Valuation multiples

Calculating and analysing the drivers of Equity Beta

Posted on

Equity beta is a valid measure of investment risk and an important metric in equity analysis. However, don’t just plug into your models the equity beta given by a data provider – beta should be analysed and adjusted by investors with the same diligence that is applied to performance metrics.

We present an interactive equity beta analysis model to assist investors in better understanding the drivers of equity beta and its application in equity valuation. The model features the calculation of beta (and its volatility and correlation components) for any investment for which price data is available in Microsoft Excel.

Continue reading “Calculating and analysing the drivers of Equity Beta” →

Intrinsic value and the equity risk premium

Posted on

Discounted cash flow and similar valuation methods are often cited as the only way to derive an intrinsic value of an equity investment that does not depend on how other assets are priced by the market. In contrast, valuation multiples, such as a price earnings ratio or EV/EBITDA, merely identify value relative to other assets. 

However, this view is not only simplistic – both DCF and valuation multiples can be used in a so-called absolute and relative sense – but it can also be incorrect. We argue that everything is relative in valuation. All equity values, including those presented in financial statements, are measured relative to either current or historical market prices

Continue reading “Intrinsic value and the equity risk premium” →

Do not use non-GAAP metrics in equity valuation

Posted on

A forecast of profit is used for both valuation multiples and as a starting point in deriving free cash flow for DCF valuations. But should you use a forecast of the reported IFRS or GAAP measure, or a forecast of the adjusted non-IFRS or non-GAAP alternative performance measure (APM) presented by management? 

We think equity valuations should be based on forecasts of reported IFRS or GAAP earnings (albeit with some adjustment related to intangible assets). Forecasts of management APMs can be useful for understanding trends in performance but using these in equity valuation is likely to introduce a structural bias.

Continue reading “Do not use non-GAAP metrics in equity valuation” →

Equity analysis using price-multiple charts

Posted on

Valuation multiples, such as a price earnings ratio or EV/EBITDA, can be based on either historical, current or forward prices. All three approaches individually provide valuable insights but combining them provides a bigger picture and facilitates further analysis.

A price-multiple chart shows historical, current and forward stock prices or enterprise values with an overlay of valuation multiples. The historical portion of the chart puts stock price changes in the context of historical profit forecasts and revisions. The forward portion provides further insights into current value and analyst target prices.

Continue reading “Equity analysis using price-multiple charts” →

EBITDA-AL: More letters but no more insight

Posted on

In the alphabet soup of investment metrics, a new variant on EBITDA has appeared in some IFRS based company presentations – EBITDA-AL, with the ‘AL’ meaning ‘after leases’. But does the new measure make any sense? And why use EBITDA-AL rather than the established EBITDA or EBITDAR?

All ‘earnings-before’ measures create comparability issues, omit key components of operating performance, and should be interpreted with caution. We think EBITDA-AL is worse than EBITDA, which never was that useful in the first place. Better to use EBIT, EBITA or EBITDA-AMCE, where maintenance capital expenditure replaces D&A.

Continue reading “EBITDA-AL: More letters but no more insight” →

Non-controlling interest and NCI put options

Posted on

Although accounting for non-controlling interest (NCI) is generally relatively straightforward, including it in equity valuation is more challenging. The reverse is true for NCI that is subject to a put option. In this case the accounting is complex, with different and potentially inconsistent classification and measurement, but useful additional data is available for valuation.

We discuss the accounting and valuation implications of non-controlling interests and use the put option written by LVMH over the non-controlling interest in its subsidiary Moët Hennessy to illustrate the challenges and opportunities for investors.

Continue reading “Non-controlling interest and NCI put options” →

DCF terminal values: Using the right exit multiple

Posted on

If a valuation multiple, such as EV/EBITDA, is used to calculate a DCF terminal value, the multiple should reflect expected business dynamics at the end of the explicit forecast period and not at the valuation date. This is best achieved by basing the exit multiple on forward-priced multiples for the selected group of comparable companies.

We explain and illustrate with an interactive model the use of forward-priced multiples in DCF. We also discuss the choice of multiple (including why EV/EBITDA may not be the best) and whether to apply the exit multiple to reported or adjusted profit.

Continue reading “DCF terminal values: Using the right exit multiple” →

Price to book versus ROE analysis: A case of random numbers?

Posted on

The comparison of return on equity with price to book (or the enterprise value equivalents) is a common form of analysis. Some investors claim that the often high correlation between these measures indicates the importance of return on capital. However, all is not what it seems.

This analysis is, in reality, a comparison of price earnings ratios. Adding capital employed may provide additional insight but remember that aggregate returns are most value relevant if they are a predictor of forward-looking incremental returns.

Continue reading “Price to book versus ROE analysis: A case of random numbers?” →

Real-estate and equity valuation – Opco-Propco analysis

Posted on

Companies that use property assets in their business may adopt very different real-estate strategies. Ownership versus leasing and the choice of different lease structures can significantly impact key performance and valuation metrics. We show that separating the operating and property components, using ‘Opco-Propoc’ analysis, improves comparability.

Some investors argue that the new IFRS 16 lease accounting reduces comparability. We disagree. In our view IFRS 16 reveals important differences that prior accounting concealed. However, IFRS 16 does increase the relevance of the Opco-Propco analysis that we advocate.

Continue reading “Real-estate and equity valuation – Opco-Propco analysis” →

Intangible asset accounting and the ‘value’ false negative

Posted on

Few people seem to be satisfied with intangible asset accounting; depending on your perspective, there is either not enough or far too much of it. What is clear is that many valuable intangible assets go unrecognised in financial statements. The result is distorted financial ratios, including price to book.

The lack of intangible asset recognition means that most investors know to use book value with caution. This may not be the case for index providers, ‘smart beta’ funds and quant-based investing where price to book ratios are used to identify ‘value’ stocks and related indices.

Continue reading “Intangible asset accounting and the ‘value’ false negative” →

Why you should ‘forward price’ valuation multiples

Posted on

The number of alternative valuation multiples can seem endless. Many different metrics, such as EBITDA and EPS, can be combined with different measures of value, such as the stock price and enterprise value. But there is a further variation that often seems to be overlooked – the pricing basis.

Valuation multiples can be based on a historical price (or EV), a current price, or the less commonly used forward price. We advocate greater use of forward priced multiples. They are more comparable and relevant for relative valuation comparisons and provide a better basis for terminal values in DCF analysis.

Continue reading “Why you should ‘forward price’ valuation multiples” →

Enterprise value: Our preference for valuation multiples

Posted on

Enterprise value multiples allow for better comparisons where capital structure differs and they provide a clearer focus on the core business. EV multiples also more reliably capture the cost of debt finance and other non-common stock claims; the amount reflected in net income and earnings per share can be out of date and incomplete.

Although they are generally our preferred approach, EV multiples present computational challenges that are not present in equity multiples. All valuation multiples have limitations and are less rigorous than full discounted cash flow analysis.

Continue reading “Enterprise value: Our preference for valuation multiples” →

Linking value drivers and enterprise value multiples

Posted on

Target valuation multiples that are implied by key value drivers are a great way to better understand equity valuation and how the characteristics of a company affect value. The approach incorporates the same links with underlying value drivers on which DCF is based, but in a simplified way that is more intuitive than a full DCF model.

Our target multiple model can be used to estimate a deserved valuation multiple for a company, sector or index, to reverse engineer returns or growth implied by a current market valuation multiple and to derive a terminal value multiple in DCF analysis.

Continue reading “Linking value drivers and enterprise value multiples” →

Interactive model: Target enterprise value multiples

Posted on

Use this model to derive ‘target’ enterprise value multiples that are consistent with specified value drivers, including measures of growth, return on investment, margins and capital intensity. The model is based on an underlying 2-stage DCF methodology. We explain its derivation, the key assumptions and how to select appropriate value driver inputs.

Continue reading “Interactive model: Target enterprise value multiples” →

Should you ignore intangible amortisation? – AstraZeneca

Posted on

Like many companies, AstraZeneca excludes intangible asset amortisation from its adjusted performance metrics. The stock currently trades at a price earnings ratio of 23x based on ‘core’ 2018 earnings, but without the add back the PE would be about 37x. Is the add back justified? And if so do companies add back the right amount?

The intangible amortisation problem in equity analysis arises from the inconsistency between the accounting for purchased and self-developed intangible assets. We argue that the accounting treatment of subsequent expenditure, either capitalised or expensed, determines the appropriate adjustment to reported earnings.

Continue reading “Should you ignore intangible amortisation? – AstraZeneca” →

EV to EBITDA multiples must be consistent

Posted on

Swiss pharma company Novartis provides investors with its own calculation of an EV/EBITDA multiple. However, in our view, the EV is inconsistent with EBITDA. We review the company’s calculation and suggest amendments to ensure it better captures the value of Novartis’ core business.

To derive useful valuation multiples, you must be consistent. Our main adjustment to the Novartis calculation relates to the value of their stake in fellow Swiss pharma company Roche.

Continue reading “EV to EBITDA multiples must be consistent” →

Price earnings ratios – DCF in disguise

Posted on

Are you trying to identify what is ‘priced in’ to a current stock price or work out a terminal value in a DCF analysis? A target valuation multiple calculation may be the answer. We present a simple interactive model.

Many dismiss valuation multiples as being too simplistic; however, multiples are just DCF in disguise. You can derive a price earnings ratio with the same value drivers as you would use in a discounted equity cash flow model.

Continue reading “Price earnings ratios – DCF in disguise” →

Enterprise value – calculation and mis-calculation

Posted on

Valuation methods based on enterprise value have become the benchmark in equity valuation. Most of you will have analysed equity investments using valuation multiples based on a market enterprise value or have applied absolute valuation methods to derive a target enterprise value.

In simplistic terms enterprise value is market capitalisation plus net debt; but is that good enough? In many situations we think not.  We review the key building blocks of enterprise value to assist you in deriving relevant valuation metrics.

Continue reading “Enterprise value – calculation and mis-calculation” →