This post is a response to a question in another thread about switching from trading to investing. (hopefully Ill be forgiven here for being off topic.)
It’s just 1 persons experience – everybody else’s experience past or future may be different.
Updating some charts with month end data.
GDP Regressed Earnings telling a very interesting story in this one.
Updating some charts with month end data.
GDP Regressed Earnings telling a very interesting story in this one.
View attachment 62209
Craft, do you have any explanation you could link to? I am not familiar with "GDP Regressed Earnings".
Also, Craft I have been reading thru this thread from the beginning because it has a lot to teach me in my strategy and also the mechanics of DCF calculations using FCFE. I stumbled across your post on page 6 about rebalancing, https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=23385&page=5&p=708630&viewfull=1#post708630
It is a question I have been struggling with over the whole easter break! I looked at both my portfolios, personal and SMSF and did a decision tree exercise on whether there were any companies I should sell or sell down my holdings in. The initial conclusion was to sell down all positions to rebalance back towards original stake size, where they had become more than 10% out of balance.
I revisted the decision to rebalance and basically ran a detailed "why not to rebalance" case, costing out a range of outcomes. (drop in price, price stable, increase in price.) - and came to a contrary conclusion that it didnt really make sense, it was "cutting the flowers" as Peter Lynch calls it, and the benefits if the price did drop were illusory in a long term hold strategy anyway.
The only other benefit iI was left with was that it did free up cash for other investments, but thats not certainly a benefit - if the other investments are not at least as good as the one i sell out of!
So as I sit now I am inclined to allow the positions to run, there are obvious benefits in markets being shut for 4 days!
Was the post I have linked to your final view on rebalancing or has it changed again?
...but if the debt is 0, then it can end up with a low score (because EV/Debt*0.6=0).
As an example I get a Z score of 1.29 for DWS if I put in debt of 0, but if I put in $1 of debt I get a score of 36216001.29!!
Am I having a blonde moment here?
If debt is 0, you'd most likely be getting a divide by zero error in your calcs.
The original Z-score formula was as follows:
Z = 1.2T1 + 1.4T2 + 3.3T3 + 0.6T4 + 0.99T5
T1 = Working Capital / Total Assets. Measures liquid assets in relation to the size of the company.
T2 = Retained Earnings / Total Assets. Measures profitability that reflects the company's age and earning power.
T3 = Earnings Before Interest and Taxes / Total Assets. Measures operating efficiency apart from tax and leveraging factors. It recognizes operating earnings as being important to long-term viability.
T4 = Market Value of Equity / Book Value of Total Liabilities. Adds market dimension that can show up security price fluctuation as a possible red flag.
T5 = Sales/ Total Assets. Standard measure for total asset turnover (varies greatly from industry to industry).
Altman Z Score - my understanding of how it is calculated based on here:
For DWS I used the 2014 figures as follows:
t1 = 22.282/73.799 = 0.301928
t2 = 25.603/73.799 = 0.346929
t3 = 18.589/73.799 = 0.251887
t4 = 108.761/13.439 = 8.092938 (MV of Equity based on closing price 7 April 2015)
t5 = 94.397/73.799 = 1.279109
Z = (0.301928*1.2) + (0.346929*1.4) + (0.251887*3.3) + (8.092938*0.6) + (1.279109*0.99)
Z = 0.362314 + 0.4857 + 0.831227 + 4.855763 + 1.266318
Z = 7.801322
Ok, back on topic! Another company I have been studying for a while is TGR, most of the metrics reflect my belief that it is undervalued currently, but my FCFE calculation comes back very low, hence my DCF valuation is also very low.
I am a complete ameteur compared to you guys when it comes to understanding cash flows and their valuation, but it looks to me like the main reasons for the very low FCFE is the proportionally high delta in working capital and pretty high capex.
The valuation though ends up in a range that is south of $1 - suggesting its very expensive at $3.50.
When i look at a FCF valuation, which is what I used to use, so much simpler, just net operating cash flow less capex, i get a valuation which is many orders of magnitude bigger. I guess thats why a simple FCF analysis is not very reliable!
I suspect the delta in working capital is the driver for the low valuation, in a case like this do you guys then look back at a couple more periods and see if this was an anomoly?
If it turns out to be an anomoly how do you allow for it in a valuation model?
Every Free Cash Flow model requires discrimination between maintenance & growth capex/opex. Have you adjusted for growth Capex in PPE and Growth Opex in biological assets etc?
No, I used the line from the Cash Flow, "Payment for property, plant and equipment" as my proxy for Capex.
There is no obvious explanation of the distinction between capex/opex in the report that I can see - but then I wouldnt knwo where to look!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?