Hmm. I think the Bloomberg article oversimplified Tobin's work to the point where a) your interpretation of the article's claim is correct but b) definitely not in line with what Tobin claimed.

If Tobin were still alive, I think he would insist that intellectual property (read: code, patents, trademarks and software licenses) also be included. He didn't care about 'factories, machines and inventory'; he cared about 'replacement costs'. The author seems to have glossed over that bit for the sake of brevity and clarity, and in the process accidentally introduced a logic error, at least IMHO.