A New Way to Value the Market

I came across this article by Geoff Colvin, senior editor from Fortune magazine, and I thought it is an interesting article to share with my readers. The article discussed about the valuation of company using the economic value added (EVA). I have reposted the article in my blog here for your reading.

Are stocks cheap yet? That slippery, eternal question is worth a look right now because a remarkable new set of data has just become available, allowing us to analyze the market in ways we never could before. I wish I could tell you that this new trove of numbers reveals that stocks are a screaming buy. It doesn't. But it does suggest that, amid all the recent tumult, just maybe the market is being rational.

The new data are derived from the most fundamental, capital-based way of analyzing a company's finances and value. How much capital is a company using? What is its return on capital? How much does the capital cost? Those questions hold the key to corporate performance, but finding the answers in most financial statements isn't easy, and many executives don't know the answers themselves. The Stern Stewart consulting firm began popularizing these concepts more than 15 years ago with the term EVA (economic value added), and the new data come from EVA Dimensions, a firm that is now the source of Stern Stewart's EVA data.

EVA-based analysis has proven extremely valuable in analyzing individual companies. I almost never make calls on specific stocks, but in late 1999 the EVA analysis of AOL was so compelling that I wrote a column declaring flatly that the stock price could not possibly be justified. That column was published on Jan. 10, 2000, right near the overall market peak (and the very day that AOL announced it was using its insanely overvalued stock to buy my employer, Time Warner (TWX, Fortune 500) - but that's another story). I also used EVA analysis to write last summer that Google (GOOGLE) was overpriced at $540; that call looked wrong for a while, though as I write this the stock is at $501.

One thing you couldn't do with EVA analysis was use it to value the whole market. Compiling the data for a significant number of companies used to take months. But now, through the miracles of our networked world, EVA Dimensions can compile it every day for 2,669 companies in the Russell 3000 (those for which at least two years of data are available). This is essentially the U.S. stock market. So: Is it worth what it costs?

Look first at how well the companies are doing at their most basic task, which is earning a return on their capital that's greater than the total cost of that capital. Turns out they've been doing very well. The dollar difference between their return on capital and cost of capital (their EVA) was $375 billion over the past four quarters. It was only half that much in 2005, and in 2004 it was negative, which isn't surprising. Over time, for the broader market, EVA should be more or less zero since competition is always forcing high returns down toward the cost of capital, while companies that can't meet their capital cost will eventually go under. So America's publicly traded companies did great last year; in fact, with economic growth strong through the third quarter, it's safe to say that they were at or near the top of the business cycle.

Next question: How are they being valued? On a recent day when the Dow closed at 12,265, the 2,669 Russell 3000 companies had a total enterprise value of $29.8 trillion (equity plus debt). To judge whether that's a lot or a little, consider that over the past four quarters these companies produced after-tax operating profits of about $1.8 trillion. Even if we assume that earnings will only match, not exceed, that level in future years, then the companies' aggregate market value today would still be $22.5 trillion (note to finance wonks: that's their profits capitalized at their capital cost of about 8.1%), which is about 75% of their actual market value.

So now we reach the central question. About 25% of the current market value of these companies is based on expectations of future profits above and beyond the profits they earned last year, at the top of the business cycle. Does that seem reasonable? Actually, it just might. The math gets a bit tedious, but you can assume no profit growth for the next several years and very modest growth thereafter, and the valuation still looks okay. Buying at today's prices may not make you rich. But - for the first time in a long time, in my view - it isn't crazy.

What Kind of Trader or Investor are you?

Conrad mentioned this in the WA08 workshop and I thought it was kind of cute to classify traders and investors to the characteristics of the animals and hence I did a search on Investopedia to see what they really mean?

1. The Turtle Trader or Investor
2. The Pig Trader or Investor
3. The Ostrich Trader or Investor
4. The Lemming Trader or Investor
5. The Sheep Trader or Investor
6. The Barefoot Pilgrim Trader or Investor

Turtle - A nickname given to a group of traders who were a part of an 1983 experiment run by two famous commodity traders, Richard Dennis and Bill Eckhardt. The goal of the study was to prove whether being a great trader was a genetic predisposition or whether it could be taught. Dennis believed that a person could be trained while Eckhardt thought it was an innate skill.

Pig - An investor who is often seen as greedy, having forgotten his or her original investment strategy to focus on securing unrealistic future gains. After experiencing a gain, these investors often have very high expectations about the future prospects of the investment and, therefore, do not sell their position to realize the gain.

Ostrich - A slang term given to investors or other market participants who ignore important pieces of information or situations, which have the ability to impact them or the market in which they operate. The reasons behind type of action can include risk aversion and bias.

Lemming - The act of following the crowd into an investment that will inevitably head for disaster.

Sheep - An investor who lacks a focused trading strategy and trades on emotion and the suggestions of others, including friends, family and financial gurus. This type of investor often makes rash investments without reviewing their financial viability. The behavior of sheep contrasts with that of bulls and bears, who have focused views about the market.

Barefoot Pilgrim - Slang for an unsophisticated investor who loses all of his or her wealth by trading equities in the stock market.

Which kind are you?