Yesterday I added Apple to the F Wall Street portfolio to the tune of 10% of our portfolio. I started watching it as it dropped below $160 on September 5th — the low end of my estimation of Apple's intrinsic value. Let's take a look at the purchase.
We first looked at Apple on October 23, 2007. At the time, it was trading between $182.76 and $188.60, and I felt it was somewhat overpriced, and that Apple was a $150-$180 per share business in 2007. No matter how exciting Apple's story was, I couldn't overpay for the "right" to own Apple's stock.
(Interestingly enough, pretty much everyone who writes about Apple and doesn't call for Apple $1,000 by the end of the week/month/year is an idiot in the eyes of the very vocal Apple-lovers around the web.)
At any rate, I didn't think Apple was a $186 business last year. So, when it topped $200 in December of 2007, I didn't bother looking at it any more. Appearing 30% or more overpriced relative to the company's intrinsic value, I put Apple on the back burner and began looking for other opportunities.
By February 26, 2008, Apple had fallen to as low as $115.44. This can happen a lot with "exciting" businesses — people buy the stock because they love the products and the price is zooming upwards. Soon, everyone wants to get on the bandwagon. The Yahoo! Finance forums are a great place to go to follow irrational joy and fear. Just look at what the people were saying in November and December of last year.
Then, the price begins to drop and, as it drops, more and more sales come in. Regular people that thought the stock was exciting begin to see their holdings drop — $190...$180...$170.
Oh my gosh. I'm going to lose everything. What was I thinking buying a $200 stock?
By the time Apple had bottomed out, investors that followed the hype and bought at $203 expecting, as one Yahoo! yahoo said, $650 a share by the end of 2008, were down as much as 43%.
Unfortunately, one of the problems of running a website and a business and a life is that I can't always run to my computer to write a post about what I'm buying or selling. So, F Wall Street missed an opportunity to add Apple to its portfolio.
Over the next seven months, I kept an eye on Apple, looking for an opportunity to buy under $125 or so. I figure Apple to be a $160 to $180 business in 2008; so, a 25% margin of safety (because it is a larger, more stable company) would put me in somewhere between $120 and $135.
By April of 2008, the price had climbed outside my comfort zone, and I had to wait. For five months, Mr. Market would not play nice. Apple stayed in that $160-$180 range, and I had to ignore it entirely. If things play out perfectly for Apple, buyers at $160 or $180 can stand to make nice returns over the long-term.
But, things don't always play out perfectly. "Exciting" is not a good enough reason to ditch a margin of safety.
Yesterday was a different story. As Apple's price began its September spiral down — opening at $172.40 on September 2, 2008 and dropping as low as $120.68 yesterday — it slowly moved its way up my radar. Yesterday, Mr. Market presented an opportunity to buy, and I put 90 shares into the F Wall Street portfolio — about 10% of the portfolio's assets — into Apple at $122.50.
I like Apple. I like their products. I like their commercials. But, it won't qualify as a "permanent" holding in the F Wall Street portfolio. If and when Apple gets back to the fair price range of $160 to $180, I'll sell and look for another opportunity.
Please wait while your comment is submitted. (It may take a moment.) Comments on F Wall Street are moderated which means that your comment will appear only after it has been reviewed by Joe. Comments are typically reviewed and approved (or denied) quickly, except between 11:30PM and 5:00AM (CST) – Joe has to sleep some time!
Thank you for participating on F Wall Street. Once your comment has been approved, it will appear here. While waiting, check out some other articles on the blog or click here to return to the article.
| Excel 2007 | | | Excel 2003 |
| (ZIP, 168kb) | (ZIP, 138kb) |
Thu @ 3:33PM | View comment
MinorityStakes said,
A couple comments regarding BBEP's latest communication with shareholders:* 2009 production just about equaled 2008 production even though capex was...
BreitBurn Energy: Playing the Commodities Crash
Sun @ 11:09AM | View comment
Eric T said,
Instead of inventory turnover, I use the cash conversion cycle, or CCC.It is more accurate for companies that manufacture and...
Understanding the True Profit Margin
Sun @ 5:48AM | View comment
Diversification said,
well it all depends on the correlation between the stocks you have choosen many big mutual funds are having the...
The Dangers Of Overdiversification
Sun @ 4:46AM | View comment
sandesh trivedi said,
Very well explained joe. i believe one must also take into account the nature of the product being manufactured while...
Understanding the True Profit Margin
Sat @ 10:19AM | View comment
Ron said,
Hi Joe,Is there a rule of thumb of percentage of net shares sold by insiders where we should start to...
When To Watch Out For Insider Selling
Sat @ 10:18AM | View comment
jan said,
joe, any thoughts on jackson hewitt? what were the risks that played out in your mind when you decided...
BreitBurn Energy: Playing the Commodities Crash
Allen
Sep 19th, 2008
47 comments
A plus ten percent gain in one day is not too shabby!
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Amit.D
Sep 19th, 2008
I have one question about your rationale:
I really want to know WHY you wouldn't permanently hold AAPL? Would it be the case EVEN IF the value increased? (this would be contradictory which is why I'm asking)
Awesome week for us ;)
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Alex MacKinnon
Sep 19th, 2008
3 comments
I ran AAPL on the fwallstreet_model-modified-for-sp500-2003-version-11
The 'dashboard' shows
Price Share Value Buy under
$140.91 $64.95 $48.71
also...
Company Valuation
Total Value $57,743
Per Share Value $64.95
Desired Margin of Safety 25%
Purchase Price $48.71
Current Price $140.91
Actual Discount 0%
Total Shares (Millions) 889.0
Questions:
Do you use this template in your valuation ?
What justifies your purchase in the $100's range? (is the valuation from this template completely wrong ? )
Look forward to hearing from you ! Thank-you for your time.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Allen
Sep 20th, 2008
47 comments
It seems that the growth and discount rates you are using in your model differ from Joe's assumed rates in his valuation.
From Joe's October 2007 post (linked above) on Apple:
"Let's assume Apple can grow owner earnings at 25% for the next two years. Then, growth will slow to 20% for the following two, ultimately capping off at 15% for years 5-10. After that, growth will slow to 5%.
Using a 9% discount rate, the value of Apple's future cash would be $126.7 billion. Add in $13 billion%u2014the last quarter's shareholder equity%u2014and Apple's value comes in around $140 billion. With 880 million shares outstanding, Apple's intrinsic value lies in the $159 per share range."
In the comments section of the Oct Apple analysis, there is also a link to "What discount rate should I use?"
Just keep in mind that Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) models are extremely sensitive to the growth and discounts rates you are assuming, as well as the "jump off" Free Cash Flow (FCF) value the model uses (the Excel spreadsheet uses the most recent year's FCF as the starting point, which may not always be a realistic assumption).
That's why I've doctored the Excel spreadsheet that you and I use to allow for the user to change the last free cash flow cell to input your own estimate, much in the same way that the sheet lets you input your own growth and discount rates.
All of this should just remind you why we need to allow for that "margin of safety". The DCF valuation is really an estimate, no matter how many decimal points you choose to put on the value.
Hope this helps.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Allen
Sep 20th, 2008
47 comments
Because the Excel spreadsheet shows a FCF Growth Rate of 5.6%, right?
To understand this, you have to understand how the model estimates the future growth rate.
If you look at the formulas used, you will see that the calculated FCF growth rate is the median FCF growth rate of several selected time periods (1998-2005, 1996-2006, 2000-2007, 1998-2003, 1999-2004, 2000-2005, 2001-2006, 2002-2007).
You'll notice that the FCF growth for 2001-2006 and 2002-2007 in the spreadsheet is 0.0%. How is that possible? If you look at the row above showing FCF by year, you'll see that the FCF for 2001 was -$47 million, and 2002 was -$85 million. The FCF for 2006 was $1.563 billion, and 2007 was $4.735 billion. What happens is that the formula can't compute what the growth rate from a negative number to a positive number is, so it comes out as zero! (And really, what is the growth rate from -$85M to $4.735B? All I know is that the company did a great job!).
Those 0% years drag down the median FCF growth rate over the time periods.
So you can't blindly take the median FCF that the spreadsheet calculates. This is why projecting the growth rate is an art combined with the science of mathematics. It works great if the company has a long history of positive cash flow, and the flow is predictable. But sometimes you don't even have ten year's of data. The model also gives you a distorted FCF calculation in those instances. There are so many ways to calcuate the future growth, you can eyeball the year-by-year growth, look at three year periods' growth, factor in management's CROIC (Joe's got a post on that, too), or just throw caution to the wind and guess. Whichever one ends up being the "correct" rate is dependent on a mix of experience, past performance, and luck. I would suggest that you never assume a growth rate of more than 25% for more than 10 years, but I should never say never. Let's just say that those types of growth scenarios are either unlikely and/or require everything to fall into place exactly. That's not exactly valuing stocks with a margin of safety.
OK, that was quite a lot of writing, but as you can see I'm enthusiastic about this stuff, and I hope I've shared with you what little I know about attempting to value stocks based on the future owner earnings (yes, it's a little different than free cash flow, so I'll plug Joe's explanation of it, because you can buy it here on his site. No, I don't know Joe personally!) of the business without trying to sound like I know it all.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Alex MacKinnon
Sep 20th, 2008
3 comments
Excellent answers. Clear, definitive, and well-explained, much appreciated. Just to let you know, it was the zero's that came up under 2001-2006 & 2002-2007 that were throwing me off. Once i made adjustments in the FCF and banished the negative numbers (while adjusting the others to even it out), the valuation started to come together (in my head!) and on the spreadsheet.
It is amazing to see how much the valuation changes after making the correct modifications. Thank you for your insight, I will make sure that i am more careful in examining where the rates are coming from.
Thanks again,
Alex
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
mosguy
Sep 21st, 2008
My two cents.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Amit Dutt
Sep 21st, 2008
Heck, you could do it on a piece of paper, its called Fundamental Analysis and DCF method for Intrinsic value.
As much as the Assumptions are correct, the spreadsheet WILL give you VALUABLE information as to whether the stock is overpriced or undervalued.
Nobody said the spreadhseet should be used in making a FINAL decision!
It is the BASIS of PRELIMINARY research to weed out opportunities from the rest.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Allen
Sep 21st, 2008
47 comments
Like Amit said, a discounted cash flow analysis is only one part of determining what the intrinsic value of the company is.
It helps to have a spreadsheet when you are doing DCF analysis for hundreds of companies.
Each company has many factors to consider, some unique to that one company, which may fall outside the scope of a spreadsheet's valuation.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Joe Ponzio
Sep 22nd, 2008
Joe on twitter
Ponzio Capital
Alex MacKinnon: I don't use that -- or any "super spreadsheet" -- in my valuations. Sometimes I'll open Excel to work out the numbers; sometimes I'll figure it out in my head. That said, a big thanks to...
Allen: Thanks for clarifying things! I couldn't have put it better myself. Those are the flaws of automatic spreadsheets. I can't stress enough -- investing is 99% art. The 1% science that goes into the spreadsheet can really mess things up if you don't look at the rationale and provide your human input and reasoning into the numbers.
I don't think spreadsheets are bad...unless they lead an investor to blindly trust the past to predict the future. Spending a month running a business will give any investor a whole new appreciation for not relying on the past. Every day, we have to fight to grow revenue at our company. The fact that it grew x% last year offers very little insight into this year's growth (or shrinkage) without an in-depth understanding of the business and our management.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
JC
Sep 22nd, 2008
To me, I think it's more important that the "business" jumps out at me rather than the "value" in the business. When they both them come together, you have found a wonderful thing. Remember what Buffett said... "Time is the enemy of the poor business and the friend of the great business. "
With that said, I do look for "asset" plays, where the value of business is significantly greater than the break up price or it's trading at 2-3x cash flows plus a lot of liquid assets on hand. Like Joe said, these are not "permanent" holding. An excellent example is Buffett's purchase of Sanborn Maps in late 1950s. Joe has a post on that too.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Mark
Sep 25th, 2008
15 comments
One theory I have is that stock values are inversly proportional to the amount of posts a partiular stock receives on finacial forums. Of course Fwall Street is the exception.
cheers
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
edward
Sep 25th, 2008
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
David
Sep 26th, 2008
1 comment
Appreciate as always.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Steve
Sep 29th, 2008
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Amit D.
Sep 29th, 2008
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
g
Oct 2nd, 2008
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Your Name
Mar 12th, 2010