MTW

 

About Economic Margin

 

Created by The Applied Finance Group,  The Economic Margin (EM) Framework was developed to evaluate corporate performance from an economic cash flow perspective and is an alternative to accounting-based valuation metrics. EM measures the return a company earns above or below its cost of capital and provides a more complete view of a company’s underlying economic vitality

 

Value-based metrics (as opposed to accounting-based methods) have become popular for two reasons. First, capital markets have forced money managers and corporations to have a renewed focus on the balance sheet; these companies are expected to provide an adequate return on the money they have invested. Second, accounting information, although necessary, does not by itself adequately explain market valuations nor provide comparability between firms.

 

EM is meant to serves two purposes: Create an measure of a company’s economic profitability; that is, did this company generate cash flow in excess of the costs of its capital invested in its operations, or did the company destroy wealth? Once we have solved for this, we can then use this EM as a function in our valuation model.

 

EM is calculated by dividing a company’s Operating Cash Flow minus Capital Charge by their Invested Capital. For a more detailed explanation see below.

 

 

Economic Margin Framework is more than just a performance metric as it encompasses a valuation system that explicitly addresses the four main drivers of enterprise value: profitability, competition, growth and cost of capital.

 

Economic Margin captures the relevant drivers that are necessary to evaluating corporate performance and identifies wealth creating firms as well as wealth destroying firms while focusing on the key issues that drive market valuations. The EM also incorporates risk through a capital charge on all of a firm’s cash flow while also providing an annual snapshot to evaluate company track records creating and destroying wealth to evaluate current company actions.

 

Correcting Common Accounting Distortions

 

Accounting-based valuation methods provide an incomplete view of a company’s value by not accounting for investment to Generate the Earnings, Cost of Capital, Inflation or Cash Flow.  Because the EM corrects these accounting distortions by taking into account Asset Life, Asset Mix, Asset Age, Capital Structure and Growth , effectively linking the income statement and balance sheet, EM levels have a much higher correlation with market Values. 
 

 

A company’s performance measure must serve as a proxy for its market value creation.  Successful corporations consider cash flow, investment, competition & risk when setting strategy with the goal of creating shareholder value.  But not all management teams are successful at creating shareholder value.  As displayed on the graph below, AFG's Economic Margin can help invesmtent managers clearly distighigh managment teams abilty to create shareholder value.

 

Below is a comparison between Best Buy (BBY) and Circuit City (CC). Not surprisingly, soon after we took a snapshot of Circuit City’s Wealth Creation report they filed for bankruptcy.

Source (The Applied Finance Group)


Source (The Applied Finance Group)

 

 

The average company in the United States generates an Economic Margin of zero.  Below is a list of companies that have been able to generate EM's greater than 10% on average over the past three years.  Although all of the companies listed have had great success in generating a large spread above their cost of capital, some of these companies are classified as unattractive because they have started to trade at a premium to their intrinsic value and the direction of those Economic Margins is unattractive. (Receive Our Stock Reserch Alerts by email)

High EM Buys & Sells

Source (The Applied Finance Group)

 Next week we will be discussing the use of an Economic Margin as a complete valuation system.

When analysts and market pundits come on tv to talk about stock picks, they usually talk about the "P/E" ratio (Price to Earnings) being attractive.  However if you're investing in stocks and you only look at the "P/E" ratio, you might be walking into a "Value Trap".  Investors ignore half the valuation picture when investors only concentrate on P/E as investors also need to consider the growth potential of the company and what investments are needed to get the earnings.  The Applied Finance Group (AFG) has developed a process that incorporates these factors easily into the valuation framework.  Using AFG’s Valuation Metric, we have compiled a list of 20 companies with low P/E, 10 of which we consider attractive investments, and 10 of which we consider Value Traps.

By using AFG's Economic Margin framework instead of earnings alone, investors capture the true net cash flow the entire firm is generating. It is not uncommon for companies to grow P/E while having declining EM’s. This occurs when the cost for the investment required to yield the increasing P/E is more than the cash flow generated from the investment. By analyzing a company’s EMs through time, investors gain a more accurate account of levels and changes in a company’s current profitability and value.

If earnings are a true proxy for performance, there should be a correlation between a company growing earnings and its price to earnings ratio. As a surprise to many investors, there is actually little to no correlation between earnings growth and price to earnings ratios (see chart below).
 

P/E is determined by taking a stock’s price and dividing it by the last four quarter’s worth of earnings. P/E alone should not be used to value companies. P/E does not look at a company’s balance sheet thus we do not know what the costs of generating those earnings. While the P/E is determined by looking at a company’s past performance, EM bases a company’s value off its future projections. By using EM, an investor can know how their stocks are likely to perform, allowing them to clearly evaluate where to invest.

Successful companies measure results, make decisions and set strategy with the goal of creating value. A company’s performance measures must serve as a proxy for its market value creation. While important, S-T Earnings alone are a poor indicator of a company’s value, due to what they do not measure.
 

Economic Margin is a more complete performance measure for companies to use to guide performance and motivate employees. Executives consider Cash Flow, Investment, Competition & Risk when setting strategy. The above charts show that investors do the same.

AFG's Valuation Metric – Measures the percent to target (deviation between a stock’s current trading price and its AFG current default target price). To derive the intrinsic value of a firm, AFG uses its proprietary Valuation Model (modified discounted cash flow model).

Economic Margin - A corporate performance measurement that addresses the gaps in GAAP, eliminating distortions caused by accounting policies to measure what a company is truly earning above or below their cost of capital.

Investment Insights from your peers, Professional Investors - The Applied Finance Group would like to invite professional investors to join AFG’s Market Forecast Project so you can better understand what your peers currently think about the market and cultivate the “wisdom of Crowds” into actionable investment ideas and themes. 
Click here to learn more

As some investors may believe the market is starting to show "signs of recovery", many of the over 200 institutional firms The Applied Finance Group (AFG) works with can always take advantage of identifying mispriced securities. While some of AFG’s clients might have a specific focus on growth or value, most subscribe to the practice of buying growth at a discount (growth at a reasonable price GARP) and avoiding  “value traps.”

In October 2008 AFG released the study, Then and Now, discussing the low expectations priced into the market "Today many world-class franchises are available at expectations reflecting a very bearish future. Over 150 companies in the S&P 500 (industrials) have negative sales growth expectations embedded into their current market valuations". Following that study AFG issued another study, Analyzing Market Troughs and Rebounds, which pointed out that historical market recoveries have been typically dominated by value stocks.

Whether you are looking for value or more growth oriented securities, we have provided a list of  companies in various asset classes, Large Cap Growth, Large Cap Value, Small Cap Growth, Small Cap Value that are currently on AFG’s Buy and Sell list. If you are a professional investor and would like to view a complete buy and sell list or take a trial of AFG's valuation tools CLICK HERE.

Monthly Buy/Sell list Across the Market
The Applied Finance Group has a disciplined approach for identifying companies that are expected to outperform and underperform the market by using proprietary metrics and measurements that have been tested and proven through time. Because AFG’s research is fundamentally derived, AFG’s quantitative analysis spans across growth and value stocks, all sectors, industries, and market caps with over 4,500 covered securities. By using AFG’s proprietary criteria, AFG publishes a monthly buy/sell list to provide clients with a refined focused list as a starting point for all investments. This focus List of stocks has outperformed the market on an annual basis by greater than 10% with our buy portfolio and underperformed the market by 10% with our sell portfolio. AFG clients then use Value Expectations to further analyze the expectations embedded in a security’s price (example of expectations embedded in the entire S&P500 over the next 5 years below) and to build out their own model to refine an intrinsic value of a company based on their own expectations.

Select Companies From AFG's Current Monthly Buy-Sell List

(Source: The Applied Finance Group)

Again, If you are a professional investor and would like to view a complete buy and sell list or take a trial of AFG's valuation tools CLICK HERE.

Model Portfolio Buy/Sell Results

To view how AFG defines the Large/Small and Growth/Value universe Click Here.

A brief description of some other of AFG's insights:

AFG's Valuation Metric – Measures the percent to target (deviation between a stock’s current trading price and its AFG current default target price). To derive the intrinsic value of a firm, AFG uses its proprietary Valuation Model (modified discounted cash flow model).

Economic Margin - A corporate performance measurement that addresses the gaps in GAAP, eliminating distortions caused by accounting policies to measure what a company is truly earning above or below their cost of capital.

Management Quality – Assesses management’s ability to make wealth creating decisions.
AFG's Value Universe - Companies in the AFG universe, which have MV/IC at the bottom 50% of the universe and have EPS estimates.

The Applied Finance Group’s (AFG’s) Earnings Quality variable is an important indicator of companies that may be more likely to have negative earnings surprises and underperform due to high amounts of accruals. With many firms under pressure to meet sales expectations in the current environment, it is important to watch out for those firms that may be trying to pad their sales numbers, ie. Channel stuffing (sending excess inventory to stores that cannot sell their products).

The EQ score ranges from 1 to 100, 1 being the best EQ score resulting from the lowest accruals, and 100 being the worst EQ score indicating the highest accruals. Because high EQ score companies (bad Earnings Quality) are more likely to have negative earnings surprises, you may want to avoid these firms. Our back-test indicates that the EQ variable works well as an exclusionary variable coupled with AFG’s valuation model.

We screened the S&P500 to identify those firms with the worst Earnings Quality (EQ), which may be possible torpedoes. The Chart Below displays the 14 firms along with their EQ scores and our valuation analysis.

Earnings Quality: Accruals

•An accrual is the difference between Cash Flow and Net Income.

•Net Income = Cash Flow + Accruals

•Low Accrual companies outperform high accrual companies

Two ways to approach accruals:

1. Cash Flow Statement
•Difference between Net Income and Cash Flow

2. Balance Sheet
•Change in Net Operating Assets from Period t-1 to t
•Net Operating Asset equals Total Assets Less Cash, Less Non-Debt Liabilities (excl. Minority Interest)

-Our studies show that the Balance Sheet approach is superior to the Cash Flow Statement approach.

-We found the Balance Sheet approach is also easier to expand to international companies.

 14 Worst Earnings Quality Firms

Here is a look at how well the Earnings Quality variable works when you split top half vs. bottom half in each sector/style.

Source: AFGView client databases from 9/1998 - 5/2009   Universe size: 4,000 to 5,500 firms

Here is a look at an example of a poor Earnings Quality company that has a negative earning surprise and thus underperforms.

Eastman Kodak

If you like this article, you might be interested in stocks that fit our Buy Reccomendations: Click here to read

A brief description of some other AFG's insights:

AFG's Valuation Metric – Measures the percent to target (deviation between a stock’s current trading price and its AFG current default target price). To derive the intrinsic value of a firm, AFG uses its proprietary Valuation Model (modified discounted cash flow model).

Economic Margin - A corporate performance measurement that addresses the gaps in GAAP, eliminating distortions caused by accounting policies to measure what a company is truly earning above or below their cost of capital.

Management Quality – Assesses management’s ability to make wealth creating decisions.
AFG's Value Universe - Companies in the AFG universe, which have MV/IC at the bottom 50% of the universe and have EPS estimates.

Traditional Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) models have been been underutilized in equity analysis over the years primarily because of the assumptions one has to sign off on. We will concentrate on just two of the major issues we have with traditional DCF models, the lack of ability to deal with competition and the perpetuity assumption embedded in a DCF model. These assumptions lead to irrational calculations of intrinsic value and force analysts to make compromising decisions in their model building efforts.

AFG uses a modified DCF model that accurately addresses the competitive nature of the business while also dealing with the perpetuity issue through our Economic Margin decay or competitive advantage period.

The four factors that affect AFG’s Competitive Advantage Period (CAP) are;

Profitability – High Profit leads to increased competition and a higher decay rate
Variability – Higher volatility leads to less predictability and a higher decay rate
Trend – AFG gives the benefit of the doubt to an upward trend which leads to a lower decay rate
Invested Capital – Large Invested Capital creates barriers to entry and leads to lower decay rate

The Decay Rate is the rate at which the Economic Margins™ will diminish over time due to competition, market conditions and limited investment opportunities. Higher decay rates translate into shorter competitive advantage periods, while lower decay rates translate into longer competitive advantage periods.

The Decay Rate profile is downward sloping to the right, which means that Economic Margins™ over time diminish to zero. This does not mean that the company will not have earnings, but instead the company will have an Economic Margin™ of zero, which indicates there are no excess profits after the investors are paid and the depreciating assets are replaced.When selecting securities, companies that are maintaining a high level of economic profitability or growing their profits rapidly are attractive from an investment standpoint. However, the more profitable a firm is the more likely other companies will attempt compete away excess returns.

To illustrate this, one has to look no further than Dell Computer. Dell Computer had Economic Margins™ hovering around 40% (top 5% of all companies) in 1997 and 1998, but soon every major firm was announcing that they were going to build computers to order. Why? Because they saw the huge profits that Dell was making. The result is that Dell's Economic Margin™ for 1999 was around 25%, a decline of 37.5% in just one year. The remaining factors are relatively straight-forward, in that volatile returns are worth less than consistent returns, companies with an increasing Economic Margins™ are worth more than a company in decline, and large companies have a natural barrier to entry, thus a lower decay rate.

Theory: Excess return gets competed away

Fact: In 1997, the median top decile Economic Margin (EM) firm = 17.4%. 10 years later, that same group of companies had a median EM of 6.5%. On the other hand, the bottom decile had an EM of -12.2%, 10 years later that same group had a median EM of -1.0%.

Current Top Decile Economic Margin Companies (S&P 500 ex. financials)

Join Value Expectations... it's FAST and FREE!

To identify potentially attractive investment ideas, AFG usually uses a combination of proprietary variables to develop of focused group of potential buy ideas that meet criteria based on valuation, economic performance, management quality, and Earnings Quality. In December of 2008 ValueExpectations.com released a list of companies narrowed only by the valuation properties of the company using AFG’s Value Score (defined below). Our valuation techniques have proven successful through time at identifying mispriced securities and helping our clients identify investment opportunities resulting in outperforming their chosen benchmark. .

The ValueExpectations.com blog posted in December 08 (High Value Score Stocks - S&P 500) contained these high Value Score companies (DDS, S, NOV, MTW, SII, WFR, CHK) had returned 40% above the S&P 500 as of our 3-26-09 performance update and a recent check of that performance on 5-5-09 was even better, currently these companies have returned an astounding 64.5% above the return of the S&P 500 during the same time period (12-29-08 to 5-5-09).

In this exercise we used valuation independent of other key proprietary variables we use to identify good investment opportunities. Although valuation works well on a stand-alone basis, it works even better when used with AFG’s Economic Margin, Management Quality, and Earnings Quality variables.

Listed below are the top 10 companies in the S&P 500 (excluding Financials) based on AFG Value Score alone. These companies all look the most attractive from a valuation perspective relative to the rest of the index.

AFG High Value Score Stocks

Valuation Model – Using AFG’s modified discounted cash flow model to measure the intrinsic value of a firm compared to its peers.

AFG's Value Score - A score which represents the ranked percent to target (deviation between stock’s current trading price and AFG’s current default target price) or attractiveness (upside) relative to the universe. A Value Score of 100 is the most undervalued and 0 is the most overvalued company in the universe.

By using The Applied Finance Group’s (AFG's) Risk Analysis, we have identified the top and bottom two firms in each sector (excluding the Financial sector) according to an overall risk score based on 9 variables (see more detail below). In addition to the risk analysis variables we also added another layer of analysis by evaluating the companies’ Earnings Quality (based on the concept of Accruals) and Altman Z-Score (identifies firms that are at risk of going bankrupt in the next 2 years).

Applied Finance Group’s Risk Analysis is designed to systematically calculate a stock’s risk score based on fundamental relationships between the Quarterly Income Statements and Balance Sheets. The template measures 9 factors to determine Risk: Changes in A/R, Changes in Inventories, Cash Flow vs. Operating Cash Flow, Fixed Payments vs. Pre-Tax Cash Flow, Leverage, Intangibles, Write-offs, Management Quality, and Valuation. Companies with lower scores have less risk. Companies in the Financial Sector were excluded due to their differences in financial statement structure.
 

1. Receivables to Sales - Delta – takes the difference in the median A/R to Sales ratio over the last 4 quarters vs. median 4 quarters before that.

2. Inventories to Sales - Delta – takes the difference in the median Inventories to Sales ratio over the last 4 quarters vs. median 4 quarters before that.

3. AFG’s Cash Flow-Oper. vs. Operating Cash Flow - AFG's Cash Flow-Oper. for a company is net cash that is generated by the continuing and discontinuing operations of the firm. We compare it to the company's Operating Cash Flow to assess its ability to pay its debt.

4. Fixed Payments vs. Pre-tax Payments Cash Flow – This ratio assesses the company’s ability to cover long-term obligations. If the fixed pmts are greater than 50% of the pre-tax payments cash flow, there is chance that this company may not be able to meet its obligations. Obligations less than 30% of cash flow are considered safe.

5. Leverage – Book leverage and Market leverage are analyzed to give us information about the company’s leverage position. Best score is given to the companies with Book Leverage lower than 60%, and negative score to these with Book Leverage higher than 60% and Market Leverage greater than 0.9*Book Leverage.

6. Intangibles as a Percentage of Total Assets – With this score we try to filter through and reward the companies that have grown organically, rather than through acquisitions. Our research has shown that on average companies tend to overpay for acquisitions and thus are rarely a profitable investment. Companies with Intangibles less than 20% of Total Assets get the best score.

7. Write-offs – Shows the number of years with significant write-offs over the last 5 years.

8. Management Quality – Measures a company’s EM+1 and LFY Asset Growth and there is empirical evidence that companies with positive EMs that are able to grow their business tend to outperform companies with negative EMs who continue to invest into unprofitable business.

9. Value Score – Measures a company’s attractiveness from valuation perspective.

Most/Least Risky Firms By Sector S&P 500 (excluding financials)

If you are a professional investor and would like to learn more about this analysis as well as other useful valuation tools click here for a free trial subscription to The Applied Finance Group's research.

Below is a look at the YTD returns, valuation attractiveness and sales growth expectations of the two biggest and smallest companies in each sector within the S&P 500 (excluding financials). This link provides some insight into Applied Finance Group’s (AFG’s) valuation techniques. Also compare the expectations for sales growth to what the companies have delivered historically to see which stocks on this list are most likely to meet or exceed those expectations, and thus be more likely to out-perform.

 Biggest/Smallest Companies (Mkt Cap) By Sector S&P 500 (excluding financials)

*AFG’s Value Expectation allows us to understand the imbedded Sales Growth, EBITDA Margins, and Asset Turnovers a company has to deliver in the future to justify its current trading price. In theory and in normal circumstances, if the imbedded future performance is very conservative relative to the company’s historical performance, the stock is regarded as undervalued. The table displays the implied future sales growth of companies assuming their EBITDA margins and Asset turnovers stay at the 5 year median levels.

Since March 9, 2009, the S&P 500 experienced quite a recovery, going from 676 to 813, or just over a 17% rebound. To put that into perspective, the market historically delivered 8% average annual returns. In the table below we provide a list of the top and bottom 10 performers since the March 9th rebound began, to give you an idea of who the new Bulls and Bears are. In the list you will find each company’s attractiveness from a valuation standpoint, as well as an analysis of sales growth expectations imbedded in these companies’ stock prices. Compare the expectations for sales growth to what they have delivered historically to see which stocks on this list are most likely to meet or exceed those expectations, and thus be more likely to out-perform. This list contains companies from the S&P 500 excluding all financial companies.

Top & Bottom Returns (S&P 500 excluding financials) Since March 9, 2009

*Scott Goto Arts

*AFG’s Value Expectation allows us to understand the imbedded Sales Growth, EBITDA Margins, and Asset Turnovers a company has to deliver in the future to justify its current trading price. In theory and in normal circumstances, if the imbedded future performance is very conservative relative to the company’s historical performance, the stock is regarded as undervalued. The table displays the implied future sales growth of companies assuming their EBITDA margins and Asset turnovers stay at the 5 year median levels.

With the first quarter of 2009 winding down, ValueExpectations.com has compiled a list of the best and worst performing stocks thus far in 2009 (excluding financials). It is not surprising for us to see two companies on the top performer list (S and MYL) that also appeared on our list at the end of January, or three bottom performing companies (ODP, TXT and MTW) still remaining on the bottom performer list over a month and a half later. We published an article in early February highlighting the top and bottom performers for the month of January and posed the question “Is the January Effect effective?”

Top 10 S&P 500 Companies (YTD 2009)

Bottom 10 S&P 500 Companies (YTD 2009)

Our conclusion: Looking at the YTD returns for the companies in our January effect article's top and bottom lists, we notice that there is a huge spread. January’s top performers have earned an average return of 4.66% YTD compared to January’s bottom performers’ average YTD return of -57.15%. This pretty compelling spread suggests that the January effect may be something investors want to pay closer attention to next year and it may even be helpful for the remainder of 2009.

*AFG’s Value Expectation allows us to understand the imbedded Sales Growth, EBITDA Margins, and Asset Turnover a company has to deliver in the future to justify its current trading price. In theory and in normal circumstances, if the imbedded future performance is very conservative relative to the company’s historical performance, the stock is regarded as undervalued. The table displays the implied future sales growth of companies assuming their EBITDA margins and Asset turnover stay constant at the company's historical 5 year median.

Below is Value Expectations’ analysis of the companies in the S&P 500 with the 10 best and 10 worst returns for 2009 YTD (excluding financial companies). Comparing the sales growth expectations priced in (VE sales growth) to what the company has delivered in sales growth historically allows us to see which firms have the most reasonable sales growth expectations implied by their current trading prices and thus are more likely to outperform. Will the companies with the best returns be able to maintain their momentum for the remainder of 2009? Will the companies with the worst returns be able to turn things around? We will track the S&P500 winners and losers in the year ahead and provide you with regular updates.

10 Worst S&P 500 Companies 2009 YTD

10 Best S&P 500 Companies 2009 YTD

*data as of close Feb. 20, 2009

*AFG’s Value Expectation allows us to understand the imbedded Sales Growth, EBITDA Margins, and Asset Turnovers a company has to deliver in the future to justify its current trading price. In theory and in normal circumstances, if the imbedded future performance is very conservative relative to the company’s historical performance, the stock is regarded as undervalued. The table displays the implied future sales growth of companies assuming their EBITDA margins and Asset turnovers stay at the 5 year median levels.

Fidelity’s Low Priced Stock Fund, which launched in 1989 (18 Billion AUM) and is managed by Joel Tillinghast, follows a simple strategy… Only invest in stocks with a share price under $35. This strategy first started with Tillinghast only investing in stocks below $10 a share, but later he moved the limit up to $35 a share. He argues that share price alone is not important but that the small-cap universe contains the most frequently mispriced stocks and the least amount of analyst coverage.

Although his fund at best has been a market performer as of late, Tillinghast had taken advantage of such mispricing’s during the last 15 years, averaging an 11% annual return compared to the 6% return earned by the S&P 500 over the same period. The fund had been closed to investors since 2003, but was recently reopened in December. Fidelity says they reopened the fund to get more cash inflow to be able to take advantage of all of the investment opportunities they see in the market.

Below is a list of the top holdings in Fidelity’s Low Priced Stock Fund as well as stocks that AFG believes are attractively priced in three price brackets: under $10, $10 to $20, and $20 to $35. Compare the implied sales growth priced-in to justify the current trading price (VE Sales Growth) vs. what the company has delivered in sales growth the past 5 years (5 Year Median Sales Growth) to see if the expectations are realistic for the company to achieve. The more realistic the expectations are, compared to what has been delivered, the more likely the firm will be to out-perform.

Here are the best and worst performing stocks in the S&P 500 for the month of January excluding financials. Compare the implied sales growth priced-in to justify the current trading price (VE Sales Growth) vs. what the company has delivered in sales growth the past 5 years (5 Year Median Sales Growth) to see if the expectations are realistic for the company to achieve. The more realistic the expectations are compared to what has been delivered the more likely the firm will be to out-perform.

Top 10 stocks in January (excluding financials) and Sales Growth Expectations

Worst 10 stocks in January (excluding financials) and Sales Growth Expectations

According to Bespoke.com these S&P 500 stocks over $5 a share, are those that make the biggest advances/declines the day after reporting earnings since this bear market began in October 07’. Included in this table is the percentage of time these companies beat earnings and their average change on report day, along with their implied sales growth expectations. The implied sales growth measures what a company needs to grow sales at over the next 5 years to justify their current price. Comparing those expectations (VE Sales Growth) with what the company has delivered the past 5 years (5 year median sales growth) is a good way to tell if the current expectations are realistic for the company to meet or exceed. The lower the expectations relative to delivered sales growth, the more likely the company is to out-perform.

In life, the most attractive people are in shape and have good looks, just look at Hollywood. The same is true the majority of the time in investing. The most attractive stocks have healthy financial statements and look good from a valuation standpoint.

The Altman Z-score is a metric that gives insights into the likelihood of a firm going bankrupt in the next 2 years. The model was developed by Professor Edward I. Altman of the NYU’s Stern School of Business and first published in The Journal of FINANCE in September 1968. A common critique to this metric is that it was developed over 40 years ago and is no longer relevant.

In 2001, Professor Joseph D. Piotroski of The University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, published a paper called, Value Investing: The Use of Historical Financial Statement Information to Separate Winners from Losers. Piotroski showed that value investors were rewarded by looking at a firm’s financial health and he showed that Z-score was a meaningful statistic.
More recently, on December 5, 2008, Dr. Altman was called to testify before a House of Representatives Committee on the condition of U.S. Automakers. In his testimony, he noted that Bloomberg, Inc. reported, “that approximately 1,000 users of their system per day access the Altman Z-Score model.”

The Altman Z-Score breaks down firms into 3 zones:
• >2.99 – Not Likely to Go Bankrupt
• 1.8 - 2.99 – Gray Area
• <1.8 – Likely to Go Bankrupt in the Next 2 Years

Using AFGView.com, we screened for firms that looked relatively attractive from a valuation perspective and had an Altman Z-Score above 2.99. Below is a list of those firms. Later we will look at firms that are expensive and have a Z-Score below 1.8.

Sales Expectations for Companies with an Attractive Valuation and Healthy Balance Sheet