You nincompoops just know how to plug in numbers into your models but dont actually know how these things work.
Company A's reinvestment, assuming your growth is the same 10%, will be $121 at year 2, due to COMPOUNDING.
Company B will forever be the same, assuming no growth as you did below.
Clearly, growth > no growth.
Jeezus if you 'FUNDAMENTAL INVESTORS' dont know anything, please dont espouse your lack of knowledge on the internets. At least go verify with your sifu kcchongnz before you post. thanks
QUOTE: Ricky Yeo: I will debunk your myth now.
Company A Year 1: Revenue $100, Profit $10 (10% margin). Reinvest 100% (or $10) Year 2: Revenue $110 (10% growth), Profit $11 (10% growth).
Company B Year 1: Revenue $100, Profit $10 (10%). Reinvest 0% (or nil) Year 2: Revenue $100 (0% growth), Profit $10 (0% growth)
So in example above, im sure you will love company A over B, and A worth more than B, but can that be true?
If you are an owner of A, year 1 net cash flow is $0, because you reinvest everything to buy machines, yes you get a 10% growth in year 2, but your return is still the same for both years. 10%!
If you are an owner of B, there is no growth for year 2, but year 1 you have cash flow of $10, you CHOOSE not to reinvest the capital and declare dividend, all $10 back to shareholders.
So when someone say growth is better, they forget that growth doesn't come from thin air. You need capital to grow. Where do you get capital? From profit of course. So if profit, or return is the same for A and B, which is 10%, why should A worth more than B?
A is only worth more than B WHEN the capital reinvested can generate a higher return, in this case above 10%.
If A decide to reinvest and earn 5% return instead of 10% like in year 1, is growth good?
Wow valuelurker calling names, calm down. So you're saying because of compounding, therefore growth > no growth.
Before we examine if that is true, please note you are pinpointing on my example, which uses a 10% growth rate and 10% discount rate.
Now we are clear from confusion. So, if you say a company that grows at 10%, from $100 to $260 in 10 years (that is 10% compounding p.a.) is worth MORE than a company that has 0% growth, earning $100 for the next 10 years,
THEN
You have your valuation wrong. I welcome you to show me your DCF anyday anytime.
Clearly in my example, both companies ROIC is 10%. So it is beyond me why a company can worth more because they choose to grow. How does a company grow? Printing money?
You can compound all you like to the end of time, but what do you get when you divide 10% with 10%?
10% / 10% = ? Simple math.
I must admit I know something, but not everything. When I don't know something, I don't write. But when I write, that's because I know what I'm writing.
Difficult to back RM 3~ Unless miracle happens loh~ 1.usd1/RM 4.5 2.maintain eps 30 above 3.new boss come to collect shares 4.kky/lu stop disposing and acquire instead
This book is the result of the author's many years of experience and observation throughout his 26 years in the stockbroking industry. It was written for general public to learn to invest based on facts and not on fantasies or hearsay....
yfchong
5,883 posts
Posted by yfchong > 2016-09-13 16:09 | Report Abuse
This is the best already. .. ..... should make a pause. .