Good Articles to Share

New Stock Valuation Model: Absolute PE Valuation - Jae Jun

Tan KW
Publish date: Sat, 07 Sep 2013, 04:17 PM
Tan KW
0 439,031
Good.

September 6th, 2012

 

 

 

With the soon to be released new and improved Windows version (working on a MAC version) of the stock valuation spreadsheets, I’ve added a new stock valuation model to the spreadsheet.

It is one that I have written about previously called the Absolute PE Valuation model, created by Vitaliy Katsenelson and explained in his book, Active Value Investing.

To see the original and full explanation of the absolute PE method, read the post I linked to above, because I made some changes to how the variables are calculated in order to make the whole process easier to use and understand.

Let me show you how I’ve got it to work.


Basics of the Absolute PE Valuation Method

Here are the factors that make up the valuation model.

1. Earnings growth rate
2. Dividend yield
3. Business risk
4. Financial risk
5. and earnings visibility

The quick explanation is that the valuation starts with the current PE and then points are added or subtracted from the original to come up with an adjusted PE value.

I’ll show you how I’ve quantified each of the above points and how everything is put together to come up with a valuation.

Earnings Growth Rate and Dividend Yield.

Rather than trying to calculate difficult growth projections, the Absolute PE method, reverse engineers the PE ratio to come up with a growth rate according to the table below.

Benjamin Graham assigned a PE of 8.5 to no growth companies. In Katsenelson’s book, he assigns a PE of 8 for no growth. I personally assign a PE of 7 which has been working well.

If a stock also offers a dividend, it gets bonus PE points.

absolute pe valuation

Absolute PE Valuation – PE points

Business Risk

In order to quantify business risk, I went through various ratios and numbers to identify what makes a business good.

I’m sure that you will have a different definition of business risk, but what I’ve tried to do is come up with four items that the majority would agree with.

The four numbers I’ve identified capable of quantifying business risk are:

1. Return on Equity
2. Return on Assets
3. Cash Return on Invested Capital
4. Intangibles % of Book Value

The first three are self explanatory. Businesses capable of sustaining above average returns or increasing returns each year has a good business model, moat and capable management.

The fourth may need some explaining.

I’ve added intangibles as a percentage of book value because I do not want businesses to grow by acquisition which could lead to issues later on. Growth through intangibles is not a good business model and is not a competitive advantage.

High intangibles does not necessarily reflect business risk, but continually growing intangibles is a warning sign for sure.

Financial Risk

The four numbers that make up financial risk are:

1. Current Ratio
2. Total Debt/Equity Ratio
3. Short Term Debt/Equity Ratio
4. FCF to Total Debt

A company with strong current ratio does not run the risk of going under.

Total debt/equity and short term debt/equity is included because total debt may not give the whole picture. A large upcoming debt payment is much more worrisome than a low interest, long term debt due in 10 years.

FCF/Total Debt displays the financial strength because it shows whether the company is able to pay back its debt through FCF instead of taking on new debt.

Earnings Predictability

Trying to quantify earnings predictability is much more difficult, so I’ve tried to keep it as simple as possible.

1. Gross Margin
2. Net Margin
3. Earnings
4. Cash from Operations

For a company to be predictable, it has to have stable margins, stable or increasing earnings and cash from operations. As much as I like FCF or owner earnings, I did not include it here because it is rather volatile and not a good measurement for predictability.

The Absolute PE Stock Valuation in Action

Numbers from the past 5 years and TTM is used to give a certain number of points to each criteria.

Let’s take a look at Salesforce.com (CRM)

and the way the points were calculated is as below (click to enlarge)

The business risk gets a below average score of 9 as the returns are horrible and fluctuates by a good amount.

Financial risk is above average and their earnings predictability is slightly above average.

CRM is difficult example because their EPS is negative and so there is no PE for CRM.

High Growth Example – AAPL

Let’s try AAPL. Huge growth with awesome fundamentals.

Based on its current PE of 15.8, the expected growth rate is 13%.

See how the points were calculated (click to enlarge).

With such great fundamentals, the absolute PE valuation is saying that the fair value PE should be 22.55 resulting in an intrinsic value of $959.

Value Play Example – DELL

Not surprisingly, DELL’s current PE of 6 has zero growth baked in.

If you enlarge and see the image below, look at the ROE. Although it is high, the standard deviation is also large which means that ROE is inconsistent and fluctuates quite a bit. This is not stable and if you see the standard deviation being too high, it is best to knock a couple of points off.

But based on the default values, the intrinsic value of DELL comes out to be the same as what it is going for now. The absolute PE stock valuation is saying that DELL is just an average company and it worth what it is.

So there you have it. A new valuation method making use of simple past trends to determine the quality of the business and whether there should be a premium or discount to the current PE.

 

http://www.oldschoolvalue.com/blog/valuation-methods/absolute-pe-stock-valuation-model/

 

 

For other posts in the series, follow the links below.

Discussions
1 person likes this. Showing 9 of 10 comments

kcchongnz

Some people ask me how to be a good value investor. In my opinion, a value investor should know that when he buys a stock, he is investing in part of the business of a company. There is a company behind the stock.

So how does one know if a company is worth investing and at what price? Isn't it logical that he must first know what is the value of that company, instead of letting the market to decide what price to invest?

To be a good value investor and know how to value a company, you need not look too far away. Just read the articles posted by Tan Kian Wei. Just now he posted so many good articles on valuation methods by Jae Jun, a very popular value investor in US. To me, these are all the methods you need to know in valuation.

Good work again Tan KW.

2013-09-07 17:02

inwest88

Yes, KW Tan has indeed been doing a wonderful job sharing all these articles with the members in the forum.

2013-09-07 17:06

kcchongnz

In his book, "Margin of Safety", Seth Klarman stated that

Quote "While a great many methods of business valuation exist, there are only three that I find useful. The first is an analysis of going-concern value, known as net present value (NPV) analysis. NPV is the discounted value of all future cash flows that a business is expected to generate.

A frequently used but flawed shortcut method of valuing a going concern is known as private market value. This is an investor's assessment of the price that a sophisticated businessperson would be willing to pay for a business. Investors using this shortcut, in effect, value businesses using the multiples paid when comparable businesses were previously bought and sold in their entirety.

The second method of business valuation analyzes liquidation value, the expected proceeds if a company were to be dismantled and the assets sold off. Breakup value, one variant of liquidation analysis, considers each of the components of a business at its highest valuation, whether as part of a going concern or not.

The third method of valuation, stock market value, is an estimate of the price at which a company, or its subsidiaries considered separately, would trade in the stock market. Less reliable than the other two, this method is only occasionally useful as a yardstick of value.

Each of these methods of valuation has strengths and weaknesses. None of them provides accurate values all the time. Unfortunately no better methods of valuation exist. Investors have no choice but to consider the values generated by each of them; when they appreciably diverge,
investors should generally err on the side of conservatism." Unquote.

2013-09-07 19:29

houseofordos

Hi KC, I m curious if you have attempted to tweak this model to use EV/EBIT multiples rather than PE ? As u know PE numbers can be manipulated by share buybacks goodwill charges or one off gains. Thanks

2013-12-11 10:06

kcchongnz

In investment, the simpler it is, the better. If PE can do the job properly, that would be wonderful. However, The E there can mean anything and hence highly unreliable. E can also be boasted with leverage, which during bad time can cut one badly. EV accounts for other stuff which P does not do such as debt and cash levels and ignore non-operating thingy. Ebit is the "middle line" and earnings at the firm level and hence should not be affected by one off items.

Hence I think EV/Ebit is good enough. Of course if you have time, do more like look at cash flow etc.

2013-12-11 12:05

houseofordos

yea I agree on that. I was just wondering what would the basic EV/EBIT be for the calculations if we were to use EV/EBIT rather than PE for valuation method in this thread.

2013-12-11 13:03

kcchongnz

Posted by houseofordos > Dec 11, 2013 01:03 PM | Report Abuse
I was just wondering what would the basic EV/EBIT be for the calculations if we were to use EV/EBIT rather than PE for valuation method in this thread.

This sounds like an interesting statement to me. First of all, all these thing is arbitrary. For example why use the base PE of 8? Why not 10, 5, 15? But if you flip the PE ratio over, the earnings yield (E/P) is about 12%. That may be is the yield the original author of this absolute PE valuation method wants. What about EV/Ebit, what should be the base then?

All I can say is if you replace P/E with EV/Ebit, you should demand a EV/Ebit of lower than 8 above. This is because:

1) The cost of debt is lower than the cost of equity, and hence valuation using EV must be lower when compared with market capitalization.

2) The denominator Ebit has not taken tax into consideration. Hence EV/Ebit must be lower than PE.

But how much lower we must demand EV/Ebit than PE ratio? Again it is arbitrary. What about an earnings yield of 20%, or EV/Ebit of 5? Or should earnings yield be 15%, or EV/Ebit of 6.7?

It also depends on what kind of industry it is.

2013-12-11 14:02

houseofordos

Tax rate of about 25%, cost of equity (the returns required to own the stock) of about 10%

So lets say the base EV/EBIT = Basic P/E (8) x 0.75 x 0.9 = 5.4x which is close to what you calculated

Your last statement "It also depends on what kind of industry it is." is more like relative P/E approach. In this case I would just compare the EV/EBIT for companies in the same business and put a target EV/EBIT based on the average EV/EBIT of all the companies whereas the absolute EV/EBIT method would assess the business and financial risks to come up with the target EV/EBIT. I suppose the more practical way should be the former as any take over would be justified based on relative valuations rather than absolute.

2013-12-11 14:20

houseofordos

Mistake... actually

Basic EV/EBIT = Basic P/E (8) x (1-0.25) x (1-0.04) = 5.7x (around 6x)
Where 25% is the tax rate
and 4% is the difference between cost of equity and cost of debt (could be subjective.. assuming 6% cost of debt)

2013-12-11 14:25

Post a Comment