Is There An Opportunity With Johnson & Johnson's (NYSE:JNJ) 41% Undervaluation?

Comment:   

An example of using 2 stage growth model and discount cash flow method in valuing a company.

The discount cash flow method is based on 2 assumptions:   future cash flows and the applied discount rate.  

It is not an exact science.  One should you conservative assumptions in your valuation.

Charlie Munger mentioned that he had never seen Warren Buffett using the DCF method in his valuation.   There are better and easier ways to value a company.  Often you will know if a company is cheap or very expensive, even without having to do elaborate studies.   (An analogy is you do not need to know the weight to know that this person is overweight or obese or underweight.)  

Keep your valuation simple.  It is better to be approximately right than to be exactly wrong.

The article below shares how to do valuation in detail.

Happy investing.  

Mon, 4 March 2024 at 7:00 pm GMT+8·6-min read

Key Insights

• Using the 2 Stage Free Cash Flow to Equity, Johnson & Johnson fair value estimate is US$275

• Johnson & Johnson is estimated to be 41% undervalued based on current share price of US$162

• Analyst price target for JNJ is US$174 which is 37% below our fair value estimate

Does the March share price for Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) reflect what it's really worth? Today, we will estimate the stock's intrinsic value by taking the forecast future cash flows of the company and discounting them back to today's value. We will use the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) model on this occasion. There's really not all that much to it, even though it might appear quite complex.

We generally believe that a company's value is the present value of all of the cash it will generate in the future. However, a DCF is just one valuation metric among many, and it is not without flaws. If you want to learn more about discounted cash flow, the rationale behind this calculation can be read in detail in the Simply Wall St analysis model.

Check out our latest analysis for Johnson & Johnson

What's The Estimated Valuation?

We're using the 2-stage growth model, which simply means we take in account two stages of company's growth. In the initial period the company may have a higher growth rate and the second stage is usually assumed to have a stable growth rate. To start off with, we need to estimate the next ten years of cash flows. Where possible we use analyst estimates, but when these aren't available we extrapolate the previous free cash flow (FCF) from the last estimate or reported value. We assume companies with shrinking free cash flow will slow their rate of shrinkage, and that companies with growing free cash flow will see their growth rate slow, over this period. We do this to reflect that growth tends to slow more in the early years than it does in later years.

A DCF is all about the idea that a dollar in the future is less valuable than a dollar today, so we discount the value of these future cash flows to their estimated value in today's dollars:

10-year free cash flow (FCF) estimate

	2024	2025	2026	2027	2028	2029	2030	2031	2032	2033
Levered FCF ($, Millions)	US$22.8b	US$23.9b	US$24.5b	US$25.0b	US$26.4b	US$27.2b	US$28.0b	US$28.7b	US$29.4b	US$30.2b
Growth Rate Estimate Source	Analyst x5	Analyst x6	Analyst x5	Analyst x3	Analyst x3	Est @ 2.99%	Est @ 2.78%	Est @ 2.63%	Est @ 2.53%	Est @ 2.46%
Present Value ($, Millions) Discounted @ 6.0%	US$21.5k	US$21.3k	US$20.6k	US$19.9k	US$19.8k	US$19.2k	US$18.6k	US$18.1k	US$17.5k	US$16.9k

("Est" = FCF growth rate estimated by Simply Wall St)
Present Value of 10-year Cash Flow (PVCF) = US$193b

We now need to calculate the Terminal Value, which accounts for all the future cash flows after this ten year period. For a number of reasons a very conservative growth rate is used that cannot exceed that of a country's GDP growth. In this case we have used the 5-year average of the 10-year government bond yield (2.3%) to estimate future growth. In the same way as with the 10-year 'growth' period, we discount future cash flows to today's value, using a cost of equity of 6.0%.

Terminal Value (TV)= FCF2033 × (1 + g) ÷ (r – g) = US$30b× (1 + 2.3%) ÷ (6.0%– 2.3%) = US$838b

Present Value of Terminal Value (PVTV)= TV / (1 + r)10= US$838b÷ ( 1 + 6.0%)10= US$469b

The total value, or equity value, is then the sum of the present value of the future cash flows, which in this case is US$663b. To get the intrinsic value per share, we divide this by the total number of shares outstanding. Relative to the current share price of US$162, the company appears quite good value at a 41% discount to where the stock price trades currently. The assumptions in any calculation have a big impact on the valuation, so it is better to view this as a rough estimate, not precise down to the last cent.

dcf

The Assumptions

The calculation above is very dependent on two assumptions. The first is the discount rate and the other is the cash flows. If you don't agree with these result, have a go at the calculation yourself and play with the assumptions. The DCF also does not consider the possible cyclicality of an industry, or a company's future capital requirements, so it does not give a full picture of a company's potential performance. Given that we are looking at Johnson & Johnson as potential shareholders, the cost of equity is used as the discount rate, rather than the cost of capital (or weighted average cost of capital, WACC) which accounts for debt. In this calculation we've used 6.0%, which is based on a levered beta of 0.800. Beta is a measure of a stock's volatility, compared to the market as a whole. We get our beta from the industry average beta of globally comparable companies, with an imposed limit between 0.8 and 2.0, which is a reasonable range for a stable business.

SWOT Analysis for Johnson & Johnson

Strength

• Debt is not viewed as a risk.

• Dividends are covered by earnings and cash flows.

Weakness

• Earnings declined over the past year.

• Dividend is low compared to the top 25% of dividend payers in the Pharmaceuticals market.

Opportunity

• Annual earnings are forecast to grow for the next 3 years.

• Good value based on P/E ratio and estimated fair value.

Threat

• Annual earnings are forecast to grow slower than the American market.

Next Steps:

Valuation is only one side of the coin in terms of building your investment thesis, and it shouldn't be the only metric you look at when researching a company. The DCF model is not a perfect stock valuation tool. Preferably you'd apply different cases and assumptions and see how they would impact the company's valuation. For instance, if the terminal value growth rate is adjusted slightly, it can dramatically alter the overall result. What is the reason for the share price sitting below the intrinsic value? For Johnson & Johnson, there are three pertinent aspects you should consider:

1. Risks: Every company has them, and we've spotted 1 warning sign for Johnson & Johnson you should know about.

2. Future Earnings: How does JNJ's growth rate compare to its peers and the wider market? Dig deeper into the analyst consensus number for the upcoming years by interacting with our free analyst growth expectation chart.

3. Other Solid Businesses: Low debt, high returns on equity and good past performance are fundamental to a strong business. Why not explore our interactive list of stocks with solid business fundamentals to see if there are other companies you may not have considered!

PS. The Simply Wall St app conducts a discounted cash flow valuation for every stock on the NYSE every day. If you want to find the calculation for other stocks just search here.

 editorial-team@simplywallst.com (Simply Wall St)

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/opportunity-johnson-johnsons-nyse-jnj-110049724.html

Selling is often a harder decision than buying

 

Selling is often a harder decision than buying

"If you have bought a good quality stock at bargain or reasonable price, you can often hold forever." 

Investing is fun.  For every rule, there is always an exception. 

The main reasons for selling a stock are:

1.  When the fundamental has deteriorated permanently,  (Sell urgently)

2.  When it is overpriced, whereby the upside gain will be unlikely or very small and the downside loss will be big or certain.

We shall examine reason No. 2 through the property market.  The property market is also cyclical.  There were periods of booms and dooms. 

If you have a good piece of property that is always 100% tenanted and which gives you good consistent return (let's say 2x or 3x risk free FD rates), would you not hold this property forever?  The answer is probably yes.

Then, when would you sell this property?

Note that the valuation of property, as with stocks, is both objective and subjective.

Would you sell when someone offered to buy at 500% above your perceived market price?  

Probably yes, as this is obviously overpriced.  You could cash out and probably easily re-employ the money to earn better returns in another property (or properties) or other assets. 

Would you sell when someone offered to buy at 50% above your perceived market price? 

Maybe yes or maybe no.  You can offer your many reasons.  

However, all these will be based on the perceived future returns you can hope to get from this property in the future.  This is both objective based on past returns obtained and subjective and speculative on future returns.

However, unlike reason No.1 when you would need to sell urgently to another buyer to prevent sustaining a permanent loss, you need not sell just because someone offered to buy the property at high price. (However, there are also those who "flip properties" for their earnings; they will sell quickly for a quick profit.)  You will not suffer a loss but only a diminished return at worse.  You can take your time to work out the mathematics.  

You maybe surprised that you may still achieve a return higher at a time in the near future by rejecting the present immediate gain based on the present high price offered.  

Also, you would need to price in the lost opportunity cost when the property is sold at this price, even though it is 50% above the perceived normal market price.  Could you buy a similar quality property with the same sustainable increasing income or return by offering the same price?

Similarly, the same line of thinking can be applied to your selling of shares.  

When should you sell your shares?  

Yes, definitely when the fundamentals have deteriorated permanently.  The business has suffered for various reasons and going forward, the earnings will be permanently impaired and deteriorating.  

Yes, when the price is very very overpriced.  However, you need not sell your shares in good quality companies that you bought at fair or bargain price.  As long as the fundamentals are strong and the business is adding value, selling now at a higher price may mean losing the return that you could have obtained in the future years from owning this stock and the opportunity cost of reinvesting the cash into another stock of similar quality and returns.  

Once again, the importance of sound reasoning and doing the mathematics in making a decision whether to sell or not.

Is it not true, that the really big fortunes from common stocks have been garnered by those

• who made a substantial commitment in theearly years of a company in whose future they had great confidence and
• who held their original shares unwaveringly while they increased 10-fold or 100-fold or more in value?

The answer is "Yes."

http://myinvestingnotes.blogspot.com/2012/07/my-18-points-guide-to-successfully.html

Additional notes: 

Other reasons for selling a stock (or property) are:

• To raise cash to reinvest into another asset with better return.
• A certain stock (or property sector) may be over-represented in your portfolio due to recent rapid price rises and you need to reduce its weightage to reduce your risk of over-exposure in this single stock (or property sector).

Footnote: 

This is a true story. A rich man was approached by a buyer to sell his property. A few neighbouring lots were sold for $1.6 m the last 2 years. What offer will ensure that you sell your property to me?  Please let me know. The unwilling owner replied, "$5 million". There is a lesson here too. :-)

KSL at a glance

 

How to invest in the stock market?

Traditionally, stocks have provided high returns and have been a mainstay of most investors’ portfolios. Since a share of stock merely represents an ownership interest in an actual business, owning a portfolio of stocks just means we’re entitled to a share in the future income of all those businesses. If we can buy good businesses that grow over time and we can buy them at bargain prices, this should continue to be a good way to invest a portion of our savings over the long term. 

Following a similar strategy with international stocks (companies based outside of the country e.g, United States and others) for some of our savings would also seem to make sense (in this way, we could own businesses whose profits might not be as dependent on our local economy or our local currency)

QL at a glance

 

SAB at a glance

 

AFFIN at a glance

 

ASIAFILE at a glance

 

PHARMANIAGA at a glance

 

KELINGTON at a glance

 

PPB at a glance

 

MYEG at a glance

 

INARI at a glance

 

THPLANT at a glance

 

BMGREEN at a glance

 

A Check-List

 

CBIP at a glance

 

HARTALEGA at a glance

 

Berkshire Hathaway Inc. 2023 Shareholder Letter

 

Operating Results, Fact and Fiction

Let's begin with the numbers. The official annual report begins on K-1 and extends for 124 pages. It is filled with a vast amount of information - some important, some trivial.

Among its disclosures many owners, along with financial reporters, will focus on page K-72. There, they will find the proverbial "bottom line" labeled "Net earnings (loss)." The numbers read $90 billion for 2021, ($23 billion) for 2022 and $96 billion for 2023.

What in the world is going on?

You seek guidance and are told that the procedures for calculating these "earnings" are promulgated by a sober and credentialed Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB"), mandated by a dedicated and hard-working Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and audited by the world-class professionals at Deloitte & Touche ("D&T"). On page K-67, D&T pulls no punches: "In our opinion, the financial statementspresent fairly, in all material respects (italics mine), the financial position of the Company . . . . . and the results of its operations . . . . . for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2023"

So sanctified, this worse-than-useless "net income" figure quickly gets transmitted throughout the world via the internet and media. All parties believe they have done their job - and, legally, they have.

We, however, are left uncomfortable. At Berkshire, our view is that "earnings" should be a sensible concept that Bertie will find somewhat useful - but only as a starting point- in evaluating a business. Accordingly, Berkshire also reports to Bertie and you what we call "operating earnings." Here is the story they tell: $27.6 billion for 2021; $30.9 billion for 2022 and $37.4 billion for 2023.

The primary difference between the mandated figures and the ones Berkshire prefers is that we exclude unrealized capital gains or losses that at times can exceed $5 billion a day. Ironically, our preference was pretty much the rule until 2018, when the "improvement" was mandated. Galileo's experience, several centuries ago, should have taught us not to mess with mandates from on high. But, at Berkshire, we can be stubborn.

Make no mistake about the significance of capital gains: I expect them to be a very important component of Berkshire's value accretion during the decades ahead. Why else would we commit huge dollar amounts of your money (and Bertie's) to marketable equities just as I have been doing with my own funds throughout my investing lifetime?

I can't remember a period since March 11, 1942 - the date of my first stock purchase - that I have not had a majority of my net worth in equities, U.S.-based equities. And so far, so good. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell below 100 on that fateful day in 1942 when I "pulled the trigger." I was down about $5 by the time school was out. Soon, things turned around and now that index hovers around 38,000. America has been a terrific country for investors. All they have needed to do is sit quietly, listening to no one.

It is more than silly, however, to make judgments about Berkshire's investment value based on "earnings" that incorporate the capricious day-by-day and, yes, even year-by-year movements of the stock market. As Ben Graham taught me, "In the short run the market acts as a voting machine; in the long run it becomes a weighing machine."

Berkshire Hathaway Inc. 2023 Shareholder Letter

 

The Scorecard in 2023

Every quarter we issue a press release that reports our summarized operating earnings (or loss) in a manner similar to what is shown below. Here is the full-year compilation:

(in $ millions) 20232022

	2023 (in $ millions)	2022 (in $ millions)
Insurance-underwriting	$ 5,428	$(30)
Insurance-investment income	9,567	6,484
Railroad	5,087	5,946
Utilities and energy	2,331	3,904
Other businesses and miscellaneous items	14,937	14,549
Operating earnings	$37,350	$30,853

At Berkshire's annual gathering on May 6, 2023, I presented the first quarter's results which had been released early that morning. I followed with a short summary of the outlook for the full year: (1) most of our non-insurance businesses faced lower earnings in 2023; (2) that decline would be cushioned by decent results at our two largest non-insurance businesses, BNSF and Berkshire Hathaway Energy ("BHE") which, combined, had accounted for more than 30% of operating earnings in 2022; (3) our investment income was certain to materially grow because the huge U.S. Treasury bill position held by Berkshire had finally begun to pay us far more than the pittance we had been receiving and (4) insurance would likely do well, both because its underwriting earnings are not correlated to earnings elsewhere in the economy and, beyond that, property-casualty insurance prices had strengthened.

Insurance came through as expected. I erred, however, in my expectations for both BNSF and BHE. Let's take a look at each.

Rail is essential to America's economic future. It is clearly the most efficient way - measured by cost, fuel usage and carbon intensity - of moving heavy materials to distant destinations. Trucking wins for short hauls, but many goods that Americans need must travel to customers many hundreds or even several thousands of miles away. The country can't run without rail, and the industry's capital needs will always be huge. Indeed, compared to most American businesses, railroads eat capital.

BNSF is the largest of six major rail systems that blanket North America. Our railroad carries its 23,759 miles of main track, 99 tunnels, 13,495 bridges, 7,521 locomotives and assorted other fixed assets at $70 billion on its balance sheet. But my guess is that it would cost at least $500 billion to replicate those assets and decades to complete the job.

BNSF must annually spend more than its depreciation charge to simply maintain its present level of business. This reality is bad for owners, whatever the industry in which they have invested, but it is particularly disadvantageous in capital-intensive industries.

At BNSF, the outlays in excess of GAAP depreciation charges since our purchase 14 years ago have totaled a staggering $22 billion or more than $1 1/2 billion annually. Ouch! That sort of gap means BNSF dividends paid to Berkshire, its owner, will regularly fall considerably short of BNSF's reported earnings unless we regularly increase the railroad's debt. And that we do not intend to do.

Consequently, Berkshire is receiving an acceptable return on its purchase price, though less than it might appear, and also a pittance on the replacement value of the property. That's no surprise to me or Berkshire's board of directors. It explains why we could buy BNSF in 2010 at a small fraction of its replacement value.

North America's rail system moves huge quantities of coal, grain, autos, imported and exported goods, etc. one-way for long distances and those trips often create a revenue problem for back-hauls. Weather conditions are extreme and frequently hamper or even stymie the utilization of track, bridges and equipment. Flooding can be a nightmare. None of this is a surprise. While I sit in an always-comfortable office, railroading is an outdoor activity with many employees working under trying and sometimes dangerous conditions.

An evolving problem is that a growing percentage of Americans are not looking for the difficult, and often lonely, employment conditions inherent in some rail operations. Engineers must deal with the fact that among an American population of 335 million, some forlorn or mentally-disturbed Americans are going to elect suicide by lying in front of a 100-car, extraordinarily heavy train that can't be stopped in less than a mile or more. Would you like to be the helpless engineer? This trauma happens about once a day in North America; it is far more common in Europe and will always be with us.

Wage negotiations in the rail industry can end up in the hands of the President and Congress. Additionally, American railroads are required to carry many dangerous products every day that the industry would much rather avoid. The words "common carrier" define railroad responsibilities.

Last year BNSF's earnings declined more than I expected, as revenues fell. Though fuel costs also fell, wage increases, promulgated in Washington, were far beyond the country's inflation goals. This differential may recur in future negotiations.

Though BNSF carries more freight and spends more on capital expenditures than any of the five other major North American railroads, its profit margins have slipped relative to all five since our purchase. I believe that our vast service territory is second to none and that therefore our margin comparisons can and should improve.

I am particularly proud of both BNSF's contribution to the country and the people who work in sub-zero outdoor jobs in North Dakota and Montana winters to keep America's commercial arteries open. Railroads don't get much attention when they are working but, were they unavailable, the void would be noticed immediately throughout America.

A century from now, BNSF will continue to be a major asset of the country and of Berkshire. You can count on that.

Our second and even more severe earnings disappointment last year occurred at BHE. Most of its large electric-utility businesses, as well as its extensive gas pipelines, performed about as expected. But the regulatory climate in a few states has raised the specter of zero profitability or even bankruptcy (an actual outcome at California's largest utility and a current threat in Hawaii). In such jurisdictions, it is difficult to project both earnings and asset values in what was once regarded as among the most stable industries in America.

For more than a century, electric utilities raised huge sums to finance their growth through a state-by-state promise of a fixed return on equity (sometimes with a small bonus for superior performance). With this approach, massive investments were made for capacity that would likely be required a few years down the road. That forward-looking regulation reflected the reality that utilities build generating and transmission assets that often take many years to construct. BHE's extensive multi-state transmission project in the West was initiated in 2006 and remains some years from completion. Eventually, it will serve 10 states comprising 30% of the acreage in the continental United States.

With this model employed by both private and public-power systems, the lights stayed on, even if population growth or industrial demand exceeded expectations. The "margin of safety" approach seemed sensible to regulators, investors and the public. Now, the fixed-but-satisfactory- return pact has been broken in a few states, and investors are becoming apprehensive that such ruptures may spread. Climate change adds to their worries. Underground transmission may be required but who, a few decades ago, wanted to pay the staggering costs for such construction?

At Berkshire, we have made a best estimate for the amount of losses that have occurred. These costs arose from forest fires, whose frequency and intensity have increased - and will likely continue to increase - if convective storms become more frequent.

It will be many years until we know the final tally from BHE's forest-fire losses and can intelligently make decisions about the desirability of future investments in vulnerable western states. It remains to be seen whether the regulatory environment will change elsewhere.

Other electric utilities may face survival problems resembling those of Pacific Gas and Electric (PCG) and Hawaiian Electric (HE). A confiscatory resolution of our present problems would obviously be a negative for BHE, but both that company and Berkshire itself are structured to survive negative surprises. We regularly get these in our insurance business, where our basic product is risk assumption, and they will occur elsewhere. Berkshire can sustain financial surprises but we will not knowingly throw good money after bad.

Whatever the case at Berkshire, the final result for the utility industry may be ominous: Certain utilities might no longer attract the savings of American citizens and will be forced to adopt the public-power model. Nebraska made this choice in the 1930s and there are many public-power operations throughout the country. Eventually, voters, taxpayers and users will decide which model they prefer.

When the dust settles, America's power needs and the consequent capital expenditure will be staggering. I did not anticipate or even consider the adverse developments in regulatory returns and, along with Berkshire's two partners at BHE, I made a costly mistake in not doing so.

Enough about problems: Our insurance business performed exceptionally well last year, setting records in sales, float and underwriting profits. Property-casualty insurance ("P/C") provides the core of Berkshire's well-being and growth. We have been in the business for 57 years and despite our nearly 5,000-fold increase in volume - from $17 million to $83 billion- we have much room to grow.

Beyond that, we have learned - too often, painfully - a good deal about what types of insurance business and what sort of people to avoid. The most important lesson is that our underwriters can be thin, fat, male, female, young, old, foreign or domestic. But they can't be optimists at the office, however desirable that quality may generally be in life.

Surprises in the P/C business - which can occur decades after six-month or one-year policies have expired - are almost always negative. The industry's accounting is designed to recognize this reality, but estimation mistakes can be huge. And when charlatans are involved, detection is often both slow and costly. Berkshire will always attempt to be accurate in its estimates of future loss payments but inflation - both monetary and the "legal" variety - is a wild card.

I've told the story of our insurance operations so many times that I will simply direct newcomers to page 18. Here, I will only repeat that our position would not be what it is if Ajit Jain had not joined Berkshire in 1986. Before that lucky day - aside from an almost unbelievably wonderful experience with GEICO that began early in 1951 and will never end - I was largely wandering in the wilderness, as I struggled to build our insurance operation.

Ajit's achievements since joining Berkshire have been supported by a large cast of hugely-talented insurance executives in our various P/C operations. Their names and faces are unknown to most of the press and the public. Berkshire's lineup of managers, however, is to P/C insurance what Cooperstown's honorees are to baseball.

Bertie, you can feel good about the fact that you own a piece of an incredible P/C operation that now operates worldwide with unmatched financial resources, reputation and talent. It carried the day in 2023.