Growth in profits have LITTLE role in determining intrinsic value.

 

Growth in profits have LITTLE role in determining intrinsic value.

https://myinvestingnotes.blogspot.com/2010/04/growth-in-profits-have-little-role-in.html

Growth in profits have LITTLE role in determining intrinsic value.  It is the amount of capital used that will determine value.  The lower the capital used to achieve a certain level of growth, the higher the intrinsic value.

Growth benefits investors only when the business in point can invest at incremental returns that are enticing - in other words, only when each dollar used to finance the growth creates over a dollar of long-term market value. In the case of a low-return business requiring incremental funds, growth hurts the investor."

If understood in their entirety, the above paragraph will surely make the reader a much better investor.

Growth in profits will have little role in determining value. It is the amount of capital used that will mostly determine value. Lower the capital used to achieve a certain level of growth, higher the intrinsic value.

There have been industries where the growth has been very good but the capital consumed has been so huge, that the net effect on value has been negative. Example - US airlines.

Hence, steer clear of sectors and companies where profits grow at fast clip but the return on capital employed are not enough to even cover the cost of capital.

=====:

 It captures a fundamental, yet often misunderstood, principle of value investing. Let's break it down, discuss its implications, and summarize.

Core Thesis: Growth is Not a Free Good

The central argument is a direct challenge to conventional market thinking, which often equates "growth" with "value." The passage asserts that growth in profits is not inherently valuable. It only becomes valuable under a specific condition: when the capital required to generate that growth earns a return above the company's cost of capital.

• Growth that Destroys Value: If a company (or an entire industry) must invest massive amounts of capital at low returns (e.g., 4%) to grow profits, but its cost of capital is 8%, it is destroying shareholder wealth with every new dollar invested. The profit number goes up, but the economic value per share goes down.

• Growth that Creates Value: A company that can grow profits by reinvesting minimal capital at high returns (e.g., 25% on capital) is a value-creating machine. Software companies, certain branded consumer goods firms, and platforms with network effects often exemplify this.

Key Concepts Explained

1. "The amount of capital used will determine value."

   • This refers to the Return on Invested Capital (ROIC). Value is a function of cash flows, and high ROIC means the business generates more cash flow per dollar of capital locked up in the business. A business with a 30% ROIC is far more valuable than one with a 10% ROIC, even with identical current profits, because its future profit growth will require less dilution or debt.

2. "Each dollar used to finance the growth creates over a dollar of long-term market value."

   • This is the value creation test. The "dollar of long-term market value" is the present value of all future cash flows that dollar of investment will generate. If that present value exceeds $1, management has created value. This is directly linked to investing at a spread above the cost of capital.

3. The Example of US Airlines:

   • This is a classic case. The industry has seen consistent growth in passenger traffic and, at times, profits. However, it is fiercely competitive, requires enormous ongoing capital expenditures (planes, maintenance, gates), and has historically earned returns below its cost of capital. The net effect over decades has been wealth destruction for equity investors, despite being a vital and growing service.

Commentary and Nuance

• Echoes of Great Investors: This philosophy is pure Warren Buffett (inspired by his mentors Ben Graham and Charlie Munger) and Michael Mauboussin. Buffett famously said, "The best business is one that can employ large amounts of incremental capital at very high rates of return." He also warned about "the institutional imperative" that pushes managers to pursue growth at any cost, even value-destructive growth.

• Link to "Economic Moats": A business's ability to reinvest at high rates over time is protected by its competitive advantage or "moat." Wide-moat businesses (strong brands, patents, network effects) can sustain high ROIC as they grow. No moat means competition will quickly drive returns down toward the cost of capital.

• The Investor's Practical Takeaway: The passage instructs investors to look beyond the headline "profit growth" figure.

  1. Primary Metric: Focus on Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) or ROIC.

  2. Compare: Weigh the ROIC against the company's estimated Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC).

  3. The Rule: Seek companies where ROIC > WACC, and where this spread is sustainable. Be deeply skeptical of high-growth companies with low or declining ROIC.

  4. Sector Selection: As advised, be wary of sectors prone to value-destructive growth cycles—airlines, traditional telecom, capital-intensive manufacturing—unless there is a clear, structural shift toward discipline and higher returns.

Summary

In essence, the passage makes a critical distinction:

• Naive View: Growth in Profits → Higher Intrinsic Value.

• Sophisticated View: Growth in Profits at High Returns on Capital → Higher Intrinsic Value. Growth in Profits at Low Returns on Capital → Can Actually Destroy Intrinsic Value.

The ultimate determinant of value is not growth itself, but the quality of that growth as measured by the return on the capital required to achieve it. An investor who internalizes this shifts their focus from the top-line growth story to the economics of the business model, thereby avoiding value traps disguised as growth stories and identifying truly exceptional compounding machines. This is, indeed, what makes a "much better investor."

Two important things in capital structure: Is the business a consumer or producer of capital? Is the business properly leveraged?

Two important things in the capital structure of the business

https://myinvestingnotes.blogspot.com/2009/04/two-important-things-in-capital.html

Capital Structure

When looking at capital structure, try to determine two things:

1. Is the business a consumer or producer of capital? Does it constantly require capital infusions to build growth or replace assets? Warren Buffett - and many other value investors - shun businesses that cannot generate sufficient capital on their own. In fact, one of the guiding principles behind Berkshire Hathaway is the generation of excess capital by subsidiary businesses that can be deployed elsewhere.

2. Is the business properly leveraged? Overleveraged businesses are at risk and additionally burden earnings with interest payments. Under-leveraged businesses, while better than overleveraged, may not be maximizing potential returns to shareholders.

=====

These two points are at the very heart of sophisticated business and investment analysis. Let's break them down in detail.

1. Is the business a consumer or producer of capital?

This question gets to the fundamental quality of a business model and its "economic engine."

Capital Producer (The "Goose that Lays Golden Eggs"):

• What it is: A business that consistently generates more cash from its operations than it needs to reinvest to maintain or modestly grow its business. This results in free cash flow.

• Characteristics:

  • High profitability & strong moat: Often has pricing power, strong brands, or network effects (e.g., Coca-Cola, Microsoft's Windows).

  • Low capital intensity: Doesn't require constant heavy spending on factories, equipment, or inventory to stay competitive (e.g., software, consulting, branded goods).

  • Reinvestment needs are low: Maintenance capital expenditures are small relative to earnings.

• Why Buffett Loves It: This is the core of the Berkshire model. Subsidiaries like See's Candies or BNSF Railway throw off excess cash that is sent to Omaha. Buffett and Munger then act as "capital allocators," deploying that excess cash to buy other great businesses or stocks, compounding wealth without needing to tap external markets. It's self-funding and self-reinforcing.

• Implication for Investors: These businesses are less risky during downturns (they don't need to borrow), can fund their own growth, and often return capital to shareholders via dividends and buybacks. They create optionality.

Capital Consumer (The "Engine That Needs Constant Fuel"):

• What it is: A business whose internal cash generation is insufficient to fund its operations and growth ambitions. It constantly requires external capital from debt (loans) or equity (selling shares).

• Characteristics:

  • High growth or high obsolescence: Rapidly scaling companies (e.g., early-stage biotech, Tesla in its early years) or those in industries with fast-changing technology (e.g., semiconductor manufacturing).

  • High capital intensity: Requires massive, continuous investment in physical assets (e.g., airlines, auto manufacturers, steel mills).

  • Thin margins or high working capital needs: Struggles to convert profits into cash (e.g., many retailers).

• The Risk: These businesses are vulnerable. When credit markets tighten or investor sentiment sours, their lifeline of external capital can be cut off, leading to crisis or bankruptcy. They also dilute shareholders if they constantly issue new stock.

• Implication for Investors: They can be spectacular investments if the growth materializes and the capital is deployed efficiently (e.g., Amazon in its first decade). However, they are inherently riskier. For value investors like Buffett, they are often avoided because they lack the dependable, compounding quality of capital producers.

---

2. Is the business properly leveraged?

This is about the intelligent use of debt within the capital structure. The goal is to find the optimal balance, recognizing that debt is a powerful but dangerous tool.

Overleveraged (The "Walking on a Tightrope" Business):

• What it is: A business with so much debt that its financial health and operational flexibility are severely compromised.

• Risks and Burdens:

  1. Solvency Risk: In an economic downturn or a period of rising interest rates, the business may not generate enough cash to make interest or principal payments, leading to default.

  2. Strategic Handcuffs: All free cash flow goes to servicing debt, leaving nothing for R&D, marketing, acquisitions, or shareholder returns. The company can't invest in its future.

  3. Amplified Downturns: A small decline in earnings can wipe out profits entirely after hefty interest payments.

  4. Loss of Creditor/Investor Confidence: Makes it expensive or impossible to raise more capital when needed.

• Example: Many retailers that took on huge debt for leveraged buyouts and were then unable to adapt to e-commerce.

Under-Leveraged (The "Excessively Cautious" Business):

• What it is: A business with little to no debt, often holding large cash balances.

• Potential Drawbacks (The Opportunity Cost):

  1. Inefficient Capital Structure: Debt is typically cheaper than equity (interest is tax-deductible). By using no debt, the business may have a higher Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC), lowering its intrinsic value.

  2. Lower Returns on Equity (ROE): Prudent leverage can magnify returns to equity shareholders. Avoiding all debt might mean leaving "money on the table" and not maximizing shareholder wealth.

  3. Missed Strategic Opportunities: Could lack the "dry powder" (or willingness to borrow) to make a strategic acquisition or invest counter-cyclically during a market dip.

• Why It's Still Preferable: As the text says, it's far better than being overleveraged. It represents low financial risk. The critique is one of optimization, not survival.

Properly Leveraged (The "Golden Mean"):

• What it is: A business that uses debt thoughtfully and conservatively to enhance returns without jeopardizing its financial fortress.

• Characteristics:

  • Debt is used for clear, value-accretive purposes (e.g., funding a predictable expansion, a share buyback when shares are cheap, or a strategic acquisition).

  • Debt levels are easily serviceable by the company's stable, predictable cash flows (often measured by ratios like Debt/EBITDA or Interest Coverage Ratio).

  • The debt maturity schedule is manageable, with no dangerous "debt walls."

• Example: A capital-producing business like Apple, which despite having massive cash reserves, has issued debt at low rates to fund shareholder returns (avoiding tax repatriation costs), thus optimizing its capital structure.

The Interconnection:

These two points are deeply linked. A capital producer (Point 1) is in a far stronger, safer position to use leverage effectively (Point 2). Its stable cash flows can reliably service debt, allowing it to boost returns for shareholders.

Conversely, a capital consumer that takes on significant leverage is playing with fire—it's reliant on both external capital markets and its own volatile performance to survive.

In summary, the ideal investment for a value investor is a capital-producing business with a wide economic moat, which is prudently leveraged to enhance its already excellent returns on equity, while posing no threat to its long-term financial stability. This is the model Warren Buffett has sought and deployed at Berkshire Hathaway for decades.

****Buffett (1992): Do not categorise stocks into growth and value types, the two approaches are joined at the hip

 

****Buffett (1992): Do not categorise stocks into growth and value types, the two approaches are joined at the hip

https://myinvestingnotes.blogspot.com/2010/04/buffett-1992-do-not-categorise-stocks.html

====

Here is a summary of Warren Buffett's key points from his 1992 shareholder letter:

Core Argument: The traditional division between "value" and "growth" investing is a false and unhelpful dichotomy. True investing is always about seeking value.

Key Takeaways:

1. Growth and Value Are Inseparable: Growth is a critical component in calculating a business's intrinsic value. Its impact can be positive, negative, or negligible, but it is always a variable in the valuation equation.

2. "Value Investing" is Redundant: All legitimate investing is the pursuit of value. Paying more for a stock than its calculated intrinsic value is speculation, not investing.

3. Surface Metrics Are Misleading: Traditional "value" indicators (low P/E, low P/B, high yield) or "growth" indicators (high P/E, high P/B) are not definitive. A stock with a high P/E can still be a "value" purchase if its intrinsic value is even higher.

4. Growth Alone Does Not Create Value: Growth only benefits investors when the business can generate returns on its incremental capital that exceed its cost of capital. Profitable growth that consumes vast amounts of capital can destroy shareholder value (e.g., the airline industry).

5. The Crucial Metric is Return on Capital: The primary determinant of value is not profit growth itself, but the amount of capital required to achieve that growth. The lower the capital consumed for a given level of growth, the higher the intrinsic value.

Practical Investor Lesson: Investors should avoid companies and sectors where fast profit growth is accompanied by low returns on capital employed (below the cost of capital). The focus must be on the relationship between growth, capital required, and the resulting returns.

Growth in profits have LITTLE role in determining intrinsic value.

Growth in profits have LITTLE role in determining intrinsic value.  It is the amount of capital used that will determine value.  The lower the capital used to achieve a certain level of growth, the higher the intrinsic value.


Growth benefits investors only when the business in point can invest at incremental returns that are enticing - in other words, only when each dollar used to finance the growth creates over a dollar of long-term market value. In the case of a low-return business requiring incremental funds, growth hurts the investor."

If understood in their entirety, the above paragraph will surely make the reader a much better investor.

Growth in profits will have little role in determining value. It is the amount of capital used that will mostly determine value. Lower the capital used to achieve a certain level of growth, higher the intrinsic value.

There have been industries where the growth has been very good but the capital consumed has been so huge, that the net effect on value has been negative. Example - US airlines.

Hence, steer clear of sectors and companies where profits grow at fast clip but the return on capital employed are not enough to even cover the cost of capital.

Also click:

https://myinvestingnotes.blogspot.com/2025/12/growth-in-profits-have-little-role-in.html

****Buffett (1992): Do not categorise stocks into growth and value types, the two approaches are joined at the hip

Warren Buffett's 1992 letter to his shareholders touched upon his views on short-term forecasting in equity markets and how it could prove worthless. In the following few paragraphs, let us go further down through the letter and see what other investment wisdom he has on offer.

Most of the financing community puts stock investments into one of the two major categories viz. growth and value. It is of the opinion that while the former category comprises stocks that have potential of growing at above average rates, the latter category stocks are likely to grow at below average rates. However, the master belongs to an altogether different camp and we would like to mention that such a method of classification is clearly not the right way to think about equity investments. Let us see what Buffett has to say on the issue and he has been indeed very generous in trying to put his thoughts down to words.

"But how, you will ask, does one decide what's 'attractive'? In answering this question, most analysts feel they must choose between two approaches customarily thought to be in opposition: 'value' and 'growth'. Indeed, many investment professionals see any mixing of the two terms as a form of intellectual cross-dressing.

We view that as fuzzy thinking (in which, it must be confessed, I myself engaged some years ago). In our opinion, the two approaches are joined at the hip: Growth is always a component in the calculation of value, constituting a variable whose importance can range from negligible to enormous and whose impact can be negative as well as positive.

In addition, we think the very term 'value investing' is redundant. What is 'investing' if it is not the act of seeking value at least sufficient to justify the amount paid? Consciously paying more for a stock than its calculated value - in the hope that it can soon be sold for a still-higher price - should be labeled speculation (which is neither illegal, immoral nor - in our view - financially fattening).

Whether appropriate or not, the term 'value investing' is widely used. Typically, it connotes the purchase of stocks having attributes such as 

• a low ratio of price to book value, 
• a low price-earnings ratio, or 
• a high dividend yield. 

Unfortunately, such characteristics, even if they appear in combination, are far from determinative as to whether an investor is indeed buying something for what it is worth and is therefore truly operating on the principle of obtaining value in his investments.

Correspondingly, opposite characteristics - 

• a high ratio of price to book value, 
• a high price-earnings ratio, and 
• a low dividend yield 

- are in no way inconsistent with a 'value' purchase.

Similarly, business growth, per se, tells us little about value. It's true that growth often has a positive impact on value, sometimes one of spectacular proportions. But such an effect is far from certain. For example, investors have regularly poured money into the domestic airline business to finance profitless (or worse) growth. For these investors, it would have been far better if Orville had failed to get off the ground at Kitty Hawk: The more the industry has grown, the worse the disaster for owners.

Growth benefits investors only when the business in point can invest at incremental returns that are enticing - in other words, only when each dollar used to finance the growth creates over a dollar of long-term market value. In the case of a low-return business requiring incremental funds, growth hurts the investor."

If understood in their entirety, the above paragraphs will surely make the reader a much better investor. We believe the most important takeaways could be as follows:

• Do not categorise stocks into growth and value types. A high P/E or a high price to cash flow stock is not necessarily a growth stock. A low P/E or a low price to cash flow stock is not necessarily a value stock either. 
• Growth in profits will have little role in determining value. It is the amount of capital used that will mostly determine value. Lower the capital used to achieve a certain level of growth, higher the intrinsic value. 
• There have been industries where the growth has been very good but the capital consumed has been so huge, that the net effect on value has been negative. Example - US airlines. 
• Hence, steer clear of sectors and companies where profits grow at fast clip but the return on capital employed are not enough to even cover the cost of capital.
  
  
  
  
  http://www.equitymaster.com/detail.asp?date=12/20/2007&story=2

=====

Click here for a summary:  

https://myinvestingnotes.blogspot.com/2025/12/buffett-1992-do-not-categorise-stocks.html

Quality check to weed out company with an insatiable demand for capital.

Quality check to weed out company with an insatiable demand for capital.

Benjamin Graham and followers placed great emphasis on financial strength, liquidity, debt coverage and so on. It was the tune of the times.

Credit analysis today continue to check all manner of coverage (e.g. interest coverage) and debt ratios, but for most companies reporting a profit, it maybe overkill.

Here are a few checks to provide a margin of safety and a further test of whether the company has an insatiable demand for capital:

1. Are current assets (besides cash) rising faster than the business is growing?

This ties to the asset productivity and turnover measures but it is worth one last check to see whether a company is buying business by extending too much credit.

More receivables result from extending credit.

Losing channel structure and supply chain battles (customers and distributors won't carry inventory; suppliers are making them carry more inventory) result in increased inventories.

In a soft construction environment, distributors and retailers like Home Depot and Lowe's simply aren't taking as much inventory, pushing it back up the supply chain. The main supplier's risk is greater capital requirements and expensive impairments downstream.

2. Is debt growing faster than the business growth?

Over a sustained period, debt rising faster than business growth is a problem.

If the owners won't kick in to grow the business, and if retained earnings aren't sufficient to meet growth, what does that tell you? The business is forced to seek capital.

3. Repeated trips to the financial markets?

If the business continually has to approach the capital markets (other than in startup phases), that again is a sign that internally generated earnings and cash flows are not sufficient.

Once in a while it is okay, but again one is looking to weed out chronic capital consumers.

Two important things in the capital structure of the business

Capital Structure

When looking at capital structure, try to determine two things:

1. Is the business a consumer or producer of capital? Does it constantly require capital infusions to build growth or replace assets? Warren Buffett - and many other value investors - shun businesses that cannot generate sufficient capital on their own. In fact, one of the guiding principles behind Berkshire Hathaway is the generation of excess capital by subsidiary businesses that can be deployed elsewhere.

2. Is the business properly leveraged? Overleveraged businesses are at risk and additionally burden earnings with interest payments. Under-leveraged businesses, while better than overleveraged, may not be maximizing potential returns to shareholders.

Click here for further discussion on this topic:

https://myinvestingnotes.blogspot.com/2025/12/two-important-things-in-capital.html

Capital-intensive and Capital-hungry companies

CAPITAL SUFFICIENCY

Capital-hungry companies are sometimes hard to detect, but there are a few obvious signs.

Companies in capital-intensive industries, such as manufacturing, transportation, or telecommunications, are likely suspects.

Here are a few indicators.

1. Share buybacks

The number of shares outstanding can be a real simple indicator of a capital hungry company. A company using cash to retire shares - if acting sensibly - is telling you that it generates more capital than it needs. On the other hand, if you look at a company like IBM, ROE has grown substantially, and massive share buybacks are a major reason.

Warning! : When evaluating share buybacks, make sure to look at actual shares outstanding. Relying on company news releases alone can be misleading. Companies also buy back shares to support employee incentive programs or to accumulate shares for an acquisition. Such repurchases may be okay but aren't the kind of repurchases that increase return on equity for remaining owners. (Comment: to take a look at HaiO share buyback.)

2. Cash flow ratio

Is cash flow from operations enough to meet investing requirements (capital assets being the main form of investment) and financing requirements (in this case, the repayment of debt)?

If not, it's back to the capital markets. This figure is pretty elusive unless you have - and study - statements of cash flow.

3. Lengthening asset cycles

If accounts receivable collection periods and inventory holding periods are lengthening (number of days' sales in accounts receivable and inventory), that forewarns the need for more capital.

4. Working capital

A company requiring steady increases in workng capital to support sales requires, naturally, capital. Working capital is capital.