Posted by bgoon99 > 2015-01-04 19:20 | Report Abuse

Thank you very much for sharing. Greenblatt's book provides another "alternative" or workaround to his magic formula. This is mainly because a lot of screeners do not provide the ratios required by the original magic formula. The alternative formula uses ROA>25% as filter and rank the result descending with lowest P/E. Do you think it will produce similar effect and most importantly, similar performance with the original magic formula?

Posted by johnny cash > 2015-01-04 21:59 | Report Abuse

Kc chong thank you very much in discussing with us about your stocks.. very helpfull to us..i hope after discussion of all of your portfolios using magic formula, hope you can condense the information into a table stating which stocks you will keep and sell for 2015...at the moment info are all scattered arround

Posted by kcchongnz > 2015-01-05 10:26 | Report Abuse

Posted by bgoon99 > Jan 4, 2015 07:20 PM | Report Abuse
Thank you very much for sharing. Greenblatt's book provides another "alternative" or workaround to his magic formula. This is mainly because a lot of screeners do not provide the ratios required by the original magic formula. The alternative formula uses ROA>25% as filter and rank the result descending with lowest P/E. Do you think it will produce similar effect and most importantly, similar performance with the original magic formula?

I am not aware of this replacement of using ROA. I can't imagine using a hurdle ROA of 25%. Few companies have that kind of ROA except for some asset light technology companies and few light asset industry. Not likely.

Posted by valuelurker > 2015-01-05 10:36 | Report Abuse

Hi KC Chong, according to Greenblatt's formula, do you use only the EY% and ROIC% for the current year, or past years as well? If so, how far back do you go - 3 years, with every year exceeding 10% (per your criteria)?

Posted by kcchongnz > 2015-01-05 10:42 | Report Abuse

Greenblatt Magic Formula suppose to be the trailing 12 months. But that shouldn't stop you from using whatever tweaks to improve your strategy. I do use many other things over the ROIC and EY.

Posted by kcchongnz > 2015-01-05 11:12 | Report Abuse

bgoon99 Thank you very much for sharing. Greenblatt's book provides another "alternative" or workaround to his magic formula. This is mainly because a lot of screeners do not provide the ratios required by the original magic formula. The alternative formula uses ROA>25% as filter and rank the result descending with lowest P/E. Do you think it will produce similar effect and most importantly, similar performance with the original magic formula?

That is why if one knows how to compute Greenblatt's metric of ROIC and EY, which normal screens do not provide, he will be at an advantage, won't him?

Posted by paperplane > 2015-01-05 14:02 | Report Abuse

Hi KC,

I was using TeoSeng as my study example.

Result I get for EY, ROC as below

TeoSeng-12m trailing assume EBIT=61,349/EnValue=432,663=14%
ROC=61,349/167,905=36.5%

Great company indeed?

Posted by kcchongnz > 2015-01-05 14:28 | Report Abuse

Paperplane,

Teo Seng's last twelve months result was good. So its financial meets the two metrics although your invested capital is a little low compared with mine, and hence its ROIC a little high. That is provided this year good results can sustain.

Posted by paperplane > 2015-01-05 14:32 | Report Abuse

KC, I refer back to your formula, a bit confused, YOur Capital=Total Fixed Assets+Current Assets-Current Liabilities. Am I correct on this? as Net Working Capital=CA-CL

But since Total Assets=Total Liabilities+Equity, would it be more fair if we just use Total Assets as the denominator in calculation to be conservative? As I read from Joel's book also, ROA is more of a fairer to count ROIC, as you employ your Capital(Equity)+Liabilities together to generate that profit.

Posted by paperplane > 2015-01-05 14:34 | Report Abuse

Also, dangerous using such valuation method is we have assume trailing 12m to be consistent if we are using 3m, or 6 m figures. For some business, due to nature, the might have higher due 1H, or 2H. I would prefer to assume some discount also.

Posted by kcchongnz > 2015-01-05 14:41 | Report Abuse

The net working capital is the non-cash net working capital. so it is not exactly CA-CL.

Valuation is an art, but still need to follow certain established principles.

Posted by paperplane > 2015-01-05 14:46 | Report Abuse

so you will use net working capital deduct away cash?

Posted by kcchongnz > 2015-01-05 15:05 | Report Abuse

paperplane,

Please read the article and the formula in particular how is net working capital, or rather IC is computed.

Posted by paperplane > 2015-01-05 15:09 | Report Abuse

Hi Kc,
I have another more crazy example-IQGroup.

EY=33,000/133,927=24.6%
ROC=33,000/96,226=34%

But the operational cashflow is in negative, which doesn't make sense to me.

Posted by kcchongnz > 2015-01-05 17:24 | Report Abuse

paperplane, cash flows is another thing. But cash flow is a lumpy thing, especially for growing companies. You have to interpret if it is ok.

Greenblatt's Magic formula has been proven again and again that it works. So if you consider other things like cash flow, balance sheet, growth etc, and consider them in the right manner, you will improve your chance even further in getting extraordinary return from the market over a longer period. Agree?

Posted by duitKWSPkita > 2015-01-05 17:28 | Report Abuse

Dear kcchongnz,

Thank you very much for sharing. Novice like me benefit a lot from your fundamental discussion.

I am really enjoyed reading your comments.

warmest regards,
newbie duit

Posted by NOBY > 2015-01-05 17:34 | Report Abuse

paper plane,

I looked at IQ group over the weekend, it has a good turn around story (Pitroski score 7-8 for the past 2 years) and might be the right play in 2015 due to its export exposure and positive net impact from strengthening USD. But my numbers are lower than yours based on TTM:-

@RM1.6
EV/EBIT = 6.3x
ROIC = 21.4%

As for cashflow the previous 2 years (2013 and 2014) was postive free cashflow.

A few concerns I have are:-
1. 90% held by top 30 shareholders. Only a 10% free float. This makes the share easily manipulated.
2. Director made some disposals around the RM1.80 price range.

These are not major concerns but something to ponder about.

Posted by paperplane > 2015-01-05 17:49 | Report Abuse

tHE CASH FLOW JUST dont look normal for this IQ Group

Posted by NOBY > 2015-01-05 17:52 | Report Abuse

can u elaborate more on the cashflow ?

Posted by paperplane > 2015-01-05 18:12 | Report Abuse

If i read correctly, the profit is not real cash. It is just receivables.

Posted by bgoon99 > 2015-01-05 18:27 | Report Abuse

Thanks for all these intriguing discussions. I noticed that most of the taiko here are using the formula to "counter check" their stock-picks, rather than use it as screening tools to mine the undervalued stocks. I believe it is due to the unavailability of a screener based on magic formula for all KLSE counters. Perhaps it is rather impossible for one to calculate the EY, ROIC for all counters manually... Greenblatt's book has outlined a trading "procedure" for value investors to systematically manage and rebalance their portfolios in order to make profit in the long run (12m period)....

Posted by paperplane > 2015-01-05 18:39 | Report Abuse

Actuallu the latest version of intelligent investor has highlighted the weakness of using editda, ev. Warren buffett himself argue also, is not tax not something you have to pay also. Why not include in calculation.

Posted by paperplane > 2015-01-05 18:43 | Report Abuse

Noby, i like piotroski score also. So far the best to evaluate, but it has to be applied across 5yrs at least. Sometimes, one or 2yrs can be misleading, like huayang. And also have to be applied together with gross profit margin. I notice some case piotroski score beautiful, but profit margin keep dropping year by year.

Posted by kcchongnz > 2015-01-05 18:46 | Report Abuse

paperplane,

That is why Magic formula uses Ebit, not Ebitda. As weakness of EV as mentioned by you in the book, I doubt so as it is the more logical way to measure the total value of a company, not only equity, but other things like debts, minority interest, excess cash etc. You may counter-check what you have read,

As for the cash flow of IQ Group, I saw heaps of cash flow from operations, and huge free cash flows too.

Posted by KianHin Toh > 2015-01-05 19:01 | Report Abuse

not bad. quite a detailed research here...

Posted by CFTrader > 2015-01-05 19:20 | Report Abuse

IQGROUP has a huge FCF, but it is not reflected as the cash goes into inventories and recievables, which is part of the business.

Posted by paperplane > 2015-01-06 06:00 | Report Abuse

That's the problem. Why cash not reflected as cash and hidden into receivables

Posted by kcchongnz > 2015-01-06 08:23 | Report Abuse

Posted by paperplane > Jan 6, 2015 06:00 AM | Report Abuse

That's the problem. Why cash not reflected as cash and hidden into receivables

I see their income statement making 11.6m as on 31st March 2014. Their cash flow from operations is even more at 15.2m. Their balance sheet also shows an increase in cash and cash equivalent of 10m in 2014.

So why do you say this?


Posted by paperplane > Jan 6, 2015 06:00 AM | Report Abuse

That's the problem. Why cash not reflected as cash and hidden into receivables

Posted by paperplane > 2015-01-06 08:37 | Report Abuse

I am referring to Q2 2015 report, is this not the latest?

From cashflow statement.
Profit=13,594
Operating profit/(loss) before working capital changes 18,749
Trade and other receivables ( 18,128)

ending----------
Net cash (used in)/generated from operating activities ( 1,413)

Posted by paperplane > 2015-01-06 08:38 | Report Abuse

Reduced the receivables?? I dont understand.

Posted by paperplane > 2015-01-06 08:38 | Report Abuse

Negative means increase in receivables. Income earned actually not earned yet. But they book it as income earned already.

Posted by paperplane > 2015-01-06 08:43 | Report Abuse

Is this not fishy>?

Posted by NOBY > 2015-01-06 08:48 | Report Abuse

FCF is a lumpy thing, I was referring to previous 2 financial years and it looked healthy, Its hard to draw conclusion from 2 quarters of cash flow statement.

The point you mention is perfectly normal. The cash is not there yet as the receivables may be >6 months old. You are right as it is still stuck in receivables. But they can book it as accounting profit.

Posted by kcchongnz > 2015-01-06 08:48 | Report Abuse

Income statement is prepared based on accrued accounting basis and that is the accounting rule. So income is earned once transaction is done, though cash may not have been received yet. Say if you have completed a piece of work for your client, you book that as a revenue because it is completed. Your client may have a month more to pay you and hence you have not received the cash yet, but suppose to be in a month's time.

For me normally I don't take a particular year's cash flow statement as one to look at as representative of the true picture of cash flows but a few years because cash flow is lumpy. So I never consider two quarters cash flow as truly representative.

Posted by paperplane > 2015-01-06 08:54 | Report Abuse

but fishy thing can happen just in between you see. Out of no where, suddenly sales improved, hooray. Income improve, but maybe stuck in receivables.....

This is how accounting fraud unfold sometimes. As ppl tend to ignore small little things first and assume it is normal accounting.

But yet I have to say, so far book in very healthy way without much liabilities, just some payables.

Receivables treated as an assets sometimes can be a killing things--like LIONFIB where all receivables are actually non recoverable owing by related parties. Which in turn shld be BAD DEBTS.

Posted by NOBY > 2015-01-06 09:00 | Report Abuse

you can look at their cash conversion cycle times over a extended period to understand if there is anything fishy. But cashflow cant be judged from 2 quarters, that I can tell you. Beneish M score is good way to look at manipulation of earnings

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/beneishmodel.asp

LIONFIB is valued based on NNWC whereby most of their assets are stuck in receivables to related parties (some hidden within trade receivables). The serious red flag for me in LIONFIB is that major shareholder keep selling the shares even though it looked very undervalued.

Posted by paperplane > 2015-01-06 10:40 | Report Abuse

haha, Noby, I agree few quarters of cashflow can't judge much. LionFIB case directors selling, and with high receivables, should raise the red flag. Yet even I have discount all receivables and inventories by 50% when I calculate, still get burnt. But I think it is totally undervalued now, assuming some amounts are recoverable, it will be extra bonus.

For IQ Group case, the directors also selling.....

Posted by NOBY > 2015-01-06 14:13 | Report Abuse

NNWC companies are easy to analyze but definitely hard to make money in short term. Sometimes we must take partial profit on any spike in price to reduce the opportunity cost.

Posted by kcchongnz > 2015-01-06 14:51 | Report Abuse

For personal investment, it often pays to invert, always invert. Instead of thinking of making big money in the short term, think about not losing big. Don't chase hypes and fads; Don't borrow to speculate. Margin financing for speculation is definitely a no no, and no. I can guess there are numerous margin calls the last few months for some people. It is definite.

"Head I win, tails I don't lose much".

Think of where is the investment pendulum now. I think that is the proper mind set of Noby.

Posted by NOBY > 2015-01-06 14:58 | Report Abuse

KC, agree with you. Again thanks for reminder on margin financing.. But for NNNWC types, I would only buy if there is a good chance value can be unlocked. If it pays a good dividend, I dont mind holding for long term but if tht is absent, I would trade it in the short term to realize some gain. Tk a look at Kuchai and PMcorp as examples.. its hard to make money here without some trading

Posted by kcchongnz > 2015-01-06 15:23 | Report Abuse

Noby,

You may think that I nag nag and nag. But I think my most useful contribution to i3investor, if any, will be this thingy.

http://klse.i3investor.com/blogs/kcchongnz/44344.jsp
http://klse.i3investor.com/blogs/kcchongnz/61822.jsp

Posted by sunztzhe > 2015-01-06 15:45 | Report Abuse

Hi guys,
Just passing though...I am very light on stocks at the moment...good FA stocks in bad times also depreciates albeit at slower rate than the the non FA types...perhaps the good FA stocks with biz minded shareholders, good management, good biz model, decent DY and with good cash flow management are worth holding onto... I will not be too gung ho about stocks now no matter how good it looks as KLSE is already in downtrend and will downtrend for a while longer...it had been on uptrend for the past 6 years and this downtrend will last for a while.....so chill out , relax and do a bit of homework...make yourself fitter for the next turnaround...there's still a lot of time though...

Posted by paperplane > 2015-01-06 16:37 | Report Abuse

what would you advise now?? Kc Chong

Posted by NOBY > 2015-01-06 17:01 | Report Abuse

Posted by kcchongnz > Jan 6, 2015 03:23 PM | Report Abuse

Noby,

You may think that I nag nag and nag. But I think my most useful contribution to i3investor, if any, will be this thingy.

http://klse.i3investor.com/blogs/kcchongnz/44344.jsp
http://klse.i3investor.com/blogs/kcchongnz/61822.jsp

KC, not at all. I see it as good reminder to keep me in check. I may have acquired a lot of FA knowledge from you but very far from your level in terms of investment psychology. This is something I cannot learn from books.

Posted by Genw > 2015-04-25 21:38 | Report Abuse

Please forgive me for posing this stupid question.

I came across explanation of ROIC formula from oldschoolvalue.com by Jae Jun. His formula on Invested capital is quite similar to yours, but he minus Excess cash at the end of his formula. Is Excess cash important?

And his formula on excess cash is so complicated that eventually he changed the formula of Invested capital to,
Invested Capital = Total Equity +Short Term Debt + Capital Lease Obligations + Long Term Debt

Can you shed some light on this? I was reading your article on ELSOFT evaluation by using ROIC, i am hoping that i can use the indicator as you did and yield the same value

Posted by johnny cash > 2015-04-25 21:48 | Report Abuse

Ringgit becoming strong,,time to sell export related counters

Posted by tjhldg > 2015-04-25 22:26 | Report Abuse

Yupsss :)

Posted by sunztzhe > 2015-04-25 22:48 | Report Abuse

Buy and/or keep improving cyclical, turnaround, growth stocks and/or fundamental stocks with good biz model that empowers the company to continue to deliver increasing positive earnings year on year or stocks that is under valued versus its intrinsic worth.

Sell deteriorating cyclical, down trending, negative growth stocks and stocks with deteriorating fundamentals that results in losses,decreasing profits, decreasing earnings per share, deteriorating ROE, ROIC or stocks that exceed their intrinsic worth or sell existing stocks in your portfolio when you have discovered better undervalue stocks versus its intrinsic worth or stocks with better top and bottom line growth potential.

Posted by kcchongnz > 2015-04-26 02:46 | Report Abuse

Posted by Genw > Apr 25, 2015 09:38 PM | Report Abuse

Please forgive me for posing this stupid question.

I came across explanation of ROIC formula from oldschoolvalue.com by Jae Jun. His formula on Invested capital is quite similar to yours, but he minus Excess cash at the end of his formula. Is Excess cash important?

And his formula on excess cash is so complicated that eventually he changed the formula of Invested capital to,
Invested Capital = Total Equity +Short Term Debt + Capital Lease Obligations + Long Term Debt

Can you shed some light on this? I was reading your article on ELSOFT evaluation by using ROIC, i am hoping that i can use the indicator as you did and yield the same value


Financial statement analysis is an art. Many people do it differently. My opinion is Jae Jun has changed his concept that it makes a hell of difference for companies with a lot of excess cash, cash which they do not need for the core operations and can be distributed to shareholders without affecting its operations. It is also not appropriate for companies having other investments. It makes the ROIC much lower and not reflecting the true picture.

Risk and return for a business and non-operating asset say cash are totally different and shouldn't be lumped together.

I tend to use his previous concept.

Posted by sunztzhe > 2015-04-26 14:39 | Report Abuse

TOTAL ASSETS= SHAREHOLDERS FUNDS + TOTAL LIABILITIES

ASSETS= Current Assets + Non Current Assets
SHAREHOLDER FUNDS= IPO Capital + Rights issue + Private Placement + Retained Earnings(Accumulated Losses)
TOTAL LIABILITIES= Current Liabilities + Non Current Liabilities

ROA is a good performance measurement of how well any company manage its total assets. Of course the ROA figures varies across industry types and varies amongst companies in similar industry type

Any company on a going concern basis will utilize its total assets to grow its top and bottom line over time and in that process generate sufficient profits, free cash flows to distribute as dividends to its shareholders. A long term shareholder would like the company management to grow its assets in the future years and consequently generate increasing ROA, increasing free cash flows with above average dividends payout to its shareholders arising from competent management of its Total Assets. If the company management has run out of ideas to generate better returns on the excess cash above the weighted average cost of its capital then the excess cash is best returned to its shareholders.