PCP

Value Expectations teaches professional investors how to make more informed investment decision evaluating stocks on the basis of corporate performance, valuation, management quality, earnings quality, and other proprietary variables. These variables inevitably help identify companies that are potential long-term investments while avoiding potential torpedoes. However, during the financial crisis, leverage and a week balance sheet played a significant part when investors evaluated a holding.

To help our institutional clients navigate the environment The Applied Finance Group (AFG) developed the risk analysis template specifically to model the healthiness of a company’s balance sheet. In addition to the risk analysis template we also developed a template that calculated an Altman Z-Score developed to identify companies that are most likely to go bankrupt.

As professional investors we often move on and like to forget the past concentrating on how to gain alpha in the future. However, not to forget the past we decided to post an update list in the S&P500 on companies that are financially healthy and are attractively priced using The Applied Finance Groups valuation model.

Provided below is a list of healthy Z-score companies within the S&P 500 that also look attractive based on The Applied Finance Group’s (AFG’s) investment criteria. All of the companies listed have an attractive valuation and are expected to improve their Economic Margins (AFG’s measure of what a company earns above its cost of capital) more than their sector peers. Companies expected to improve their Economic Margin’s (EMs) have proven to be more likely to outperform than companies with an expected decline in EMs.

Using AFG’s valuation model on AFGView.com, we identified a few 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.

About The Altman Z-score - 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.

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
 

Related Tickers: "NYSE:PCP"

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!

The Halloween Indicator in the stock market sometimes defined as “sell in May and go away” is a strategy that is based on the difference in the performance of the market during May to October vs. November to April. The strategy is to invest in the S&P 500 during “the best 6 months” and switch to bonds during “the worst 6 months” to avoid the summer doldrums of small to negative returns. Since January of 1950 the average returns for November to April “good months” is 7.9% compared to the 2.5% average return delivered from May to October ‘bad months”.

Although there is a significant spread in returns between the good and bad months, does this mean you should convert to bonds and go on a vacation until September? There are several views for and against market timing but we feel it is too difficult to identify when to be out and when to be in the market. If you dig deeper into the market performance since 1950, you will find that 20 good and 20 bad months make up a significant part of the market performance. For more information read the following market timing strategy filled with pitfalls.

The market has been up in those worst 6 months 60% of the time since 1989, not as profitable as the best 6 months but still positive. I believe 2009 is a good lesson for many, with all of the inefficiencies and irregularities in today’s market, the mixed macro economic reports, and the belief we are headed toward a recovery, jumping out of the market could mean missing out on making up for some of the losses the market handed us in 2008

However, being invested isn’t enough, identifying quality companies and a good value will put you in an even better position to outpace the general market. Listed below are companies that should be considered as potential investment opportunities. These companies all have a valuation attractiveness near the top of their sector in addition to expected improvement of profitability (Economic Margin) above their sector, and do not follow a wealth destroying strategy defined by AFG’s management quality score.

Attractive companies to consider in each sector instead of selling in may and going away

A brief description of AFG's buy criteria variables is below:
• 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.• Valuation Model – Using AFG’s modified discounted cash flow model to measure the intrinsic value of a firm compared to its peers.• Management Quality – Assess management’s ability to make wealth creating decisions.

 

Below is a summary of 22 AFG Buy Recommendations from the S&P500 Index. The report highlights the 2 companies from each sector (ex. financials) that have the most attractive value score and are currently rated Buys by The Applied Finance Group, Ltd. (AFG). Factors used to derive a AFG’s recommendation include: Expected change in Economic Margins, Intrinsic Value, and Management Quality.

We also ran a VE analysis and provided the results. The VE analysis of each company is used to identify implied sales growth expectations versus what the company has delivered historically in sales growth over the past 5 years. Measuring the spread between a company’s VE sales growth expectations and what it has historically delivered should give you a good idea of which companies have the best chance of meeting or exceeding those expectations, and thus are more likely to outperform.

 Cheapest Companies In The S&P 500 By Sector (ex. Financials)

 Click Here, to see results of our portfolio performance using AFG's Buy/Sell criteria

A brief description of AFG's buy criteria variables is below:

• 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.

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

• Management Quality – Assess management’s ability to make wealth creating decisions.

 Applied Finance Group’s (AFG’s) Value Score defined - 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.

VE Sales Growth - AFG’s Value Expectations allows us to understand the Sales Growth, EBITDA Margin, and Asset Turnover a company has to deliver in the future to justify its current trading price. In theory, if the imbedded future performance is very conservative relative to the company’s historical performance, the stock is regarded as undervalued. The VE Sales Growth displays the implied future Sales Growth of the company assuming their EBITDA Margins and Asset Turnovers stay at the 5 year historic median levels.

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.

Economic Margin is a measure of economic profitability that identifies how much a company earns above or below its cost of capital. We analyzed all companies in the S&P500 Index based on their historical, current and forecasted Economic Margins to see which firms have the best average of past, present and future profitability. We identified the two most profitable and the two least profitable companies from each sector and have presented them in the table below. As a base of reference, the average firm in corporate America earns a 0 (zero) Economic Margin, or is a “break-even business”. Our research has shown that companies with consistently positive EMs that are also expected to increase their EMs in the future tend to outperfom firms with negative or declining EMs.
<!--[if gte mso 10]> Economic Margin is a corporate performance measure, which helps us identify well managed, wealth creating companies. Although not included in this post, we want to remind you that it is also important to understand the attractiveness of corporations' valuations to make sure we invest in great companies at great prices. (Here is an article by ValueExpectations.com explaining Applied Finance Group’s basic valuation concepts).

Note: Only companies in the S&P 500 were included.

S&P 500 Companies With The Best/Worst Average Profitability (Economic Margin)

Economic Margin (EM) Defined: A measure of corporate performance that captures off balance sheet items, by looking at how much a company is earning above or below their cost of capital. EM is expressed in a % or margin. The 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. more EM details (PDF)

Mike Burdi of Applied Finance Group and Drew Morris of Great Numbers recently published a ranking of S&P 500 companies in CEO Magazine Using AFG's Wealth Creation Index. This measure of ranking CEO’s has been gaining traction and receiving publicity in national publications. Below are a few links to articles that have recently been published discussing our methods and results of identifying the biggest wealth creators and destroyers amongst the CEO’s of the nation’s largest companies.

An article written by Pittsburgh Post Gazette highlighting CEO Of Federated

An article from Planebuzz.com highlighting Southwest Airlines CEO

An article explaining the rankings with a link to the article by Directors Daily

An article explaining Economic Margin by New Jersey Star Ledger

The entire article posted on RealClearMarkets.com

The top and bottom CEO's from the rankings below:

Top 5 Companies based on CEO Rank along with Sales Growth Expectations

Bottom 5 Companies based on CEO Rank along with Sales Growth Expectations

Performance Rankings of the Top 50 and Bottom 50 Wealth Creating CEO's

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

In Joel Greenblatt’s 2006 book, The Little Blue Book that Beats the Market, he presented his “Magic Formula” used in his hedge fund, Gotham Capital. Mr Greenblatt tested his formula between 1988 and 2004. The results were incredible, with only one down year, the magic portfolio would have returned 30.8% a year, against a 12.4% annual return for the S&P 500.

Mr. Greenblatt was a student of both Ben Graham and Warren Buffet and tried to include valuable insights from each investor in his “Magic Formula.” His Magic Formula was a screen that percentile ranked two variables: Return on Invested Capital (quality) and Earnings Yield (valuation). The idea is simple, buy the best companies at the best price. He also recommends one year holding periods, so we thought this would be a great time to get this list out. The Little Blue Book recommends selecting the top 30 firms from the “Magic Formula.” That formula ranks each company by variable and then puts a 50% weight on each. Below is a definition of each variable.

Variable 1: Return on Invested Capital = EBIT / (Net Working Capital + Net Fixed assets)

Variable 2: Earnings Yield = EBIT/EV

The table below shows the top 30 firms with their market implied sales growth expectations. Enjoy!

Today we look at a recent article in CEO magazine by Mike Burdi of The Applied Finance Group (AFG) and Drew Morris using AFG’s Wealth Creation Index to rank the top wealth creating and wealth destroying CEO’s within the S&P 500. After comparing the top 5 on each list by using AFG’s valuation techniques and comparing the sales growth expectations built-in to their current price (VE Sales Growth) with what the companies have achieved in the last five years (5 Year Median Sales Growth), it is easy to see that good companies do not always make good investments. AFG’s Value Score measures the stock’s attractiveness relative to the universe based on AFG’s Intrinsic Value Target Price. The score is ranked from 1-100 with 1 being the most overvalued and 100 being the most undervalued stock in the universe. VE sales growth captures the sales growth expectations priced-in to the stock to justify the current price.
Although the top 5 are well run companies, that does not automatically qualify them to be good investments. Depending on what the market has priced-in, and how likely the company can deliver that performance determines whether the company is a good investment or not. Many companies that have been beaten up and even those with wealth destroying CEO’s may be a good investment if very low expectations are priced-in and you feel the company can exceed their expectations.

Top 5 Wealth Creating CEO’s

*denotes company has only 3 years historical sales growth

Top 5 Wealth Destroying CEO’s

VE Sales Growth was calculated for these companies on 12/14/08