Tencent's reverse-DCF implies almost no growth. Revenue grew 14% last year. Which one's wrong?

Screening value names in HK/China, Tencent came up near the top of what cleared the filter: EBIT/TEV 98th percentile, FCF yield 88th, ROIC ~15% average over 4 years, Piotroski 7/9, Altman Z 4.1, Beneish -2.65 (peer set's a broad large-cap slice, not sector peers, fwiw). Trading around 421 HKD.

Three things before I'd size into this.

Reverse-DCF off the current price implies perpetual growth under -1%, basically flat. Revenue grew ~14% last year and averaged ~11% CAGR over the last three. That's the opposite of the usual value trap. The market's pricing this like a mature no-growth business, not one still compounding double digits. Is that a real discount for regulatory and export-control tail risk, or is the market just wrong here?

Tencent carries a large investment book, stakes in other listed and private companies, with equity-method income running through the income statement, and I'm not netting any of that out of enterprise value, just market cap plus debt minus cash. If you've actually modeled this name: do you back the investment portfolio out separately, and does it move the read much, or is it small relative to the core ads, games and fintech business?

Discount rate I'm using is CAPM off a beta of 0.74, landing around 8%. For a Chinese platform company with real regulatory tail risk, does that feel too low, and if so by roughly how much would you bump it?

Would be a real position, not a starter. What am I missing?