Posted by Ricky Yeo > 2016-06-09 14:13 | Report Abuse

you're right complicated valuation method can be easily manipulated but simple valuation like PE is just as easily manipulated as well.

The E in the PE has already been manipulated by interest income & currency, therefore you get a PE of 6.

The correct question is not about "Is simple valuation better or complicated valuation better?". But "what kind of valuation is the closest to making sense of real world?"

One can ignore cost of capital using simple valuation but cost of capital is real and alive. When a company cannot generate return higher than the cost of capital, it is destroying value no matter how low the PE is. The opposite is just as true

Posted by yktay1 > 2016-06-09 15:43 | Report Abuse

Ricky I think you shouldn't get too caught up with accounting/finance theories. Cost of capital this and that, you forget that the company is paying dividends and quite generously. Would a company with value being destroyed return capital to shareholders?

Also, currency and interest still equates to cash at the end of the day. I would be worried if it is fair value gain though.

Posted by Ricky Yeo > 2016-06-09 17:47 | Report Abuse

Cost of capital is not a gimmick, it is opportunity cost. If you invest $100 in a business and it earns $5 every year. It doesnt matter if the business keep that $5 or pay you all of it, you still earns $5, a return of 5%, it's just a matter of whether it is in your hand or in the business.

Now if you realise you can put your $100 in FD and get 3%, in ASB 6%, Rental yield 5% and on and on. The fact that the business cannot match the return of other equivalent or safer investment means it is destroying value. You did not put your $100 in other investment but in the business, that's opportunity cost, and it is not a finance theories.

Posted by fung9815 > 2016-06-10 09:44 | Report Abuse

Totally agree that valuation should be made simple, but I think many people misunderstood DCF.

Most DCF users out there (including the finance professionals) don't understand the gist of DCF, they just get the theory from business schools/CFA, then create the spreadsheets and fill in the blanks, ta da... the valuation is $xxx.xx million! So powerful!

Anyone realise that the terminal value calculation in DCF is effectively P/FCF or P/E? Ya I know formula wise it is {FCF(1+g)/(r-g)/(1+r)^t}, but it is actually the fxcking P/FCF!

To simplify it, terminal value is normally FCF/(r-g). So 1/(r-g) is how we all get our multiple on P/E or P/FCF. Say r=10% & g=2%, you get 12.5 times multiple; say r=10% & g=4%, you get 16.7 times multiple. It's actually a very simplistic thinking.

The essence is to actually understand r & g (not the biz school/CFA way, but the logical way).

As Ricky Yeo rightfully pointed out, r is opportunity cost. We should value the next idea based on the r of our best idea, it's not rocket science (as Charlie Munger put it).

g is "long-term" growth rate, so don't jump the gun and impose a 8% LT growth rate because no company in this world can grow 8% "perpetually". 5% is the max I give, and I only give it to Coca-Cola.

When you understand (r-g) deeply, the world will become so simple.

Posted by kcchongnz > 2016-06-10 10:29 | Report Abuse

Often, people ignore simple valuation methods such as the PE ratio. It is easy to understand and easily calculated.


"If something is easy to compute and understand, it is extremely unlikely that the market will misinterpret it. Therefore, such information will not, by itself, provide evidence of mis-pricing."