The value of a company lies entirely in the future, and it is our job to predict that future with a degree of accuracy and confidence. To choose a growth rate, we must delve into the inner workings of a company and see how quickly it will grow internally.
Enter CROIC.
By the way, Babui does a good job of predicting the future as he anticipated today's post.
CROIC tells us how effectively our company can generate cash from money invested in the business. (If you are new to CROIC, check out What The Heck Is CROIC?) Over the long haul, businesses will grow at the rate of CROIC. That is, your company will grow at the rate at which it can turn invested dollars into excess cash—and reinvest those dollars for excess cash.
If your company has $1,000 of invested capital and generates $100 of free cash flow (FCF) this year, it has earned a CROIC of 10% ($100/$1,000). Now what? That FCF will be reinvested in the business, kicking the invested capital up to $1,100. On that $1,100, let's assume that your company can continue to kick off CROIC at 10%—generating $110 of FCF for the next year.
And so on and so forth forever. Now, in the above example, your company is going to grow at roughly 10% for the long-term. In some years, it may slash expenses or increase capital expenditures giving it a higher or lower CROIC (and higher or lower FCF growth) in certain periods. Still, at the end of the day, your company will grow at roughly 10%.
At the annual meeting, Mohnish Pabrai talked a bit about returns on invested capital and growth rates. To paraphrase, he explained that, no matter how quickly the company was growing cash, it couldn't do so at high rates forever. The reason: the power of compounding.
If a company had a CROIC of, say, 35% forever, it would double in size every 2.3 years. But that can't go on forever for two reasons:
Take a look at Google. Now, there isn't enough of a history there for me to make an honest assessment of its value and, because it is in a rapidly changing industry, I would normally pass anyways. Still, let's use it as an example.
In its short history as a public company, Google's FCF has grown from $219 million in 2003 to nearly $1.7 billion in 2006—an astounding 66% a year. That can't go on forever because Google can not possibly grow at that rate forever (it is an economic impossibility).
If we look at Google's CROIC, we see that it is generating less cash per dollar invested today than it was in 2003—about 12% CROIC vs. 34% four years ago. Google is essentially generating less and less cash for each dollar it generated in the past—an indication that it may have an even harder time reinvesting cash in the future. And slowed growth is likely imminent at some point in the not-too-distant-future.
If you try to predict the future of Google and use 66% as a future growth rate, you'll see a business that is worth roughly $3,000 a share today. If you use CROIC, you'll see a business worth roughly $225 a share. Which should you rely on? (Answer: I have no idea.)
Though my growth rates may seem arbitrary, they are anything but. I prefer to project the future cash by using 75% of historical CROIC—slowed 10% in years 4-6 and another 10% in 7-10. No matter how much cash my company can generate in any given year, the true value of the company lies in how well it can reinvest that cash for growth.
After all, if a company has to fight for every penny of growth, it will eventually lose. As Peter Lynch said:
Go for a business that any idiot can run—because sooner or later, any idiot is probably going to run it.
Management can generate cash in any given year (FCF); still, a great business generates excess cash on its own at high rates (CROIC). Invest in the business, not just the management. After all, it is our capital that is invested and our return is tied to how well the company can use that capital to generate even more capital.
I will not be around the rest of the week. My wife is due tomorrow morning (if not today!) I likely will not be responding to comments or e-mails until the weekend at the earliest. Still, ask away because there are plenty of visitors here who "get it" and are more than happy to help. (Thanks all for helping build a great community here on F Wall Street!)
And like every other time I'm away from the computer: No, I will not be watching my stocks!
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) |
Sun @ 9:46AM | View comment
trading for a living said,
I really like this blog post, it has some great info. Thank you and keep up good work.
A Glance At Sharper Image
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
Michael R
Oct 16th, 2007
2 comments
Congratulations on the newcomer and good luck with the accompanying life changing.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Joe Ponzio
Oct 16th, 2007
Joe on twitter
Ponzio Capital
The methodology is the same. The difference here is that, when FCF growth and CROIC are greatly different, you are better off using CROIC instead of FCF growth for future assumptions. In the case of JNJ, FCF growth and CROIC were close enough that you could use either one.
Hope that helps.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Peer
Oct 16th, 2007
6 comments
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Peer
Oct 16th, 2007
6 comments
MSFT has a CROIC around 25%. By giving away excess cash as dividends, they have a high CROIC. But their FCF growth is much below this. In this case should we be using the FCF growth.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Allen
Oct 16th, 2007
47 comments
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Fred
Oct 17th, 2007
Read your piece on WMT today. I think that you are over thinking. The stock has gotten so cheap you don't need much growth to make it a worthwhile investment.
Why do you use discount rate of 9%. WMT corporate bonds trade much lower than that and they have zero growth potential and are fully exposed to inflation. Truth is quite simply WMT is a good deal now at 7.5% earnings yield on purchase price vs. 6.25% or less on the bonds?
Keeping it simple.
-Fred
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Jason Z.
Oct 18th, 2007
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Babui
Oct 18th, 2007
8 comments
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Robert Crawford
Oct 18th, 2007
24 comments
In short, you are selling your savings too cheaply if demanding just 1.25 percent return over the corporate bond.
Graham's original argument was that stable companies (i.e., those with stable earnings growth) could be more accurately valued because their intrinsic value could be determined in the same fashion as a bond (i.e., discounted cash flow models). Despite this, Graham recognized that firm performance was not assured over any period of time, and he required a margin of safety discount. Joe goes a step further with CROIC, in that this is what allows a firm to weather economic and sector down-turns. The intent is to follow Pabrai's Dhandho analogy of severely limiting down-side risk while maximizing upside potential, as the market belatedly recognizes intrinsic value -- "Heads I win. Tails I don't lose too much."
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Jason Z.
Oct 19th, 2007
It is all a guessing game. Even if CROIC was 3% and FCF was 10%, but you had a reason to believe that the future cash would grow at 20%, use 20%. The past is a guide, and CROIC is a better guide than FCF over long periods.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Art
Jan 16th, 2008
2 comments
In the future I will ensure I use the search tool more effectively.
Love your blog!
keep it up!
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
meiko
Jan 13th, 2010
1 comment
I have seen your arguments, but growth rates are most of the time judgmental and arbitrary.That's precisely where the concept of Margin of safety comes. I think it would be best to run different scenarios and see how the value look like.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Eric T replied,
I agree. Run a few scenarios with different growth rates and take the median.
You can do this with a nice dcf calculator with this link:
http://www.focusinvestor....
You can figure out IV with different growth rates and then below you can put in four different IV's you came up with and the likelyhood (percentage wise) that it will happen. It kind of lets you get a medium intrinsic value considering different outcomes.
One thing that I do before any investment I make, is I try to map out a worst case scenario. Seth Klarman does this and has spoke about it. Try to imagine a worst case scenario for your company, and imagine how the growth rate would be effected long term, and see what IV would be and what the company would look like in that scenario.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
1/18/10
Your Name
Mar 14th, 2010