Tag Archives: douglas-tengdin

Asset Values And Valuation

What’s a stock worth? “The market is overvalued.” “No, it’s fair.” “No, you’re missing the point – the economy has changed.” “What? Are saying it’s different this time?” “It’s always different.” Arguments over stock-market valuation have been around ever since stocks have traded. In many ways, the purpose of an open stock market is to discover what the clearing price for a company should be – what price satisfies both the buyers and sellers of a company’s shares. But just knowing something’s price doesn’t tell you what it’s worth. As Warren Buffett is fond of saying , “price is what you pay, value is what you get.” There are two general ways to value an asset: bottom-up, fundamental analysis that focusses on the present value of expected cash flows; and top-down, relative-value analysis that looks at the entire market and the range of investment alternatives. The first examines a specific company; the second evaluates an entire industry – or even the whole economy. Any economic asset generates cash over time. This cash flow can be forecasted, and the results discounted to present value. With bonds, this is fairly straightforward; the cash-flow is contractual. With stocks earnings can be more volatile, but they can also grow over time. We compensate for this by increasing the discount rate. Lower risk means a lower interest rate. Net present value formula. Source: Wikipedia The top-down approach looks at any asset and asks, “Compared to what?” So we use various financial ratios – price/earnings, price-to-book, enterprise value over free cash flow. With bonds, we focus on the “spread” – their level of yield above comparable risk-free government bonds. By checking what else is out there – playing the field – investors can see how what they own looks relative to everything else. Map of S&P 500 PE ratios. Source: Financial Visualization Both methods have their merits: bottom-up analysis generates an intrinsic value – something that is fairly stable over time. Top-down valuation looks at the range of investment alternatives. No investment, after all, is an island. But folks who only focus on bottom-up analysis can get distracted by the details and miss the forest for the trees. Top-down studies can be too volatile: the world may always be changing, but it doesn’t change that much from day to day. And human nature never really changes. Financial analysis tries to answer the question of what an asset is really worth. It’s a good question. In the end, though, a stock is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it.

Timing Is Everything

The length of time investors have to plan for is the single most powerful factor in their investment process. If time is short, investments with the highest potential return are the least desirable, because they entail the greatest risk. But given enough time, assets that appear risky become desirable. Time transforms investments from least attractive to most attractive – and vice versa. Our time horizon has a major impact on our investment strategy. This is true in the natural world as well. I’ve been to the coastal redwoods in California, and they’re awesome. John Steinbeck called them “ambassadors from another time.” In many ways, they are. They regularly reach ages of 600 years or more, and some are over 2000 years old. Their natural resistance to disease and insects allows them to grow slowly and gradually. But they have to. The high rainfall in their coastal habitat leaves the soil with few nutrients. By contrast, stumbling into a thicket of pin cherries in the Northeast woods can leave you breathless, but in a different way. The undergrowth can be so thick it’s easy to get disoriented. Pin cherry trees sprout and grow quickly, taking advantage of any disturbance in the forest canopy. But they only live 20 to 40 years, and they’re an important source of food for many types of animals. It would be foolish to say that either tree is more successful. Each has adapted to its environment. What works in one context doesn’t work in another. That’s why, for investors, the typical time period we use to calculate returns – one year – may be misleading. A single year simply doesn’t match the time available to different investors with their differing objectives and constraints. Different assets – and asset mixes – are appropriate in different circumstances. (click to enlarge) Average return and dispersion of return for various asset classes over different time periods, 1926-2010. Source: Jay Sanders, CPA So if you’re worried about the market, be sure to ask yourself how much time you have until you need the money. Because the quickest way to turn a temporary fluctuation into a permanent loss is to sell the asset. Share this article with a colleague