Monday 19 February 2007

A Wonderful Company At A Fair Price


A Wonderful Company at a Fair Price: Brian McNiven

This book should up there on the essential reading list for serious stock market investors along with Benjamin Graham's "The Intelligent Investor " and "The Essays of Warren Buffett." McNiven is a disciple of Warren Buffet and quotes him often but also has plenty of his own insightful comments that investors would do well to take note of. McNiven skillfully leads readers through the process of uncovering the real value of a business by clearing away the obfuscation of creative accounting practices, poor management and popular delusions such as PE ratios and DCF valuations. McNiven insists that investors value a business as if they were buying it and look at the underlying growth in equity value rather than earnings. As McNiven clearly demonstrates a company may grow earnings year after year yet the value of the business may still decline if the Return on Equity is poor.

McNiven is particularly critical of modern day managers who often act in direct opposition to the interests of shareholders. He devotes substantial time to identifying both good and bad management practices and urges shareholders to exercise their right to question management decisions. One theme he continually drives home is that of capital allocation. Basically if equity growth can be achieved by reinvesting profits back into the business then managenment should refrain from paying unnecessary divindends. Whilst this seems like common sense McNiven points out that many companies often don't adhere to this simple principle of efficient capital allocation and squander shareholder wealth through token dividend payments.

McNiven is also the creator of Stockval - a valuation tool that utilizes McNiven's valuation method and is the valuation tool of choice of listed investment company Clime Asset Management(ASX code CAM). At $1,595 for individual investors Stockval is not exactly cheap however it contains the data of over 400 ASX listed companies meticuously input from annual reports. Subscribers can fiddle with the valuation inputs and even input the data for companies not already in the database. Whilst McNiven gives the basis for his valuation methodology in the book he is careful not to give too much of Stockval's intellectual property away.

I've tried to replicate McNiven's valuation method but seem to be missing some essential ingredient in the magic formula. Thus I'm toying with the idea of purchasing the keys to the Stockval Program not only for the valuation tool but for the wealth of data that comes with it. The Stockval website is full of useful information and the articles written by Roger Montgomery - Managing Director of CAM are worth reading as are his NTA reports released monthly to the market.

12 Comments:

Unknown said...

I have been trying to work out the stockval formula but it is not as straightforward as it appears. Would be interested if you find Stockval a good tool if you do purchase it.

The Fundamental Analyst said...

Hi Peter,

Yes it is a little tricky to work out but I got there in the end. In Brian McNiven's second book called Market Wise he simplifies the formula which does not change the outcome of the valuation from the original method. It's a good read and the valuation methodology and the logic behind it are spelled out clearly. I thoroughly recommend it.

I ended up subscribing to Stockval. Even though I worked out the valuation formula it is useful to have 300 hundred stocks consistently updated for you. You can change the valuation parameters if you don;t gree with the analysts. My only complaint would be is that it is a bit light on in the commentary department.I would like to see alittle more written about each company but I guess that would require more manpower.

Unknown said...

I will go have a look at Market Wise. Thanks.
I sent stockval an email recently concerning the use of their formula and data for the reject shop from page 5 of the Clime 2006 annual report. Using their TRS figures (see quoted below) the equation (ROE/RR x Equity per share) would be :
Value (TRS) = 33/15 x 0.72 = $1.54

They suggest it was $3.05 per share. Even with the one third of earnings retained I am not sure how the value could be what they suggest. As I have not received a reply from them I am not sure what I have missed and why I apparently can't do simple math. Any insight might help my current frustration.

Cheers
Peter

Clime 2006 annual report - pg5
"In our valuation, using the 2004 results, we adopted the equity per share of 72 cents ($17.4 million / 24.1 million shares), we assumed a conservative 33% return on equity in the future (the company hadn’t earned less than 43% in the last four years) and that a third of the returns would be reinvested (based on the 10.3 million that had been paid out in dividends between 2001 and 2004 inclusive and the $16.5 million in profits earned over the same period). We then adopted a 15% required return which was conservative considering the company had $17 million of equity, just $2.4 million of interest bearing liabilities and no goodwill or other intangibles on the balance sheet (its brand had to be worth something - 90% of Australian’s knew the brand which also becomes stronger
when you narrow its focus).
Our calculation, which reduces to: ROE/RR x Equity per share (see the bond discussion in Warren Buffett’s 1982 letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders), produced an estimated value of $3.05 per share. I have heard a whisper, admittedly on an internet chat forum for shares, that some software sales people, not fund managers, think our formula may be flawed. It’s not."

The Fundamental Analyst said...

As you are now no doubt aware using the formula ROE/RR x Equity per share) is not going to get you the answer you are looking for unless that company pays 100% of its profits out as dividends. If a company can reinvest profits at a high ROE then it will be worth more than a company that distributes all profits as divdiends (all other things being equal).

Thus in order to calculate the per share value you need to make an additional calculation for the percentage of profits reinvested back into the business.

Now I could quite easily tell you how to do it but I think you will find it a much more rewarding experience if you work it out yourself or maybe it will just piss you off. Anyway have a stab at it and if you can;t work it our don;t worry because the answer disclosed in MarketWise

Unknown said...

Yes I think you are right. Thanks for the encouragement.
BTW I assume the two shares that you have on your BLOG were not chosen with the assistance of stockval? Have you since attempted to value them with it and do they come out undervalued or overvalued?

The Fundamental Analyst said...

Yes that's right I selected these shares before I adopted the Stockval method for valuing companies. As it turns out PBP is trading at about fair value whilst PWK is trading at a fairly hefty premium to its intrisic value.

However I'm not about to go out and sell PWK as I think they are managed exceptionally well and have excellent future prospects which are not built into the Stockval forecasts.

It's impotant to remember that Stockval typically only looks 6 months to 1 year into the future when considering profit and return forecasts - which is fair enough since predicting earnings is fraught with danger. I don't see this as much of a problem for well established companies that have been around for a while but for relatively young companies with significant growth opportunities ahead it can be difficult to get an accurate picture of future value.

At least that's my justification for holding onto PWK plus the aforementioned quality of management. Time will tell if I'm right.

Unknown said...

Hi again

I have now read Brian McNiven's first book and have attempted to use the formula detailed in chapter 21.
Value=((E*(1+max(O,RB))^8)*B/RR)*(max(1,1+RR-(D/B*RR))^-8)
Using the Clime 2006 annual report again for the TRS valuation see below in quotes the formula (in MS-Excel) would be
pv=((0.72*POWER(1.11,8))*(0.33/0.15))*POWER(1.05,-8)
= $2.47 rather than the $3.05 quoted below.
Any hints on what I have done incorrectly now??

"In 2004 The Reject Shop was forecast to earn $5 million. In 2004 the company actually
earned $5.6 million and paid $2 million in dividends to its vendors. Taking into account
the $15.6 million of beginning equity, the retained earnings and the franking on the
dividends, return on equity to the owners of the business in 2004 was 42.8%. A number
like this is rare, but to find a company that produced similar numbers in the each of the
three previous years, and on rising equity to boot, was exceptional.
In our valuation, using the 2004 results, we adopted the equity per share of 72 cents
($17.4 million / 24.1 million shares), we assumed a conservative 33% return on equity in
the future (the company hadn’t earned less than 43% in the last four years) and that a
third of the returns would be reinvested (based on the 10.3 million that had been paid out
in dividends between 2001 and 2004 inclusive and the $16.5 million in profits earned
over the same period). We then adopted a 15% required return which was conservative
considering the company had $17 million of equity, just $2.4 million of interest bearing
liabilities and no goodwill or other intangibles on the balance sheet (its brand had to be
worth something - 90% of Australian’s knew the brand which also becomes stronger
when you narrow its focus).
Our calculation, which reduces to: ROE/RR x Equity per share (see the bond discussion
in Warren Buffett’s 1982 letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders), produced an
estimated value of $3.05 per share."

The Fundamental Analyst said...

Peter, I'm not sure why you are raising everything to the power of 8 in your calculation. That is specific to the example in the book where 8 years of data are given.

I couldn't get the $3.05 value either and that's using the Stockval formula. I'm not sure where the difference lies. CAM aren't specific with the figures in the annual report so I'm guessing there must be some discrepancy there as I can replicate every other Stockval valuation without any trouble. Try using the ABC learning centres example on the Stockval site which gives you all the numbers you need.

Unknown said...

I couldn't find the ABC example you referred to on the Stockval site. How many years should the formula use? Is it primarily based on how many years you have data for and then projecting into the future by the same?

The Fundamental Analyst said...

Peter,

You can find ABC example by following this link:
http://www.stockval.com.au/case-studies.php

The actual stockval formula does not raise not anything to the power as there is only one year of forward projected earnings within every stockval calculation. You really should get a copy of 'Market Wise' as the valuation formula has been simplified and it is explained much clearer.

Anonymous said...

Now that I have a copy of Market Wise and have applied his valuation to my current stocks, I feel a little disturbed as they are seemingly worth a lot less than I paid for them.
Since you have now had StockVal for a couple months but your portfolio has not changed on this blog, should I assume that nothing on the ASX has met the criteria? Or maybe there have been opportunities and you didn't want or weren't able to take them? All the tip sheets have had some buys or even strong buys so I was wondering whether to invest in StockVal before the end of the financial year or continue with Intelligent Investor. Any thoughts?

The Fundamental Analyst said...

Peter, there are a dozen or so stocks that meet the criteria of undervalued using the Stockval system however I have not purchased any because I have been waiting for a pullback in the market to enter. As you know that hasn't happened so I am sitting on a bit of cash at the moment.

Just remember you need to consider more than valuation. For example I may pay a premium for a stock if I think it is an exceptional business.