Overview

PayPal operates a two-sided digital payments platform connecting approximately 439 million active accounts (as at Q4 2025) with over 30 million merchant accounts across roughly 200 markets. The crown jewel of its products is the branded checkout which nearly everyone should be familiar with, it’s the PayPal button at online checkout. Consumers select PayPal as their payment method on merchant websites, with PayPal handling authentication, fraud screening, and settlement. This carries higher take rates and margins than their unbranded processing. On top of this, their product lineup currently includes Venmo, Xoom, their Buy Now Pay Later (BNPL) product, PayPal Debit Card, PYUSD Stablecoin and other credit products.

PayPal’s revenue for 2025 was US$33.2 billion (up 4% year-on-year) with its revenue being primarily divided between transaction revenue and other value-added services (OVAS). Transaction revenue represents the lion’s share of revenue generating around $29.8 billion (~90% of total revenue) and OVAS generating $3.4 billion (~10% of total revenue). However, OVAS did grow at a much faster pace of ~14% compared to ~3% for transaction revenue YoY. Transaction revenue is derived from fees charged to merchants and consumers for payment processing, currency conversion, and instant transfers. The OVAS segment includes interest earned on customer account balances (the “float”), revenue from credit products (interest and fees on loans receivable), partnership revenue, and subscription fees. One part I find interesting is their interest on customer balances, which is a legacy feature dating back to PayPal’s earliest days, contributed approximately US$1.2–1.3 billion to OVAS in FY2025. It represents pure, high-margin passive income generated from investing funds held in user accounts and funds in transit. With 439 million active accounts, the company holds substantial customer balances at any given time. In a high-interest-rate environment, these idle funds generate significant passive income. The key mechanics are interest on customer balances as PayPal earns interest on the cash balances users hold in their accounts and transaction timing where funds in transit between parties, whether via ACH network (1–2 business day delays), escrow, or settlement windows, create additional float that PayPal can invest short-term. These customer balances effectively function like deposits at a bank, with PayPal investing them in low-risk instruments to generate a high-margin income stream entirely separate from transaction fees. However, this float income is largely outside management’s control, being driven by prevailing interest rates. For example, with rates expected to decline in 2026, this revenue stream faces headwinds.

However, as you would assume with the depressed stock price, not all is going well for PayPal and its future prospects. The biggest concern is that online branded checkout total payment volume (TPV) growth fell to just 1% on a currency-neutral basis in Q4 2025, down from 5% in Q3 and 7% a year earlier. This is the company’s highest-margin product and the metric that matters most. The slowdown reflects checkout friction, consumer fatigue, competitive encroachment from Apple Pay, Google Pay, and Shopify’s native checkout, and execution issues in merchant integration. This combined with take rate compression on transactions, increasing competition in the FinTech space, potential macro/consumer weakness in the ‘K-Shaped Economy’, tariff and trade disruption where platforms like Temu and Shein have been meaningful contributors to PayPal revenue, difficulty in rolling out new products into legacy ecosystems, and I’m sure there are a few more factors that have been weighing heavily on the business and as a result, its stock. It’s not all doom and gloom, with many of its newer and smaller businesses growing at decent rates, the issue is that its main business line is increasingly under threat.

Financial Health

One redeeming grace of PayPal, if treated as a value investment, is that it currently possesses financial stability. As a result, it doesn’t have a timeline in which you need to hope for a business turnaround or liquidation event before it goes bankrupt. PayPal’s balance sheet is unusual for a technology company because of the large pool of customer funds it holds, which inflate both assets and liabilities. As of Q4 2025, its most recent reporting period, PayPal maintains a solid balance sheet with total assets of approximately $80.2 billion against total liabilities of roughly $59.9 billion, leaving total shareholders’ equity at around $20.3 billion. The company holds a substantial liquidity position with cash, cash equivalents and investments of approximately $14.8 billion, comfortably exceeding its total debt of around $10.0 billion. Working capital of around $12.7 billion further demonstrates the company’s strong short-term financial health and its ability to meet near-term obligations with a comfortable margin. The company reported tangible assets of approximately US$9.3 billion which when compared against a market capitalisation of around US$37–40 billion means there is no asset floor for a liquidation style investment thesis, and as mentioned before, means an investment thesis in PayPal should rationally rest on the company’s earnings power and cash flow generation.

Earnings Power

Revenue for PayPal grew 4% to US$33.2 billion and net income rose 26% to US$5.23 billion. Operating income grew 14% to US$6.1 billion (margins rose to 18.3%), and GAAP EPS grew 35% to US$5.41. The widening gap between 26% net income growth and 35% EPS growth is attributable to buybacks reducing the share count by 7%. It is important to note that some of these gains in income came from volatile crypto gains and a one-off tax benefit and on a non-GAAP basis, net income grew just 6% to US$5.14 billion.

Adjusted free cash flow came in at US$6.4 billion, down 3% from US$6.6 billion in FY2024, with the modest decline largely reflecting higher capex (up 25% to US$852M). Comparing this against a ~US$37 billion market cap that implies a ~17% FCF yield, which if sustained, would be extraordinarily high. Reported FCF looks worse at US$5.6 billion, and down 18% YoY, but the US$847 million gap between reported and adjusted FCF is almost entirely a timing distortion from the rapidly growing BNPL book where originations surged ~50% to US$36.7 billion, and sale proceeds hadn’t caught up by period-end.

So, it is pretty clear that PayPal is currently in a strong position from a balance sheet perspective and has decent recent earnings, albeit with minimal growth. This leads to the conclusion that to decide if this depressed stock price is fair, then it is the future earnings that will break or make an investment thesis on PayPal. However, trying to figure out the long term earnings power of PayPal requires much more than examining the recent numbers, it will require an understanding of their products and competition as ultimately it is the customers who dictate how much revenue a company receives, and it is the market and competition landscape that dictates much of the expenses and profit margin dynamics.

Product & Competition

Moat

As the general thesis is that PayPal is under attack from intense competition in the FinTech space, let us first see just how defensible its position is as one of the leading payment processors. Does it have durable competitive advantages? This question is especially important in the case of PayPal at the prices it is currently trading at. Even if the company has minimal growth, if they can protect existing revenue streams and share, they will theoretically be able to return shareholders’ money (at current prices) many times over with the cash they are generating over the next few decades.

In saying this, finding investment opportunities isn’t so easy, and PayPal gives a complicated answer to the question of moats as there are no clear, indisputable competitive advantages to carry it through a landscape of strong competition. On the scale end, PayPal benefits from scale in fraud detection (more transactions improve machine learning models), compliance infrastructure, and technology platform costs spread across US$1.9 trillion in total payment volume. However, payment processing is not a natural monopoly; Stripe, Adyen, and others have demonstrated that new entrants can achieve efficient scale relatively quickly. PayPal’s scale advantage is real but diminishing as competitors grow. Stripe processed US$1.4 trillion in TPV in 2024 alone.

Furthermore, PayPal was built on powerful network effects: more consumers attracted more merchants, and vice versa. Its core value proposition was serving as a trusted intermediary, allowing users to transact online without directly exposing their card details, a significant advantage when e-commerce checkout experiences were clunky and consumer trust was low. However, the increasing prevalence of tokenised card payments through Apple Pay and Google Pay has partially reduced this advantage. These device-native wallets are frictionless to set up, automatically available to nearly all smartphone users, and offer the same security benefits that once differentiated PayPal and all without requiring a separate account. As a result, PayPal’s network effects have weakened, particularly in mobile and in-app commerce, where biometric-authenticated payments are becoming the default consumer expectation. That said, the disintermediation is uneven: PayPal retains meaningful stickiness in desktop e-commerce, cross-border transactions, and peer-to-peer payments, while its two-sided transaction data enables adjacent services such as buy-now-pay-later and merchant lending that device-native wallets do not currently offer. Even then, these network effects are also dwindling as more competitors increase their market share in those fields. Network effects advantages have narrowed, but it has not disappeared.

PayPal is not strongly counter-positioned against competitors. In fact, newer players like Stripe have counter-positioned against PayPal by offering developer-first APIs, lower fees, and modern infrastructure that legacy PayPal cannot easily replicate without cannibalising existing revenue streams. Stripe’s willingness to invest heavily in developer tools and documentation while PayPal was milking its existing integrations is a textbook example of counter-positioning working against the incumbent.

Switching costs present another one of PayPal’s potential competitive advantage sources, but it has increasingly been competed away as well. Merchants using PayPal’s branded checkout face moderate switching costs due to integration, reporting, and consumer expectations. However, adding a competing checkout option (Apple Pay, Shop Pay) alongside PayPal is trivial with merchants simply adding another button. Consumer switching costs are low; there is nothing really preventing a PayPal user from paying via a linked card through Apple Pay instead, and in fact it is about as easy and quick as it comes in terms of switching products. Venmo has higher social switching costs among its user base due to the P2P network.

In terms of brand power, PayPal remains one of the most recognised digital payment brands globally. Studies suggest some groups of consumers trust PayPal more than their bank for storing payment credentials. However, trust alone does not prevent users from choosing faster, more convenient alternatives, especially when many of the alternatives have strong brand names (think Apple, Google, etc.). Brand strength provides a floor, especially among legacy users, as it seems among younger demographics, Venmo and Cash App carry stronger brand affinity than the PayPal parent brand.

In addition, PayPal does not realistically possess any meaningful cornered resource I can think of, especially since other payment processors have increased in scale and possess vast amounts of data comparable to PayPal. Another potential source of competitive advantage to explore is process power where PayPal certainly has a moderate degree of it. The company has decades of operational experience in regulatory compliance across 200 markets, risk management, KYC/KYB (know your customer/know your business), and global money movement. This institutional knowledge is genuinely valuable and difficult to replicate quickly, but is also not enough to be a long-term protector of the company.

PayPal’s moat is narrow and eroding. A durable moat, in my view, is a source of competitive advantage that enables a superior value proposition or product experience for the customer, and/or fundamental cost efficiencies for the firm, and in doing so sustains/grows market share, revenue, and profitability over time. By that measure, PayPal’s position has weakened considerably. It retains advantages in brand recognition, scale, regulatory process power, and moderate merchant switching costs, but these are increasingly structural legacies rather than active drivers of a superior customer experience. The competitive landscape has fundamentally shifted since PayPal’s unchallenged dominance of online payments in the 2010s: tokenised wallets, embedded checkout solutions, and buy-now-pay-later providers now deliver equal or better convenience, security, and value to consumers and merchants alike. PayPal’s remaining advantages are sufficient to slow decline, but no longer sufficient to sustain pricing power or above-market growth indefinitely without shrewd management and execution.

Competitive Landscape

PayPal still holds the largest global market share in online payment processing at approximately 43–46%, but this share is under sustained pressure. First, for merchants, Stripe now processes US$1.4 trillion in annual payment volume and offers a developer-first platform with superior API documentation, seamless integration, 135+ currencies, and a rapidly expanding suite of financial products (billing, treasury, capital, identity, tax). Stripe’s net revenue grew 27.5% in 2024 to US$5.1 billion, and it is valued at US$107–140 billion in private markets. Stripe servers 62% of Fortune 500 companies across all industries and for large merchants, Stripe and Adyen increasingly win on price, developer experience, and innovation velocity. Stripe charges a standard 2.9% + $0.30 per transaction, whereas PayPal’s fee structure is historically more complex and often more expensive. Second, as mentioned already, for consumers, Apple Pay and Google Pay have fundamentally changed the checkout experience. These wallet solutions are embedded in the device operating system, activated with biometrics, and require zero additional apps or account creation. PayPal’s branded checkout, by contrast, requires a redirect, login, and additional friction that reduces conversion rates relative to native wallets. There is nowhere, whether online payments, in-store tap-to-pay, or P2P transfers, where PayPal is demonstrably the cheapest or most convenient option for the end user. It is also worth noting the emerging competitive threat from real-time payment rails. While scale is still small, FedNow and The Clearing House’s Real-Time Payments Network are growing in transactions and users, with a “Request for Payment” feature enabling merchants to request instant bank-to-bank payments and bypassing PayPal entirely for certain transaction types.

Compounding these challenges, PayPal faces well-capitalised, specialised competitors across virtually every vertical it operates in. In buy-now-pay-later, it competes against Klarna, Afterpay, and Affirm, each of which has built dedicated brand recognition and merchant partnerships. In peer-to-peer payments, Venmo (which PayPal owns) faces Zelle, which is embedded directly into the banking apps of most major US financial institutions. In merchant services, Adyen and Stripe continue to take share. In in-store payments, Apple Pay and Google Pay dominate. PayPal is present in many of these categories but market-leading in none, and in each one it faces at least one competitor with a structural advantage, whether through device integration, banking relationships, or developer ecosystem. Without a cohesive platform strategy that ties these separate products into a unified ecosystem with compounding network effects, PayPal risks being a competent generalist that is steadily outcompeted by best-in-class specialists in every segment it operates in.

Product Value Proposition

At its core, PayPal’s value proposition is about selling trust and convenience in digital transactions. For consumers, it offers a single account that stores payment credentials, enabling them to pay online without exposing card details to individual merchants, backed by an industry-leading buyer protection. For merchants, it provides a recognisable checkout button that signals credibility and reduces purchase hesitation for buyers, particularly for first-time visitors to unfamiliar sites, effectively allowing merchants to borrow PayPal’s brand trust to convert customers they haven’t yet earned loyalty from. The core product value sits as an intermediary layer between consumers and merchants, monetising both sides through transaction fees.

Within that framework, PayPal retains genuine strengths and value in specific areas. Its buyer protection remains superior to anything offered by Apple Pay, Google Pay, or Stripe for marketplace transactions involving unknown sellers, and is widely cited by consumers as a key trust driver. Venmo, with approximately 100 million active US accounts, is a differentiated asset among younger consumers, and its commerce capabilities are accelerating (Pay With Venmo payment volume grew over 50% in early 2025). PayPal’s global reach across approximately 200 markets provides genuine breadth, and its BNPL offering, growing at over 20% annually, benefits from seamless integration into an existing checkout base of hundreds of millions of users. However, these value propositions advantages must be weighed against their eroding context. PayPal’s conversion claims, that businesses see 33% more completed checkouts derive from PayPal-commissioned research that predates the recent acceleration of biometric wallet adoption, where Apple Pay now achieves comparable or superior frictionless conversion. Venmo, while strong in peer-to-peer payments, faces Zelle, which is embedded directly into the banking apps of over 2,300 US financial institutions. And PayPal’s BNPL competes head-to-head with dedicated specialists like Klarna, Afterpay, and Affirm, each with focused brand positioning and merchant partnerships. Ultimately, PayPal’s value proposition is strongest among legacy users, older demographics, use cases requiring buyer protection, and markets where mobile wallet alternatives have less penetration, and weaker among tech-savvy consumers, developer-centric merchants, and markets where biometric wallets dominate checkout flow.

The Legacy Problem/Opportunity

PayPal’s current predicament is substantially self-inflicted. For years PayPal enjoyed a de facto monopoly on online checkout with the default payment button on virtually every e-commerce site being theirs. This dominance likely bred complacency. While Stripe obsessed over developer experience and Apple integrated payments seamlessly into its hardware ecosystem, PayPal underinvested in product innovation and relied on its incumbency.

Critically, PayPal’s historically high take rates created the very profit margin that new entrants used as their entry opportunity. Stripe, Adyen, and others recognised they could offer a materially better product at a lower price point and still build profitable businesses. As Bezos famously put it: “Your margin is my opportunity.” The result is a company that failed to anticipate or respond adequately to the twin threats of cheaper merchant processing and frictionless consumer wallets.

Leadership instability has compounded the challenges. Dan Schulman presided over the pandemic boom and subsequent decline. Alex Chriss was brought in to reignite innovation but departed after roughly two years. Now Enrique Lores, a hardware-industry veteran from HP, leads the company. Management has acknowledged that over 15 years of building custom, one-off integrations for individual merchants has left PayPal with significant technical debt with thousands of unique, outdated connections that slow down the rollout of new features and make it difficult to modernise the platform. Migrating these merchants onto a standardised, modern system is a delicate process, as any disruption risks pushing them to competitors. PayPal does not expect to begin retiring these legacy integrations until 2027 at the earliest. By contrast, Stripe and Adyen were built from scratch on clean, modern architectures and carry none of this baggage. Successfully turning around a company in this position requires simultaneously shipping new products faster, cutting prices, improving the user experience, and rebuilding legacy infrastructure, all potentially at the same time. This is possible in theory but extraordinarily difficult in practice, and the history of such attempts is littered with more failures than successes.

However, not all is necessarily lost, and the existing legacy user base is one of the biggest sources of potential for the company. As at Q4 2025, PayPal has 439 million active accounts (up 1.1% year-on-year) and 231 million monthly active accounts (up 1%). A bull case can be made that this base constitutes a durable revenue floor. PayPal’s users skew older and more habitual with many having used the platform for years and are unlikely to actively switch, not necessarily because PayPal is superior, but because switching requires conscious effort and the perceived benefits of changing payment methods remains low enough that inertia prevails. In markets like Germany and Brazil, and for marketplace transactions requiring buyer protection, PayPal remains deeply entrenched. Over 10 million live websites offer PayPal today. Even if growth stalls entirely, PayPal’s existing scale of 439 million active accounts processing $1.8 trillion in annual payment volume at a ~1.65% transaction take rate generated $33.2 billion in net revenue in 2025. This baseline provides a revenue floor that could support an investment thesis even without a successful turnaround, the question is whether they sustain this user base and transaction volume. Finally, the headline decline in transactions per active account (down 5% to 57.7 per year) is not as bad as it may initially seem. PayPal has been deliberately de-emphasising its low-margin unbranded processing business (Braintree/PSP). When this volume is excluded, transactions per active account actually rose 5%, indicating that PayPal’s core branded users are becoming more engaged.

Beyond mere retention, there are credible levers to extract more value from this installed base. As alluded to before, Venmo monetisation is the most tangible near-term opportunity with revenue growing 20% to US$1.7 billion. If commercialisation accelerates and Venmo successfully transitions into a full-service commerce and banking app, it could unlock billions in value. PayPal debit card users transact roughly 6x more than checkout-only accounts, suggesting that omnichannel initiatives could deepen engagement per user even without new account growth. BNPL expansion, at US$40 billion in TPV growing 20%+, represents momentum in a large addressable market, with the shift to BNPL (showing BNPL on product pages) potentially driving higher conversion, while omnichannel extension via debit card and Tap to Pay could open new offline volume (the US debit card saw 50%+ TPV growth). Looking further out, agentic commerce, where AI agents conduct transactions on behalf of consumers, is early-stage but potentially transformative. PayPal’s positioning as a trust layer with KYC/KYB capabilities for AI-agent payments is strategically sound, though execution is unproven. PYUSD stablecoin circulation grew 600% in 2025, and if blockchain-based payments scale meaningfully, PayPal’s first-mover advantage in stablecoin issuance among traditional fintech players could prove valuable. Fee restructuring remains an additional option, PayPal could cut fees aggressively to compete on price, sacrificing short-term margins for volume retention. Finally, at approximately US$37 billion market cap with US$6 billion+ in annual FCF, PayPal is theoretically an acquisition target for a large bank or technology company seeking payments infrastructure, providing a potential soft valuation floor. However, as previously mentioned, some of these initiatives face stern competition and incumbents, while some of the others are in highly speculative stages with little ability to determine who the winners and what the economics will be.

Valuation

By virtually every valuation metric, PayPal is trading at or near historically unprecedented cheapness. The trailing P/E of approximately 7.5x represents a significant discount to the five-year average of roughly 31x and an even larger one to the ten-year average of approximately 40x. The PEG ratio of approximately 0.83 sits below the traditional 1 threshold for an undervalued growth stock, suggesting that even after accounting for the company’s modest growth rate, implying the market may be underpricing its earnings trajectory. The FCF yield of ~17% is extraordinarily high for any profitable company, let alone one generating US$33 billion in annual revenue. Furthermore, PayPal currently delivers strong returns on capital (~26% ROE, ~24% ROIC), reflecting the inherent advantages of a capital-light, platform-based business model that doesn’t require heavy physical infrastructure to generate revenue. These numbers clearly demonstrate a business that delivers efficient capital growth and presumably high returns for shareholders from operations as every dollar of capital put into the company is producing a high return.

But yet again, the question is whether this large incumbent can maintain its market position going forward, as a business can only sustain high returns on capital when it offers products that are sought after.

A discounted cash flow analysis is particularly relevant for PayPal because, as established, there is no meaningful tangible asset floor, so the vast majority of value derives from future cash flows. Management has guided for at least US$6 billion in adjusted free cash flow for 2026 and so for the purposes of this analysis, I’m using approximately US$6 billion as the base-case annual FCF figure and also applying a 10% discount rate as a simple opportunity cost of capital. Under a conservative scenario with US$6 billion in annual FCF growing at 2% over a ten-year explicit forecast period, then declining at −2% to −3% in perpetuity thereafter, the present value of the business comes to approximately US$61–63 billion. This is roughly 65–70% above the current market capitalisation of approximately US$37 billion. Even under a simple perpetuity framework with zero growth (US$6 billion / 10%), the implied value is US$60 billion, still more than 60% above today’s price. A scenario modelling 5% annual FCF decline discounted at 10% yields approximately US$40 billion, suggesting the current market is pricing in something close to permanent, sustained cash flow erosion.

However, a DCF is only as good as its assumptions and often they should be used as a general indicator of direction and valuation, not as specific and accurate benchmarks, for there are far too many assumptions in the real world for them to be highly accurate. Investing is more art than science. If branded checkout continues to deteriorate, if Stripe and Apple Pay further erode PayPal’s position, and if management reinvests aggressively in turnaround efforts that destroy rather than create value, the actual cash flows available to shareholders could fall meaningfully below today’s US$6 billion run rate. The rescission of PayPal’s multi-year financial outlook at the Q4 2025 earnings call, which was replaced with single-year 2026 guidance only underscores the uncertainty that even management faces in forecasting the business trajectory. Investors must weigh the apparent margin of safety in the current valuation against the real possibility that the competitive dynamics of digital payments could compress PayPal’s earnings power faster than any static model anticipates.

Management Capital Allocation

A crucial variable for value realisation is management’s capital allocation discipline. PayPal is generating US$6+ billion in annual free cash flow. The question is: will this cash flow be returned to shareholders or reinvested in ways that destroy value? If you assume the base case of PayPal managing to defend and stabilise market position or ensure a slow and drawn out decline, but no substantial growth (which is probably the safest bet as complete collapse seems unlikely but explosive growth also seems out of the question for now based off existing evidence), then the question for shareholders is can PayPal management maintain profitability and distribute enough of it to shareholders to provide a direct return to those who hold its stock.

On the positive side, PayPal returned US$6 billion via buybacks in 2025 and plans to do the same in 2026. At a US$37 billion market cap, US$6 billion in annual buybacks represents roughly 16% of the company per year, an extraordinarily aggressive pace that mechanically supports EPS growth even if revenue stagnates. The initiation of a dividend, while small (US$0.14/quarter, ~1.4% forward yield), signals commitment to returning capital. Total shareholder yield (buybacks plus dividends) is approximately 16.3% — among the highest in large-cap technology.

On the risk side, management has guided for US$1 billion+ in capital expenditure and has indicated significant investment in branded checkout improvement, consumer rewards, co-marketing, and omnichannel expansion. If these investments fail to reverse the branded checkout decline, they represent destruction of shareholder capital. The history of large companies throwing good money after bad in turnaround efforts is extensive. Investors must assess whether they trust the incoming CEO to allocate capital wisely in an intensely competitive fintech landscape.

Value Framework

In traditional cigar butt framework, you buy something so cheap that there is one last profitable “puff” left even in liquidation. PayPal does not possess this characteristic. With net tangible assets of approximately US$9.3 billion, a liquidation would yield far less than the current market cap. There is no asset-based margin of safety. This is fundamentally a business where value resides entirely in future earnings and cash flow, not in the balance sheet.

However, PayPal is generating US$6 billion in free cash flow annually. If you can buy the company for US$37 billion and receive US$6 billion per year in cash flow (much of it being returned via buybacks), you are getting a 16% cash flow yield. Over a five-year horizon, even without any growth, the company would generate approximately US$30 billion in cumulative FCF which is nearly the entire current market capitalisation. If management returns the majority of this to shareholders through buybacks and dividends, the investment effectively pays for itself, with any years beyond that being tangible investment profit regardless of the market price performance of the stock.

The critical risk to this thesis is, firstly, that management reinvests the cash flow in value-destructive turnaround efforts, whether it be expensive marketing campaigns, acquisitions of dubious strategic value, technology investments that fail to produce returns, or more. Second, that the underlying business deteriorates faster than cash can be returned: if branded checkout goes negative, if the user base declines, and if competitive pressure compresses margins, the US$6 billion in annual FCF may not be sustainable over a five-year horizon and beyond.

This is the fundamental tension of the PayPal investment case: the business generates extraordinary cash flow today, but the trajectory of that cash flow is uncertain, and the management track record of allocating capital wisely is unproven. For a rational value investment to work, you need either a tangible asset floor (which PayPal lacks) or a strong enough business that it will continue generating profits to reward the investment. PayPal sits uncomfortably between these, it is strong enough to survive and generate cash for years, but possibly not strong enough to produce outsized investment gains or to overcome the compounding effects of a slowly eroding competitive position.

Closing Comments

PayPal at 7.5x earnings and a 15%+ free cash flow yield is more likely a value opportunity than a value trap, but with meaningful execution risk that demands disciplined position sizing. The downside from here is already relatively limited. If you believe PayPal’s fundamental survival is an ongoing concern, and it is highly unlikely that a company with $14.8 billion in cash, billions in free cash flow, and 439 million active accounts simply ceases to exist, then even a severely adverse outcome still leaves a business generating several billion dollars in annual revenue from its entrenched user base and legacy integrations leaving a margin of safety that even if the value of the company does decline, it shouldn’t go to zero.

If PayPal maintains the current status quo of flat revenue, stable margins, and continued cash return, it is potentially cheap and profitable here. The company generates roughly 15% of its entire market capitalisation in free cash flow annually and is returning the vast majority via buybacks and dividends. At 7.5x earnings, you are not necessarily paying for growth but are being paid to wait, albeit potentially with ordinary returns unless the company can sustain this type of dividend yield rates for decades, not years. If there is a genuine uptick, as branded checkout stabilises, Venmo scales further, or the new CEO delivers operational improvement, there is room for aggressive multiple re-rating. Even a modest re-rating to 12–15x earnings implies 60–100% upside. The asymmetry between limited downside and meaningful upside on any positive catalyst is the core of the value case.

However, this is not a long-term compounding asset with large structural growth prospects. Barring a spectacular turnaround, PayPal is unlikely to return to its former growth trajectory. The moat is narrow and eroding, the industry is moving toward cheaper and more convenient solutions where PayPal does not lead, and the management track record does not inspire confidence. This is realistically not a business you buy and forget about for decades.

As such, if you do make this investment, the entry and exit price must be clearly defined relative to your valuation. You need to know what you think PayPal is worth on a conservative basis, know at what price the risk/reward no longer favours you, and have the discipline to exit when your target is reached. This is a decent asset that is undervalued by many metrics, but, currently, it is an investment requiring a thesis on clear valuation benchmarks for action, not necessarily a permanent compounding holding.

*Disclaimer: This information is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or professional advice. The author may hold positions in the assets or companies discussed.

Bonnefin Research is a free publication focused on better investment thinking. Subscribe and share to support the work, and join the discussion in the comments as we continue building this community.