HOME PAGE
Joe Ponzio's F Wall Street
INTRODUCTION
what is F Wall Street?
THE BLOG
for non-conventionalists
RESOURCES
coming soon
CONTACT ME
e-mail Joe Ponzio
Joe Ponzio's F Wall Street
You are here: Home ›› F Wall Street Blog ›› Valuing A Business ›› Does Discounted Cash Flow Always Work?

Does Discounted Cash Flow Always Work?

Aug
24

Interestingly enough, quick asked a question that was going to be the topic for today. When does the discounted cash flow model work? When does it not? Is this a method that can be used for all businesses at all times?

The short answer is: The discounted cash flow method always works for valuing a business. But, I'm not known for short answers, so let's explore the weaknesses in this model. Considering that my spreadsheets have been taken, used, and modified around the web, I think I should qualify a few of the assumptions in there.

Margin Of Error Safety

In order to calculate the intrinsic value of a business, you need to predict, with a degree of certainty, the future owner earnings of that business. You don't have to be precisely correct, so long as you are not completely wrong. To protect yourself from error, you need to buy at substantial discounts.

Example: If you predict that owner earnings will grow at 14% for ten years, and it only grows at 9%, you should still make money. Why? Margin Of Safety. Johnson & Johnson has a market cap of $193 billion which means the stock market does not believe that Johnson & Johnson's business is more than that.

At what rate would Johnson & Johnson have to grow in order to be worth $192 billion today? About 4%. Any higher and Johnson & Johnson is underpriced; lower and it is overpriced today.

Predicting The Future With Certainty

In order for your discounted cash flow model to work, you need to be able to reasonably predict the future owner earnings, regardless of the past. That also goes back to my Amylin analysis. I got quite a bit of hate mail from that, but here's why I don't like it for me—or for most investors:

At this point, it is nearly impossible to predict the future owner earnings of that (or any) business that has never generated any. There is, in my opinion, no way to know how Amylin will turn revenues into cash for us silent partners. Because of that, there is no way to know if Amylin is, in fact, a $6 billion company.

For any discounted cash flow model to work, you need to have solid reasoning and data. Simple, predictable, established businesses offer that; the "next hot stock" usually doesn't.

The Discount Rate and What It Means

Your discount rate affects everything—from your margin of safety to your future expectations. Buffett has said:

Don't use different discount rates for different businesses...it doesn't really matter what rate you use as long as you are being intellectually honest and conservative about future cash flows.

If you are using a 15% discount rate, understand that you'll end up with lower valuations and will need to accept a smaller margin of safety (25% vs. 50%). Why? Look at the Coca-Cola example from 1988. At that time, with a 15% discount rate, Coca-Cola was valued at $59 a share. Had Buffett tried to use a 15% discount rate and a 50% margin of safety, he would have never bought Coca-Cola because it never hit $29.50 a share in 1988 or 1989.

Using a lower rate—8.85%, the 10-Yr. treasury—Coca-Cola's value in 1988 would have been closer to $91 a share. With a 50% Margin of Safety, Coca-Cola was attractive at Buffett's purchase price around and under $45 a share.

Consistency

It may not always be practical to assume that the future owner earnings will grow at exactly one rate for ten years, then exactly another rate for the next ten. As I've said before, there is an art to investing...not just the science of the spreadsheet.

You don't have to predict the future with bulls eye precision; still, some businesses will certainly not be able to grow consistently for ten years before they level off. Some companies may only have five years left before growth slows; some may go on for much longer than ten years.

If you're not sure how long the business has left, pass. You can make gobs of money in simple, giant companies.

You Don't Need High Risk For High Returns

It is in our nature to look (or hope) for the next undiscovered Microsoft, but we don't need to. You can make gobs of money in slow-growing, boring businesses. It all depends on your purchase price and how long it takes for the stock market to bring the price up to the business' intrinsic value.

If a business is valued at $100 a share but its stock is $50 a share, here's how your money would grow based on a 5% growth in the business and the time it took for the market to finally price the business back to its intrinsic value:

 

  Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr 8 Yr 9 Yr 10
Intrinsic Value $ 105 $ 110 $ 116 $ 122 $ 128 $ 134 $ 141 $ 148 $ 155 $ 163
Annual Return 110% 48% 32% 25% 21% 18% 16% 15% 13% 13%

 

Once the difference between price and value gets too wide (beyond 25% to 50%), it often takes two or three years for that gap to close again. Still, if it took seven years, you probably wouldn't be too upset with a 16% average annual return and little risk.

There Is More Than One Way To Skin A Business

Next week I'll compare a few different methods for valuing businesses. Which is the best? As you'll see, some will make absolutely no sense except that they've been backtested well, some can be used for trading stocks, and some will bring you to exactly the same conclusions as F Wall Street.

In the end, it all depends on what you want out of your portfolio. Me? I like high returns with low risk, little excitement, and low maintenance. I'm not much of a gambler...except in Vegas.

So, quick, to answer your question: Is your business predictable, consistent, and sporting a moat and large margin of safety? Do you want to find the value, ignore the markets, and wait for the price to catch up to the intrinsic value? If yes, yes, yes, yes, etc, then you can use the discounted cash flow model on TGT.

 

Filed under Valuing A Business Print this article
Comment on this [ 5 ] By: Joe Ponzio

comments

Joe,

I've been using your spreadsheet with a few companies to try and get a feel for how it works. For HOG, for instance, I get a per share value of $91.28. The median growth in FCF, however, was a hefty 16.1%.

While continued growth for the next ten years at that rate is possible, of course, in my judgment (best guesstimate based on my research, really, I'm no pro) it seems likely that the growth of HOG may be slowing.

I'm sure there is no pat answer for my question, but I'm interested to hear your thoughts. I would like to lower my estimation of the growth of FCF for HOG over the next 10 years, to build in a more comfortable margin of safety, but I don't know what factors to consider to come to an appropriate estimation. I've plugged in various percentages to see how that affects the per share value, but I don't know how to evaluate which one I should use.

Any guidelines here, or do I just go with my gut?

By the way, you are right on with your comments on 401(k) plans. I love the idea of 401(k) plans, but I'm not thrilled with my investment selection. I tried to push for a self-directed option a couple of years ago, but that never went anywhere. In fact, everyone thought I was crazy for even wanting to try and pick my own investments. My 401(k) is flat for the year. It generally underperforms the market, but follows it up and down. My personal investment account with Scottrade shows an IRR of almost 30% YTD (tracked through Quicken). I'm absolutely convinced that I will not do that well for an extended period of time. But I'm also pretty convinced I can do better than my 401(k) mutual fund choices. I'm thinking about changing employment in the next year, though, so I will probably roll the 401(k) into self-directed IRA if possible.

Your site is great for providing information that any intelligent and interested person can apply to their personal investing education. Keep it up!

Justin

by Justin on August 24, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Hi Joe,

A couple of questions

a) one of the biggest challenges, I see in using free cash flows is the complexity in being able to segregate capital expenditure into core capital expenditure that is used for maintenance and the 'growth' capital expenditure ie actually owners' earnings used to fund growth . Your WalMart example is a classic case-if one went just by the free cash flow as indicated by the finance websites, we would dismiss Walmart as not an attractive buy as the CAGR of free cash flow has over the last 10 years has been flat

b) while using a median across various time frames does address fluctuations, do you think that we should look at the standard deviation of cash flows over the 10 year period and build a margin of safety based on the volatility (also factoring in the economic moat) e.g a narrow moat company with a high volatility in free cash flows (we need to define 'high') would require the highest MOS and vice versa

Your blog is becoming a daily read-the content keeps getting better

Cheers

Sridhar

by sridhar on August 25, 2007 at 9:18 AM
Justin,

I started looking into HOG yesterday but got sidetracked. I'll finish this weekend and get back to you on Monday or Tuesday.

Sridhar,

There are two ways to go about valuing a business: the no-brainer way and the dig-deeper way. If you don't want to be an analyst and dig deeper into companies like Wal-Mart, you don't have to. You'll have less investment choices by eliminating the "Wal-Marts", but you'll still uncover great companies. On the other hand, you can choose to turn over more rocks and dig into more companies...and find more opportunities. There are so many companies out there that you don't have to feel bad about missing some and sticking your money in the clear winners.

As far as standard deviation, I think that would make your focus too narrow. In business, anything can happen in one or two years. Revisit Calculating The Value Of A Business - Part IV and you'll see Coca-Cola's consistency vs. Campbell's inconsistency. At one point, Coca-Cola's owner earnings dropped 2%, then soared 68% the following year. That would have thrown off a standard deviation and perhaps portrayed Coca-Cola as a "risky" venture.

In the end, however, the narrowest moat companies with the craziest cash flows would definitely require a gigantic MOS. But, do you really need/want to invest in those? (Maybe, just asking) Just because a stock can be valued and bought at a substantial discount doesn't mean it should.

My two cents - and thanks for coming back every day!

by Joe Ponzio on August 25, 2007 at 10:46 AM
Joe,

I was looking at FDC -company with great cash flows (median of 14%) - if I use the FCF model, then value is $ 52 per share; FDC is recently being acquired by KKR at $34 -am I missing something? how could there be so much of a variance?

Regards

Sridhar

by sridhar on August 29, 2007 at 2:57 AM
Sridhar,

That is the entire idea - buy companies for less that their actual value. For us, that means buying underpriced stocks. In the merger and acquisition world, that means making $50 acquisitions for $30.

If you get to the point where you're buying entire companies, your valuation methods and approach will be the same. Find a $1.00 business, buy it for $0.50 to $0.75.

by Joe Ponzio on August 29, 2007 at 9:22 AM

 

post a comment

Comments are moderated which means they will not show up on F Wall Street until they are approved. Please keep all comments on topic and clean.

Your name

Your e-mail (optional, will not be displayed)

Comment: