Saturday 12 May 2012

Equity Valuation In Good Times And Bad


May 25 2009 

One very frustrating aspect of the global financial crisis of 2008-2009 was the awareness that the volatility was, in part, exacerbated by an accounting rule. During the late fall of 2008, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) finally took up discussion of FAS 157, Fair Value Measurements, and issued a recommendation to adopt certain modifications in the form of FAS 157-d, Determining the Fair Value of Financial Assets in a Market that is Not Active.

Determining Fair Value

The central issue that was reviewed: companies holding certain mortgage-backed securities had been required to "mark to market" the value of these investments. In a well-functioning securities market, marking to market is a reasonable way to determine fair value, in the same way that a comparable sales analysis - in a well-functioning real estate market - can offer clarity into the appropriate listing price for residential properties.

When capital markets become dislocated, forcing companies to mark their then-illiquid securities to an indeterminable market value creates a downward spiral of asset impairments, charges to earnings, and degraded capital positions. FAS 157-d recommended several remedies. One important and appropriate remedy is a greater reliance on discounting future cash flows to determine fair value in a distressed market. (For more, see Mark-To-Market Mayhem.)

The Price is Right

During periods of systemic stress, valuation in the public equity markets offers a similar challenge to investors. While one can find a readily available market quote for shares of most common stocks, how confident can investors be that they are paying the correct price? One of the most common valuation methods relies on the P/E ratio of companies. In well-functioning markets, P/E ratios provide a quick and easy assessment of comparable value.

But what happens when the "E" becomes entirely uncertain? And, considering the seismic risk-repricing feature common to distressed markets, how confident can we be that earnings multiples represent fair values? Those market environments demand that we shelve, at least temporarily, our reliance on certain relative value measures, like P/E. Yet, it's clear that during a market melt-down, accurate valuation is as critical as it ever is. (For more, read Is The P/E Ratio A Good Market-Timing Indicator?)

One way to compare value measurements is by assigning various alternatives to the quadrant below.

                    Economic   Accounting
Absolute             -             -
Relative              -             -

Economic measures describe an actual tangible value, while accounting measures approximate actual value and are impacted by GAAP accounting conventions. Absolute value measures describe value on a stand-alone basis. Relative measures are useful when comparing the same measure between two companies. To flesh this concept out a bit, we'll fill in the quadrants with example measures:
                    Economic   Accounting
Absolute           DCF          ROE
Relative             ER            P/E

The discounted cash flow (DCF) method is economic in the sense that it relies on cash flow, an actual tangible benefit to equity holders. It is also absolute, as it relies on the company's own cost of capital, rather than a sense of where the rest of the industry or market is currently valued.

The Enterprise Ratio

A company's enterprise ratio (ER) is found by the following formula:

(market value of debt + market value of stock – cash / cash flow from operations)

Here, too, the components are all economic measures, but the resulting ratio is useful only in comparison to another company's Enterprise Ratio and thus, it is relative.

Return on Equity

Return on equity (ROE) can be estimated several ways, one of which is simply to divide the firm's net income by its shareholder equity. Net income and shareholder equity are GAAP measurements, thus ROE is an accounting function. But like DCF, ROE expresses a measure of return which holds meaning in absolute terms: a company which earns a return on equity in excess of its cost of equity capital has added value. (For more on ROE, read Keep Your Eyes On The ROE.)

P/E Ratio

Finally, the P/E ratio relies on earnings, which is a GAAP concept and it is useful only when compared to the P/E ratio of industry peers or a market index.

In his book, "Active Value Investing" (2007), Vitaliy Katsenelson argues that one prominent feature of secular range-bound markets is P/E multiple contraction. A long period in which stock prices fluctuate but do not progress can tend to diminish investor confidence, which is reflected in the multiple investors are willing to pay for a claim on a company's earnings. A growing number of strategists now believe that 2008-2009 was a secular range-bound market.

Answering the Tough Question

The implication is this: what is a fair multiple to pay in a range-bound market, where multiples aren't likely to be stable? If you think it is a difficult question to answer, you are in good company. Many investment analysts ask the same question. Ultimately, a P/E ratio is never objectively high or low; it always must be compared to something else to have meaning. In a market where value is difficult to discern, relative measures, like P/E, render less meaning than they do in more stable, secular bull markets.

The P/E ratio's usefulness during periods of market stress is further limited by its denominator, which is an accounting measure. Earnings, while important, are subject to many aspects of management discretion such as changes to amortization and depreciation schedules.

Alternatively, DCF analysis offers an approach to valuation which stands alone and at the same time projects a truer estimate of economic benefit.

DCF takes projected future cash flows and discounts them back to the present. The theoretical justification for this method is the sense that the intrinsic value of a financial asset is the value of the future cash flows which that asset generates. Alfred Rappaport argues in "Creating Shareholder Value" (1997) that cash flows from operations are the relevant numerator, because they represent the cash available to equity holders, which results from the core operations of the business. Many industrial companies require that operating cash flows be adjusted for depreciation and high levels of maintenance capital expenditures. In these cases, free cash flow may be a better figure to discount. (For a background on DCF, see our DCF Analysis Tutorial.)
Discount Rate

Deriving the appropriate discount rate - the weighted average cost of capital - is a bit more complex. The weighted average cost of capital is comprised of a proportional cost of debt, which is approximated by the yield on the firm's long-term bonds, and the cost of equity. The cost of equity is expressed formulaically below:

Ke = rf + (rm – rf) * β

Where:
  • Ke = the required rate of return on equity
  • r= the risk free rate
  • rm – r= the market risk premium
  • β = beta coefficient = unsystematic risk
The result of discounting future operating cash flows back to the present by the weighted average cost of capital is a clear, objective estimate of the real economic benefit of owning the company today. (To learn more, see The Capital Asset Pricing Model: An Overview.)

Limitations of DCF

Estimating future cash flows from operations requires a sales forecast, which may or may not be accurate; this possibility for error is compounded when forecasting over multiple periods. Moreover, since DCF relies on the above required return for equity formula, we note that the beta of a stock may overstate or understate the actual volatility of the security. Finally, the equity risk premium is not constant.

Likewise, we should point out that not all relative measures are inferior in distressed markets. As with P/E, the price / book ratio utilizes an accounting figure in its denominator. And though the appropriate multiple of price over book may be a relative measure, stocks which are trading below their book value (or, as is common during stressed markets, below tangible book value) offer a type of absolute value opportunity.

The Bottom Line

Intrinsic value and the degree it differs from market price are, ultimately, subjective matters. Severe market dislocations demand that we not only adjust valuations, but that we reassess the metrics by which we derive those valuations. Economic and absolute measures allow the analyst to filter out much of the noise in the market place and provide a theoretically sound means of determining intrinsic value. (For more on DCF, see our related article DCF Valuation: The Stock Market Sanity Check.)


Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/fundamental-analysis/09/equity-valuation-good-bad.asp?partner=basics051112#ixzz1ubcQMER4

Wednesday 9 May 2012

KLSE Market P/E Ratio


As at 6th Jan 2012, our local market is valued at a P/E (Price per earning) of about 14.8x on 2012 earnings. In the other words, it is currently lower than the 10-year average P/E ratio of 16.7x. So, it would be good opportunity for investor to make own assessment and decision in the present market condition.

P/E ratio is commonly used by stock traders to value a company. It reflects whether a company’sshare price is overvalued or undervalued.
PE (Price per earning) = Current share price / EPS
It’s crucial for us to focus on individual stock using the market P/E ratio. It can prevent investor from being traded into a bubble situation which is the riskiest environment for an investor to indulge in.





The magic of a mentor


May 8, 2012 - 4:31PM
Tennis star Rafael Nadal was 17 when he beat his mentor Carlos Moya.
Tennis star Rafael Nadal was 17 when he beat his mentor Carlos Moya. Photo: Reuters
The day inevitably comes when all successful people overtake their mentors. It happened to tennis star Rafael Nadal at age 17 when he beat his mentor Carlos Moya (Moya was 27 at the time).
But even the best in the world will spruik the benefits of a mentor. World tennis No.1 Novak Djokovic still hasn't outgrown all his mentors despite his dominant ranking. He maintains a surprisingly strong relationship with Serbian retired women's handball and tennis player Jelena Gencic, who used to prescribe classical music and Pushkin poetry to the fiery Serbian prodigy to help him calm down and "be a better human being".
I like that definition of the mentoring relationship - an exchange that can make someone a "better human being". Of course mentoring isn't just about classical music or studying Russian poets, but it is a reminder to even the most senior executives that you are never too good to grow or to learn from the right mentor. In fact, if you ever think you know it all, it's generally a sign to pack your bags and get out before the rot sets in.
The trick however is finding Mentor Right, not Mentor Wrong. A highly competent chief executive I know signed up for a state government-funded mentoring program that offered him a business mentor for several months. He thought it might sharpen his skills but there was a slight problem when the mentor turned up. The mentor was way out of his depth with my client who was a market leader in his field. The "expert" mentor couldn't help at all, so they had a couple of coffees and called it a day.
While that particular mentoring relationship didn't work out, I advised him to do a bit more homework about the type of mentor, the qualities and skills he was looking for in a mentor and explicit outcomes he wanted to achieve.
This means finding the best in your business and thinking laterally about how you would like to develop. Look at the leaders in your field and ask yourself: "Who can really help me become a better leader, sales person, manager, speaker or designer?"
A lot of people confuse mentor with coach. The difference is simple - mentor comes from the Latin word "mentore", which means "to be like". A great mentor imparts wisdom and shares knowledge with a less experienced colleague, while a coach doesn't have to be a master in their area of expertise.
Five-time Tour de France winner Eddy "The Cannibal" Merckx mentored Lance Armstrong to go two better and was a vital factor in helping Armstrong win seven titles. David Beckham was mentored by Bobby Charlton. And actor Laurence Olivier mentored Anthony Hopkins.
While elite sport has embraced the mentoring concept for decades, many business leaders incorrectly assume it is a developmental activity primarily for emerging leaders. There's a risk once corporate leaders reach the top of their game that, without accountability and constant growth, they will begin to stagnate and their performance will plateau.
Mentoring is also valuable in the succession process. The outgoing Commonwealth Bank managing director and chief executive, Ralph Norris, mentored the incumbent chief executive Ian Narev (a former management consultant) for 18 months before the handover in December 2011. Some of the most business-savvy executives swap their mentors over time as their needs change. Firstly, once your mentor has imparted all of the knowledge and skills you were searching for, it makes sense to finish/wind back this business relationship. Secondly, learning different skills from a range of different people over time will stretch you further as a leader.
Traits to look for in a mentor
Great experience and knowhow, has achieved high levels of success in their field;The skills and abilities you are looking for; 
  • A good listener and conversationalist; 
  • Trustworthy (ensuring that you feel comfortable disclosing personal information and even insecurities);
  • A sharp observer who will challenge and stretch you;
  • Shows genuine interest in you;Has strong problem-solving abilities;
  • Offers a fresh perspective;
  • Believes in your potential.

What is your experience with mentoring? Does it work?


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/management/blogs/performance-matters/the-magic-of-a-mentor-20120501-1xwhi.html#ixzz1uJl49COv

Sunday 6 May 2012

Power of Compounding


The first glass on the left is empty.
The middle glass is  half full.
That on the right is full.

Assuming that the liquid is made up of amoeba.
Each amoeba doubles itself in 1 sec.
If it takes 1 minute to fill the whole glass to the brim.
What is the time for the glass to be half-full?

Answer: 59 seconds.

Herein lies the power of compounding. 
Note the incremental value of the final 1 second of compounding.
It exceeds the value created by the previous 59 seconds.

Buffett Says U.S. Banks a Class Apart From Europeans


Bloomberg News

By Noah Buhayar, Andrew Frye and Hugh Son on May 05, 2012
 
Warren Buffett, whose Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK/A) (A) has more than $19 billion invested in U.S. banks, said the lenders have ample liquidity and are a class apart from European rivals.
“I would put European banks and American banks in two very different categories,” Buffett, Berkshire’s chairman and chief executive officer, said today at the firm’s annual meeting in Omaha, Nebraska. “The American banking system is in fine shape. The European system was gasping for air a few months back” before getting assistance from the European Central Bank.
Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) (WFC) and JPMorgan Chase & Co. posted record profits last year and their CEOs are contesting efforts by U.S. policy makers to strengthen banking regulations. European banks have struggled amid the continent’s sovereign debt crisis and turned to the ECB, starting in December, for extraordinary three-year loans at interest rates of 1 percent.
“I’d like to have a lot of money for three years at 1 percent, but I’m not in trouble,” said Buffett, 81. U.S. banks have “liquidity coming out their ears.”
Berkshire, which Buffett has led for 42 years, is the biggest shareholder of San Francisco-based Wells Fargo, with a more than $12 billion stake. Buffett injected $5 billion into Bank of America Corp. (BAC) (BAC) last year in exchange for preferred stock and warrants. Berkshire’s shareholding of U.S. Bancorp (USB) (USB) was valued at $2.2 billion as of yesterday.

Saturday 5 May 2012

Investing: As Easy as Taking a Shower?


For the beginning investor, entering the stock market can be a confusing experience. Too often, a newbie dips his or her toe into the water, gets burned, and lets the "pros" take care of money matters from there on out.
It doesn't have to be this way; but first, we need to examine why investing can be such a difficult task.
Peter Senge in his best-seller The Fifth Discipline offers us a simple framework to explain the pitfalls of investing.
It's all about a feedback delayLet's pretend it's the morning, and you've jumped in the shower. Of course, the water temperature isn't going to be perfect right away; you need to adjust the knob. In the most basic sense, your feedback loop would look like this.
anImage
Now let's change things up: You have a defective shower. Instead of the water temperature adjusting almost immediately to a turn in the knob, it takes 10 seconds after turning the knob for any noticeable change to occur.
Now the feedback loop looks like this.
anImage
That delay is a pretty big deal, especially if you aren't used to dealing with it. Your first time in the shower might go like this: turn the knob to make it mildly hot, not feel a change, and turn the knob to scalding hot. Ten seconds later, while you're burning your skin off, you turn it to mildly cold. Not feeling a change, you adjust it to frigid cold, and then...
Well, you get the idea.
Applied to investingThe inclusion of a delay causes many a self-inflicted wound, and this explains why some beginners run into trouble.
Enticed into the stock market by opportunities for riches, investors may become frustrated when they don't see immediately results from their decisions. This leads them to constantly move money in and out of certain stocks, never allowing time for their thesis to play out.
In reality, an investor's feedback loop looks like this:
anImage
How long of a delay are we talking here?Fool founders Tom and David Gardner have always espoused the view that when investing, the average person should have a three-year time limit, minimum. That doesn't mean that you can't sell a stock before the three-year minimum. If it's crystal clear that your original thesis for investing in a company no longer holds true, then it's best to part ways sooner rather than later.
Being "crystal clear," however, isn't as easy as it sounds. Separating a company's performance as a business from its performance as a stock is essential. As Warren Buffett attributed to mentor Ben Graham in a letter to shareholders, "In the short run, the stock market is a voting machine, but in the long run, it's a weighing machine."
A few choice examples...To illustrate the importance of understanding this delay, I went back and looked at some well-known companies and how they've performed since three years ago, in November 2008. Here's a look:
Company
3-Year Return
Change at Lowest Close vs. Starting Price
Whole Foods (Nasdaq: WFM  )612%(15%)
Sirius XM (Nasdaq: SIRI  )530%(78%)
Green Mountain Coffee (Nasdaq:GMCR  )1,200%0%
Rosetta Stone (NYSE: RST  )(72%)*(72%)
Source: Yahoo! Finance. *Since going public in April 2009.
All four of these examples reveal a slightly different lesson for investors in how they should approach the market with a long-term time horizon.
When the Great Recession hit, investors behaved as if the organic food movement were dead. Adding to the negative sentiment, competition was coming from all sides: Even Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT  ) began offering some organic food. Investors with a three-year horizon, however, realized that eventually, our economy would recover. And if they were following the broader move toward organic food, they knew the trend was undeniable.
Sirius XM, on the other hand, seemed to be on the brink of bankruptcy in early 2009. Believers in the company, however, were confident that the company wasn't going to be going anywhere, anytime soon. When they were bailed out by Liberty Media (Nasdaq: LCAPA  ) , life (and cash) was injected back into the company.
I included Green Mountain (maker of the ubiquitous Keurig coffeemakers) to show that there's really no telling how long a delay will be. Sometimes it will be a year, sometimes just one day. In this case, Green Mountain climbed immediately. The bigger point is that three years isgenerally long enough for any delay to work its way out of a system.
Finally, Rosetta Stone is an excellent example of the fact that it is OK to sell a stock before three years if your investment thesis changes dramatically. Just last month, I sold my sharesin this company because of the constant turnover in the executive suite.