Lies, Damned Lies and...Financial Ratios

Friday, Mar 04 2011 by
14
Lies Damned Lies andFinancial Ratios

Following on from a previous excursion into Return on Equity, and the very good debate which ensued on, I have been pondering further on how to identify and recognise what constitutes a great company.

Why Great?

It sounds like a redundant question, but why the interest in great companies? To paraphrase the likes of Buffett and Co, they would rather buy a great business at a fair price, rather than a fair business at a great price.

This makes perfect sense as the stronger a business is (and is likely to remain so in the future), the stronger the likelihood that future profitability will increase. Get the quality business at a discount and then you can make a killing a la Greenblatt.  I may have come to it a bit late, but there seems to have been a lot of excellent analysis and discussion around the subject recently, particularly with UK Value Investor's screening based on ROE and other attributes, and Richard Beddard's Herculean efforts in attempting to apply Greenblatt's Magic Formula to the UK with ROA being a key component. I have been taking a closer look at other ratios that are commonly used alongside ROE. 

Useful Tools for the Tool-kit?

1 - Return on Assets (ROA). ROA = Adjusted Net Income / Total Assets

Adjusted Net Income = PAT + Interest (and the tax effect) - to show (kind of) operating profits without the cost of the capital base (ie interest)

Total Assets = Net Assets (opening or average)

Observations. Trying to adjust for interest and the tax effects is fiddly (Sharelockholmes in its ROTA calculation gets around this by using EBIT (I think)). Net Asset Value will include book values of intangibles and goodwill, and fixed assets, all of which may be very detached from market value.

2 - Return on Capital (ROC)

ROC = EBIT / (Net Working Capital + Tangible Assets )

NWC = net current assets/liabilities - ie stock + debtors + cash - current liabilities. Cash should be operating cash

TA = opening or average book value of Tangible Assets

Observations. This is very similar to Greenblatt's Magic Formula measure, although adjusting for surplus cash remains problematic. At least intangibles and goodwill are excluded from Assets, but there is still the issue of tangible assets at book cost. Maybe a high ROC is a sign that the assets could be undervalued?

3 - Return on Capital Employed (ROCE)

ROCE = EBIT /  (Total Assets - Current Liabilities)

Very similar to ROC but includes long-term debt.

So What?

They all sound fine and dandy and they have particular strengths and weaknesses, but it is too easy to get hung up about the finer details of these ratios in isolation. Every man and his dog seem to tweak each definition, and each sector has different drivers which will influence the outputs when compared to other sectors. Formulas are useful, but should not be the 'be all and end all' and do not remove the need to understand the movements in a company's finances. At the end of the day, we're all try to find good quality companies at an appropriate price, and I'm going to use them as an early stage screening tool.  I am in the process of re-writing/tweaking my Rules, but am considering using the following measures for screening purposes:

1 - ROE > 15% average over 10 years 
2 - ROC > 25% (as suggested by Greenblatt - ROA equivalent)
3 - ROCE > 15%
4 - PER
5 - Yield > 2.5%
6 - Gearing > 50%
7 - Mkt cap > £20m

A first pass has thrown up 19 interesting companies, including the likes of Astrazeneca (LON:AZN) and Unilever (LON:ULVR) . In an ideal world, I would want to back-test these parameters so see what the results are like, but for the time being I will judiciously select a few targets and take them to the next level of analysis. Watch this space...


Filed Under: Value Investing,

About the Author's Blog

10 Value 10 Profile Image Promotional
10 Value 10

10 Value 10 is a blog written by a private investor, who happens to be a Chartered Accountant with experience in corporate finance, venture capital and banking, to identify and comment on market-beating investments through a value-based approach. ...read more or visit website »


Disclaimer:  

IMPORTANT - this blog acts as a commentary for my own analysis of publicly available information on companies that interest me. It does not constitute any recommendation to buy or sell any shares or investments that I may or may not hold. If you want professional advice, go to a broker (who has the necessary authorisation and professional indemnity insurance!)


Do you like this Post?
Yes
No
15 thumbs up
1 thumb down
Share this post with friends



AstraZeneca PLC (AstraZeneca) is a global biopharmaceutical company. AstraZeneca discovers, develops and commercializes prescription medicines for six areas of healthcare: Cardiovascular, Gastrointestinal, Infection, Neuroscience, Oncology, and Respiratory and Inflammation. It has a range of medicines that includes treatments for illnesses, such as its antibiotic, Merrem/Meronem and Losec/Prilosec for acid related diseases. AstraZeneca’s products include Crestor, Atacand,Seloken/Toprol-XL, Plendil, Onglyza, Zestril, Symbicort and Zoladex. The Company owns and operates a range of research and development (R&D), production and marketing facilities worldwide. AstraZeneca operates in over 100 countries, including China, Mexico, Brazil and Russia. In January 2014, Probiodrug AG transferred its experimental cyclin-dependent kinase 9 (CDK9) inhibitor program to AstraZeneca. In February 2014, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co completed the sale of its global diabetes business to AstraZeneca. more »

Share Price (Full)
4506p
Change
-39.0  -0.9%
P/E (fwd)
17.8
Yield (fwd)
3.8
Mkt Cap (£m)
57,391

Unilever PLC (PLC) is a supplier of fast moving consumer goods. The two parent companies, Unilever N.V. (NV) and PLC, together with their group companies, operate as the Unilever Group (Unilever). Its products are grouped into four principal areas: Personal Care, Home Care, Foods and Refreshment. The Company’s four product areas are: personal care, which includes sales of skincare and haircare products, deodorants and oral care products, foods, which includes sales of soups, bouillons, sauces, snacks, mayonnaise, salad dressings, margarines and spreads, refreshment, which includes sales of ice cream, tea-based beverages, weight-management products and nutritionally enhanced staples sold in developing markets and home care, which includes sales of home care products, such as laundry tablets, powders and liquids, soap bars and a range of cleaning products. In July 2014, the Company sold its Slim-Fast brand to Kainos Capital. more »

Share Price (Full)
2698p
Change
6.0  0.2%
P/E (fwd)
19.2
Yield (fwd)
3.5
Mkt Cap (£m)
76,592



  Is AstraZeneca fundamentally strong or weak? Find out More »


5 Comments on this Article show/hide all

fourayes 5th Mar '11 1 of 5
1

Perhaps in condition 6 you meant less than, which is often shown as " fourayes

| Link | Share
fourayes 5th Mar '11 2 of 5

my comment was truncated.

Did condition 6 read gearing > 50, or was that a mistake? fourayes

| Link | Share | 1 reply
StockHound 5th Mar '11 3 of 5

In reply to fourayes, post #2

re. Gearing - would be a mistake for sure... 'great' companies tend to be very cashflow generative thus having little need for much gearing.

The 10 year average condition - would that exclude companies with an operating history of less than 10 years?  I think that would be a mistake in the UK market - it would preclude companies such as ASOS and Abcam from making the list.

I think you should add a cashflow criterion to your screen though. Great companies generate free cashflow to turnover ratios of at least 5%. Accounting profits aren't the real thing - any company can announce profits - its much harder to announce consistent operating cashflow far in excess of capex. Ultimately in the long term the market is a weighing machine, and what it weighs is the long term discounted free cashflow due to equity shareholders.

| Link | Share
10 Value 10 7th Mar '11 4 of 5
1

Hi Fourayes

Well spotted - yes, there was a typo in the first draft, which got corrected but didn't seem to pull through to this article properly

Condition 6 should be 'less than'; Gearing
Thanks

Blog: 10 Value 10
| Link | Share
10 Value 10 7th Mar '11 5 of 5
1

Hi StockHound

I am coming round to the view that the 10 year period is aspirational rather than mandatory. The logic of looking at a ten-year time-frame is that it theoretically encompasses a full business cycle, and thus you can see how a business performs in the bad times as well as the good. As you point out, the danger is that you miss interesting, but young, companies. I decided to invest in Vertu recently and they only have 3/4 years of history as a listed company, so I am being flexible for that one.

In my Rules, which are detailed on my blog - http://10value10.blogspot.com/search/label/value%20investing - I do have a look at the cash flows to get a feel for working capital management and whether the business is generating enough operating cash to meet its needs. I'm using my screen to identify a list of potential candidates, which will receive a more detailed anlysis in time.

I certainly agree with you re FCF and I'm contemplating tweaking my Rules to look at P/FCF as an alternative to PER.

Thanks

Blog: 10 Value 10
| Link | Share

What's your view on this article? to Comment Now

 
 
You are feeling neutral

Use the £ sign in front of a ticker to turn £VOD into Vodafone PLC

You can track all @StockoChat comments via Twitter


About 10 Value 10

I am a private investor, who happens to be a Chartered Accountant with experience in corporate finance, venture capital and banking. Living in Yorkshire has driven my desire to find value in all things even further! more »



Stock Picking Tutorial Centre


Related Content

Stock Picking Simplified

Stockopedia takes your stock picking to the next level with cutting edge Stock Reports & Screening tools.


Get started
or Take a Tour to find out more.