Sustainable Growth Rate = Return on Equity X Retention Ratio

Tips, Tricks, & Techniques

SustainableGrowth Rate.

You may forecast an earnings growth rate for the future.

There are a number of guidelines for this forecast.

One is called the Sustainable Growth Rate.

Sustainable growth rate is that rate at which the company can continue to grow, without having to borrow money or without having to issue new common stock.

This rate is a function of both Return on Equity [ROE] and the dividend payout ratio.

ROE is a measure of how well management is using stockholders money to build the company.

It compares the gains in EPS to gains in book value per share.

Dividend payout ratio is that percentage of profits paid out to stockholders. Keep in mind that every dollar paid out in dividends is one dollar less to grow the company with.

Formula: Sustainable Growth Rate = ROE * [1 - dividend payout ratio]


Example:

Company’s ROE is 20%.

Dividend payout ratio is 10%.

What is the Sustainable Growth Rate?

0.20 * [1.0 — 0.10] = 0.20 * 0.90 = 0.18 = 18%

Good guideline to determine forecast EPS: Keep forecast EPS estimate lower than Sustainable Growth Rate.

The ROE value used is the average for the last 5 years where ROE is calculated as the EPS for the given year divided by the prior year’s Book Value per Share.

The rational for calculating ROE in this manner is that this year’s EPS is the result of last year’s Book Value.


Addendum to Sustainable Growth Rate comments by Ellis Traub 

As happens so often, we can get carried away with the formulae and the numbers and lose sight of the concepts.

A company begins the year with $100 million in equity.

And, during the course of that year, it earns $15 million for a return on that equity of 15 percent.

If it retains all of what it earned, the equity will have grown 15 percent.

And, since the company was able to make 15 percent on its equity, those retained earnings should also be able to earn 15 percent in the next year.

Similar to compounding, this shows that the sustainable growth, just the growth produced by those retained earnings, be 15 percent.

Companies aren't restricted from growth above that rate. They use a variety of resources to increase or perpetuate a higher rate.

They include leverage (using other people's money) to acquire the assets that generate more revenue, or they sell more shares.

While those shares might dilute the EPS, they were sold not given away, so they do add to the equity of the company.

Acquiring productive assets, acquiring operating companies, etc. are only a few of the things that managements, or directors, commonly do to exceed the sustainable growth rate.

So, of what interest is it to us?

 It's just a simple metric that tells us that, without doing these other things, the company can still grow at that rate. 

The only thing that might keep the ROE, sustainable growth, and earnings growth from being the same is the prospect of not using all of those earnings to produce more but, instead, to pay out some of those earnings in dividends. 

This, of course, would reduce the amount of money that is available to earn more; and it will, therefore, cut down the sustainable or implied growth rate. 

Otherwise, if dividends are not paid, the ROE and earnings growth rate will be the same, as will Implied growth.

If earnings growth falls, so will the ROE.

This formula (Implied growth = ROE * RR) [RR=Retention ratio, the percent of earnings NOT distributed to shareholders] will not work if you use ending or average equity.



http://naicspace.org/pdf/sustainablegrowthrate.pdf


STOCK FUNDAMENTALS By Ellis Traub USING ROE TO ANALYZE STOCKS: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT
http://www.aaii.com/journal/article/using-roe-to-analyze-stocks-what-you-need-to-know-about

Asset value (AV) and Earnings power value (EPV). Know the 3 scenarios - AV > EPV, AV = EPV and AV < EPV

What you have got then is two pictures of value: 

1. You have got an asset value
 2. You have got an earnings power value
 
And now you are ready to do a serious analysis of value. If the picture looks like case A (AV > EPV), what is going on assuming, you have done the right valuation here? If it is an industry in decline, make sure you haven’t done a reproduction value when you should be doing a liquidation value.  What it means is say you have $4 billion in assets here that is producing an equivalent earnings power value of $2 billion. What is going there if that in the situation you see?  It has got to be bad management.  Management is using those assets in a way that can not generate a comparable level of distributable earnings.  

AV is Greater Than EPV 

• In this case the critical issue—it would be nice if you could buy the company—but typically you pay the reduced EPV and all that AV is sitting there.
• Then you are going to be spending your time reading the proxies and concentrating on the stability or hopefully the lack of stability of management. 
• Preeminently in that situation, the issue is a management issue. 
• The nice thing about the valuation approach is that it tells you the current cost that management is imposing in terms of lost value.  That is not something that is revealed by a DCF analysis. And there are a whole class of value investments like that.
• One of the great contributions to the theory of this business is Mario Gabelli’s idea that really what you want to look for in this case is a catalyst that will surface the true asset value.
• You can wait and sometimes that catalyst may be Michael Price or Mario Gabelli if they own enough of the company.  I would like to encourage those investors who are big enough to make that catalyst you.  

AV Equals EPV 

• The second situation where the AV, the reproduction value of the assets = EPV are essentially the same.
• That tells a story like any income statement or balance sheet tells a story.  It tells a story of an industry that is in balance.  
• It is exactly what you would expect to see if there were no barriers-to- entry. 
• And if you look at this picture and then you analyze the nature of the industry—if you say, for example, this is the rag trade and I know there are no competitive advantages—you now have two good observations on the value of that company. 
• If it ever were to sell at a market price down here, you know that is what you would be getting. You are getting a bargain from two perspectives: both from AV & EPV so buy it. 

EPV in Excess of AV 

• We have ignored the growth, but I will talk about it in a second#. The last case is the one we really first talked about. You have got EPV in excess of AV. 
• The critical issue there is, especially if you are buying the EPV—is that EPV sustainable?
• That requires an effective analysis of how to think about competitive advantages in the industry.

Introduction to a Value Investing Process by Bruce Greenblatt at the Value Investing Class Columbia Business School 
Edited by John Chew at Aldridge56@aol.com                           
studying/teaching/investing Page 26

 Notes from video lecture by Prof Bruce Greenwald
http://csinvesting.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/greenwald-vi-process-foundation_final.pdf



Related topic: #
Look at growth from the perspective of investment required to support the growth. Profitable Growth Occurs Only Within a Franchise.

Earnings Growth: Good Growth and Bad Growth

GROWTH FIGURES FOR ANHEUSER-BUSCH

Take Anheuser-Busch. Ten-year figures to 2002, using the Value Line summaries, show the following:

Year	Earnings per share	Return on equity %	Return on capital %
1993	.89	23.0	14.9
1994	.97	23.4	15.2
1995	.95	22.2	14.3
1996	1.11	27.9	17
1997	1.18	29.2	15.6
1998	1.27	29.3	16.5
1999	1.47	35.8	17.7
2000	1.69	37.6	18.2
2001	1.89	42.0	18.8
2002	2.20	63.4	21.9

GROWTH IN EPS

For Mary Buffett and David Clark, earnings per share growth, and its ability to keep well ahead of inflation, is a key factor in the investment strategies of Warren Buffett. Earnings that are consistently increased are an indication of a quality company, soundly managed, with little or no reliance on commodity type products. This leads to predictability of future earnings and cash flows.

On the other hand, with a company whose earnings fluctuate, future cash flows are less predictable. The reasons may be poor management, poor quality or an over reliance on products that are susceptible to price reductions.

Take an imaginary company with the following earnings per share:

Year	EPS
1	2.00
2	2.25
3	2.98
4	1.47
5	1.88
6	-.65
7	2.75
8	2.20
9	1.98
10	3.01

The only conclusion that follows from these figures is that this company has good years and bad years. Year 11 might be great, it might be dreadful, or it might be average. The only certainty here is the unpredictability.

Of course, a fall in margins for one or two years may be as a result of once only factors and this can provide buying opportunities.

The difficulty is making the judgment as to 

• whether there is something permanently wrong, or 
• whether the problem has been isolated and resolved.

WARREN BUFFETT AGAIN ON GROWTH

For Warren Buffett the important thing is not that a company grows (he points to the growth in airline business that has not resulted in any real benefits to stockholders) but that returns grow. In 1992, he said this:

‘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.’


http://www.buffettsecrets.com/company-growth.htm

Inherent Permanence of Earning Power - The Income that Keeps Coming In

If past earnings are to have any meaning to investors, there must be an inherent permanence to the earning power.  

Earnings may be cyclical, or even inconsistent, and still have some permanence.

• Many automobile companies have notoriously cyclical results; yet they have managed to keep up an ongoing business over many years.

Benjamin Graham considered a company to have stable earnings when:

1. earnings doubled in the most recent 10 years, and,
2. earnings declined by no more than 5% no more than twice in the past 10 years.

Another approach to measuring stability is to compare one period of earnings with an earlier period.  

• Stability is assessed by the trend of per-share earnings over a ten-year period, compared to the average of the most recent three years.  
• No decline represents 100% stability.

For example:  Company A earnings per share nearly doubled in the 10-year period 1984 -1994:

• 5.22  (1984); 6.25; 6.31;.5.90; 5.08; 1.36; 0.30; -2.7, 1.38, 6.77; and 10.1 (1994)
• 10-year average = $4.95
• 3-year average = $6.08
• 1994 book value = $46.65 per share
• 1995 trading range = $38.25 to $58.13 per share

Buy Low - Sell High, Buy High - Sell Higher

Many investors prefer to pay low for a stock and hope that its price will eventually rise. However, they fail to realize that sometimes it is better to pay a higher price for a stock that has the potentials for a future growth. The money you will save from purchasing a down stock may not justify your investment if the stock continues to languish.

For example, let's assume that stock X has a P/E (price to earnings ratio) equal to 25, whereas stock Y has a P/E equal to 8. If you are ignorant enough and decide to make your investment decision based only on this metric, then stock X will seem as being overpriced.

Let us make another assumption, namely that stock X has experienced this overpricing for several periods of times. On the other hand, stock Y has consistently been under the fair price of the market.

What is more, stock X is experiencing a trading activity that is near the 52-week high, whereas stock Y has experienced a 20% down in its trailing 180-day average.

Typically, investors fail to recognize that the maxim stating that what goes down must come up and the vice versa, doesn't always hold truth. There are many exceptions back in the history.

If you follow this maxim, you will probably conclude that stock X is about to decrease. On the other hand, again under the maxim stated above, an investor may conclude that stock Y is about to make its big jump since its price is low and the stock market will recognize its strengths. Both assumptions may turn out to be completely wrong.

Buy High, Sell Higher

This strategy is highly recommended if you expect that the stock will continue to grow in the future. Thus, you should not be scared off by the high price. A stock that provides a steady percentage of growth is worth paying its higher price today, because if it continues to grow at this rate, its price will be even higher tomorrow.

You should make a careful research before following the Wall Street pack. You may probably regret that you haven't purchased the stock several months ago before its price has not jumped to the sky. However, if you make a careful research and verify that the stock possesses good potentials for future growth, then you should not be discouraged from investing in it.

Keep in mind that the stock's price will rise and fall in the short term, but over the long term a growth stock will move upwards.

Buy Low, Sell High

Many investors prefer to search for bargains, which they can later sell at a higher price. However, if you decide to apply this strategy you should be well aware that the price of the stock may not rise again.

Value investors tend to look for stocks that are overlooked and undervalued by the stock market. However, price is only one of the factors that are part of their selection process. The key consideration made is whether the stock provides steady potential for future growth.

Final Piece of Advice

Avoid making investment decisions based only on the price of the stock because a stock that is down is not obligatory to go up. Additionally, a stock that is up may come down and may not. Look at the other metrics in order to make a more educated and successful decision.

http://www.stock-market-investors.com/stock-market-advices-and-tips/buy-low-sell-high-buy-high-sell-higher.html

It’s also important to see some sort of upward trend in revenues and earnings growth.

It’s also important to see some sort of upward trend in revenues and earnings growth.

Value Line Investment Survey is found in most libraries and does a nice job showing long-term company trends. No one likes a company that constantly does worse than the year before, no matter what the value is! Every company needs some sort of “curb appeal” for you to profit from your investment. At some point, you need to sell in order to make money from your investment.

Upward trends help on the resale side of your investment.

Many investors find it hard to distinguish between “cheap” stocks and value stocks. Most times, stocks are low because they deserve to be low. There is nothing wrong with buying a “cheap” stock as long as you know and understand the risks. There are many stocks out there that have large annual losses, high debt levels and no equity. That does not necessarily mean you can’t make money on them, but you should call it gambling rather than investing.


http://myinvestingnotes.blogspot.com/2010/07/characteristics-of-value-stocks_23.html

High Dividend Payout Ratio = High Earnings Growth Rate (??)

I have always been under the impression that a dividend payout ratio must not be too high because it can limit the ability of the company to grow.  I look for a dividend payout ratios that are at least below 60%, preferably even lower.  I have selected this target because I have believed that the lower payout ratio will provide the company with a sizable chunk of earnings to grow the business and with a lower than 60% dividend payout ratio a company can continue to grow its dividend even during time of economic slowdowns or reduced earnings.

It appears that this theory and fundamental analysis principle has been refuted in a study by Robert D. Arnott and Clifford S. Asness (pdf document). Their theory is that higher dividend payouts actually have lead to higher earnings growth. And with higher earnings growth, share prices tend to go up over time which is better for all of us investors. Let’s have a look at their research and findings.

But First a Definition of the Payout Ratio


The payout ratio is the percentage of a company’s earnings that are paid out as dividends. In a nutshell, the payout ratio provides an idea of how well earnings support the dividend payments. More mature companies tend to have a higher payout ratio.

The crux of the Arnott and Asness research really boils down to one chart. Have a look and it is clear that there is a trend happening here.



As you can see, for a high number of companies, the higher the payout ratio is the better earnings growth the companies experienced. Here are some comments from the authors:

• In general, when starting from very low payout ratios, the equity market has delivered dismal real earnings growth over the next decade; growth has actually fallen 0.4 percent a year on average–ranging from a worst case of truly terrible –3.4 percent compounded annual real earnings for the next 10 years to a best case of only 3.2 percent real growth a year over the next decade. 
• From a starting point of very high payout ratios, the opposite has occurred: strong average real growth (4.2 percent), a worst case of positive 0.6 percent, and a maximum that is a spectacular 11.0 percent real growth a year for 10 years.

So what do we, the average investors do with this data?

My view is that I am going to continue to use my 60% payout ratio benchmark, but will not scoff at a higher dividend payout ratio as quickly. I still believe that it is the average historical payout ratio that an investor must be concerned with – any recent jumps in the payout ratio need to be examined to determine why the change occurred.

http://www.thedividendguyblog.com/high-dividend-payout-ratio-high-earnings-growth-rate/

But, do read the article below which contradicts the above findings.

----

High Yields and Low Payout Ratios

The above post has covered high dividend stocks and the fact that they have been better market performers than low yield stocks. However, it has not been simply buying all the high dividend stocks that has been the most powerful. A study conducted by Credit Suisse Quantitative Equity Research looked at high yields and payout ratios. Their study found that it is high yields coupled with low payout ratios that have provided the best gains over lower yield investing. Although the study used a shorter time frame (1980 – 2006) than many of the other studies we have looked at, the data is pretty clear in its messaging. Take a look at the chart below:



It is interesting to see that the stocks that had a high payout ratio as a whole produced worse gains than the S&P 500, but the stocks that either paid no dividends, had a low yield, or had a high yield did better than the S&P 500. That payout ratio is certainly more important than I thought it was based on this study. A high payout ratio can certain indicate trouble in a company and must be watched closely.

http://www.thedividendguyblog.com/day-5-the-dividend-key-high-yields-and-low-payout-ratios/

U.S. economy: From Recovery to Sustainable Growth

July 15, 2010, 10:21PM EST

Analysts Pare Revenue Growth Expectations

Investors may not be able to count on robust rates of sales growth to boost earnings in coming quarters

By David Bogoslaw

Equity analysts and investment strategists have been closely watching corporate revenue trends since last summer to see what's driving any improvement in earnings. But investors may not be able to count on improving sales growth as a way to pump up profits: Analysts are dialing back expectations for revenue growth for some of the world's biggest companies.

In a July 13 market commentary, Nicholas Colas, chief market strategist at BNY ConvergEx Group, an investment technology provider, published data showing that analysts' consensus revenue estimates for the 30 stocks in the Dow Jones industrial average for the second, third, and fourth quarters of 2010 have been declining since April or May. Forecasts were lower in July than in April or May for 21 companies of the Dow 30 for the second quarter, for 22 for the third quarter, and for 19 for the fourth quarter, the report said.

The trend toward lower revenue expectations is present in the broader market. In the three months leading up to July 15, 48.7 percent of companies in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index with available data had their revenue estimates cut, vs. 39.3 percent in the comparable period leading up to Apr. 30 and 37.1 percent in the three months leading up to Jan. 29, according to Bloomberg data. The start of fourth-quarter earnings releases is typically mid-January, while first-quarter earnings are released beginning in mid-April.

Colas has been tracking analysts' projections for revenue growth for the past year and says that until April those numbers had continued to climb "every single month, month in and month out," reflecting analysts' expectations for further improvement in quarterly earnings. But the trend over the past two months has flattened and is now declining. That's coincided with an 8.0 percent pullback in the S&P 500 index between Apr. 15 and July 15, and Colas believes there's a link between the two.

"For the first time since the [March 2009] market lows, analysts now realize they have overshot on revenue expectations and now are starting to pull them back in," he says. "Earnings expectations have not declined, so analysts have cut revenue expectations but have given companies more credit for [continuing] cost cuts."

IMPACT ON STOCKS
Doubts about the strength of revenue growth over the past year could pose problems for continuing advances in stock prices. "What do you pay for earnings if you're not sure what the structural growth rates are? That's a big, big question," says Colas. "One proxy for structural growth is revenue growth."

While two-thirds of the 30 Dow components seems like a large proportion, the index contains a lot of blue chip companies whose sales are highly correlated to U.S. gross domestic product, says Jeffrey Kleintop, chief market strategist at LPL Financial in Boston. As GDP projections for 2010 have moderated, it makes sense that consensus estimates for revenue growth would follow suit, he says. On July 14, the Federal Reserve lowered its economic growth estimate for 2010 to 3 percent to 3.5 percent from a forecast of 3.2 percent to 3.7 percent given in April.

It's fair to wonder whether the increasing percentage of downward revisions reflects the extent to which analysts may have been blindsided by the European sovereign debt crisis and the slowdown in China, not to mention the soft patch that the U.S. economy has hit. It may be that analysts' optimism about economic growth at the start of a new year tends to fade as the year wears on, which is borne out by patterns in 2009 and so far in 2010, says Peter Nielsen, manager of the Sextant Core Fund (SCORX) at privately held Saturna Capital in Bellingham, Wash.

Another thing to keep in mind: "There's a lot of noise" in the year-over-year comparisons for revenue due to the absence of growth drivers such as cash for clunkers and other government stimulus programs that boosted companies' sales in 2009, says Nielsen. That may be one reason for the conservative revenue numbers coming from many brokerage analysts, he adds. Nielsen thinks year-over-year comparisons will become more difficult as the year progresses and expects "very modest" revenue gains in the third quarter.

It also makes sense that analysts would be paring their revenue estimates around the one-year anniversary of what most economists agree was the bottom of the economic cycle, says Craig Peckham, equity product strategist at Jefferies & Co. (JEF). It's logical to conclude that revenue growth will disappoint investors as year-over-year earnings comparisons become more challenging later this year, he says.

REASSURING EARNINGS REPORTS
The central issue is that investors are unwilling to pay as much for earnings growth driven more by cost-cutting than by improvement in sales. "What you pay for an earnings multiple for cost-cutting is less than what you pay for revenue growth because cost-cutting has to stop somewhere" while revenue growth has "a longer runway," says Colas.

Encouraging second-quarter earnings reports may be enough to stanch the flow of negative revisions and confirm the view that analysts have reduced estimates too far on concerns about Europe, as well as doubts about consumer spending in the U.S., says Jefferies' Peckham. The performance of some equity market bellwethers seems to suggest that analysts may be relying too heavily on pessimistic macroeconomic data that have come out in the last two months, he adds.

Alcoa (AA) reported earnings of 13 cents per share on July 12, beating the Street's forecast by a penny, on a 22.2 percent rise in revenue from a year earlier. On July 13, Intel (INTC) posted a profit of 51 cents per share, up from 18 cents a year earlier and beating analysts' expectations by 8 cents. The microchip manufacturer's revenue rose $2.7 billion, or 33 percent, from a year earlier, exceeding the consensus forecast by $549.9 million, or 5.5 percent. Intel projected third-quarter revenue of $11.2 billion to $12 billion, the lower range of which was ahead of the consensus estimate by $289.35 million, or 2.7 percent, a day prior to the earnings release.

In making the transition from recovery to sustainable growth, the U.S. economy faces some key obstacles such as Europe's fiscal problems and the weak domestic labor market, according to a midyear outlook report by LPL Financial published on July 12. While U.S. banks are fairly insulated from European debt woes, LPL said that U.S. exports and business spending are vulnerable to a pullback in global economic growth that could result from another freeze of liquidity and trade, as well as to the euro zone slipping back into recession due to cuts in government spending, tax hikes, and higher borrowing costs.

TYPICAL RECOVERY SLOWDOWN
Kleintop thinks analysts were caught by surprise by negative macroeconomic data on home sales, retail sales, and job creation. That's not unusual since analysts tend to focus more on microeconomic data related to companies they cover than what's happening in the broader economy. But the fact that the economy has hit a soft patch a year into the recovery is typical of each of the past several recoveries, he says. Each time, the soft period didn't halt the expansion, but it did slow the pace of economic growth and result in a flat stock market for about a year, he says.

Another source of confusion for the market is the divergence between robust manufacturing data and a resurgence of caution among consumers. While the manufacturing strength is encouraging, that's a small part of the economy relative to consumer spending, which accounts for roughly 70 percent of GDP. The fact that the dominant sector is so sluggish "makes this recovery somewhat fragile and susceptible to a downside shock," says David Joy, chief market strategist at RiverSource Investments. He thinks consumer spending will probably remain soft, making a 3.0 percent gain in GDP the best the U.S. can muster for the foreseeable future.

It's worth noting how questions about economic growth have been translating into stock performance, he says. "We're noticing valuations within the market are very compressed. Investors are saying large caps are no better than small caps, that high-quality stocks are no better than low-quality ones," he says. "That tells us where you want to be is in large-cap, high-quality stocks," which have more reliable earnings growth and tend to pay dividends and aren't selling at a premium to lesser-quality names as they usually would.

But by focusing on revenue growth, investors may be overly conservative in their outlook for earnings growth. U.S. companies slashed costs dramatically at the bottom of the cycle, paving the way for outsized earnings growth once revenues recover even modestly, says Peckham. "Companies have been able to create cost structures with a ton of operating leverage. If you've got a model with good operating leverage, your earnings should go up a lot faster than your revenues," he says.

CORPORATE OUTLOOK WATCH
Second-quarter earnings, which have just begun to be reported, are likely to ease market jitters as key economic questions such as the impact of Europe's debt and growth problems are put in perspective, says Kleintop. Although many companies in the S&P 500 export goods and services to Europe, most of the demand from overseas in the past year has come from Asia. Large U.S. companies can still generate strong double-digit profit growth without help from Europe, he says.

Saturna's Nielsen is particularly eager to hear comments from pharmaceutical executives on earnings conference calls to get a sense of the impact they expect fiscal austerity measures in Europe to have on their European sales. He's deeply skeptical of the confidence sell-side analysts have in European governments' willingness to continue to pay up for drugs and joint replacements based on aging demographics in those countries, in the face of their fiscal difficulties.

Conference calls should also provide more clarity on the tangible costs of health-care and financial reform as companies disclose what they think the impact of these regulatory changes will be on their businesses, says Kleintop. "Once you can define them, they start to lose some of their potency to sway sentiment," he says. That could help sustain the recent stock rally. While the market seems stuck in a broad range, he says the S&P 500 could see further gains of 5 percent to 7 percent before another round of profit-taking kicks in.

The increasing number of downward earnings revisions doesn't bode well for stock market gains in 2010 relative to 2009. Roughly 200 companies in the S&P 500 have had downward revisions in the past three months, vs. 250 that have had upward revisions, according to data that Kleintop has been watching. Three months ago, only 150 companies had had downward revisions vs. 300 that had had upward revisions. The percentage of total analyst revisions that are positive "moves in lockstep with the year-over-year performance of the S&P [500 index]" going back 30 years, he says.

The steam that's come out of revenue growth expectations makes the 2011 consensus forecast for aggregate earnings of $96 per share for the S&P 500 look less and less realistic, says RiverSource's Joy. With the broad market now trading at around 12 times that number, even if you scale revenue growth back slightly, stocks still seem inexpensive, he says. That makes him think there's a cushion for equities even if revenue growth isn't robust enough to generate the earnings analysts are expecting.

Bogoslaw is a reporter for Bloomberg Businessweek's Finance channel.

http://www.businessweek.com/print/investor/content/jul2010/pi20100715_477248.htm

The Importance of Earnings Growth

Valuation of KNM and Sustainable Growth Companies

In the absence of clarity in future earnings, very low NTA and significant debt, how does one value KNM?

? 10 sen / share

A quick look at KNM
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tnYPvXKu8my2Fsri8qR60oA&output=html


A related story:

One-time events that help grow companies for a short period usually affect prices significantly, but such changes are often temporary.

In the mid-1970s, again in the mid-1990s, and once again in the mid-2000s when oil prices went up quickly, many companies supplying oil-drilling services became high-growth companies.  However, they could not sustain their growth.

For example, Global Marine, an otherwise well-managed company, was trading at around $35 per share in late 1997, but oil prices went down in 1998, and Global Marine's stock price quickly retreated to less than $8 per share.  

A careful investor looking for an outstanding long-term growth company would have avoided Global Marine because the growth was from a one-time event.

It was and can be difficult to know which companies would have sustainable growth.

On the other side, note that at the time of going public, even Microsoft was not an outstanding growth stock because it was not clear that the company could sustain its growth.  However, over time, it became clear that Microsoft's products were immensely successful.  Microsoft was a near monopoly, and the number of customers for those products would increase for many years to come.  At that point, it was a good growth stock worth investing in.

The Quest for Sustainedable Earnings Growth

The Quest for Railroad-Track Growth
Often a Sign of Good Management, Sometimes Too Good to Be True

by Michael Maiello

Sustainable earnings growth is a Holy Grail sought by investors of all stripes. Value investing guru Benjamin Graham searched for it, choosing stocks based in part on a management team’s ability to generate an upward trend in earnings over many years. Graham was a bit accommodating with this requirement; he’d tolerate flat earnings for a year or two so long as it didn’t look as if earnings were about to break through the floor. He believed stock prices eventually would track growing earnings over time.

Growth investors expect more. BetterInvesting members look for companies that have a consistent history of producing better-than-average earnings growth. In innovation-based industries such as pharmaceuticals and technology, this can often mean double-digit earnings growth even as stocks in the broader market are buffeted by recession.

The managers of the U.S. Trust Focused Large-Cap Growth Fund explain the strategy this way: “Emphasis is placed on selecting high-quality companies having dominant industry positions, strong financials and consistently high earnings growth rates. Such companies tend to be brand name, globally dominant companies in open-ended growth industries such as devices/biotech/ genetics, information technology, global consumer brands and global financial companies.”

Consistent earnings growth implies that a company is in a position to maintain dominance and has the management team to do it. A good example is Johnson & Johnson. Its five-year earnings growth rate is 13.8 percent a year, creating enough steady increases to fund 14 percent growth in dividends over that time and more than 20 percent return on equity. J&J has a diversified product line across pharmaceuticals, home products and consumer goods. Its ability to distribute products around the world is difficult for competitors to match much less beat. This seems to be a company where the past growth is indicative of good management and a dominant market position. (Companies are mentioned in this article for educational purposes only. No investment recommendations are intended.)

Apple has grown earnings at well over 100 percent annually for the last five years, an amazing run as new products such as the iPod and iPhone were brought to market and then allowed to mature. These are widely acknowledged as the products of Steve Jobs’ genius, or at least of the culture of design he implemented and fostered during his tenure at the company. A lot of companies had MP3 players and smart phones before Apple, but only Apple made them cool.

But the Apple example brings us to the pitfall of this style of investing. Apple isn’t exactly like J&J. Apple has a good number of larger competitors (such as Sony and Microsoft) that can, and often do, undersell it. Also, fads change, so although Apple’s proven ability to remain in style is nice to know, investors can’t count on it. Look at what happened to The Gap, which was once a hot brand but hasn’t been in a decade.

Another concern is that consistent earnings growth is extremely hard to produce, so investors should try to learn more when seeing 15 percent growth year after year. Enron is among the most notorious examples of this principle. Between 1997 and 2000 the company’s management team somehow beat analysts’ earnings estimates more than three quarters of the time, an amazing feat we now know was made possible by accounting shenanigans that kept losses and liabilities out of the picture. Enron’s managers were also masters at inorganic growth — boosting earnings through acquisitions and asset sales rather than by improving fundamentals in its business.

Finally, watch out for “earnings smoothing,” the term academics and regulators use to describe cases in which company managers adhere strictly to the letter of generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP, but not quite to the spirit of it. Some have charged that financial firms used loopholes and oversights in the complicated body of GAAP rules to consistently understate losses and potential losses they faced from subprime mortgage exposure early in the credit crisis. This explains why, as the crisis unfolded, there seemed to be so many new surprises from companies that had supposedly come clean.

One rule of thumb: If the earnings growth doesn’t have a simple explanation behind it, as in the case of, say, J&J, Wal-Mart or Apple, at the very least be skeptical.

BetterInvesting’s Online Tools

The Stock Selection Guide, the primary stock study tool of BetterInvesting members, helps you identify stocks with histories of sales and earnings growth. Our new online tool will walk you through evaluating a company using the SSG. Click on the Online Tools & Software link under the Tools & Resources menu on the BetterInvesting homepage. Your membership may already include access to the tool; if not, you can upgrade your membership to use it.



Michael Maiello, who wrote "Fly With the Fundamentals" for the January 2006 issue, is the author of Buy the Rumor, Sell the Fact (McGraw-Hill, 2004).

http://www.betterinvesting.org/Public/StartLearning/BI+Mag/Articles+Archives/0809fundamentalpublic.htm