Current Best Values: Return on Enterprise Value

Jan.27, 2012 in Stock Research Leave a Comment

The results for the Return on Enterprise Value backtest were very impressive, so I thought readers would be interested in seeing a list of the top 1% of stocks ranked based on Net Cash Flow / Enterprise Value.  Here are the current results:

  • Career Education Corp. (CECO) 0.71
  • Visteon Corporation (VC) 0.71
  • Veeco Instruments Inc. (VECO) 0.55
  • Unisys Corporation (UIS) 0.54
  • Power-One, Inc. (PWER) 0.53
  • Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (MNTA) 0.48
  • OmniVision Technologies, Inc. (OVTI) 0.42
  • Vishay Intertechnology (VSH) 0.42
  • Icahn Enterprises, L.P. (IEP) 0.40
  • ITT Corporation (ITT) 0.39
  • Humana Inc. (HUM) 0.37
  • American National Insurance Company (ANAT) 0.35
  • Aaron’s, Inc. (AAN) 0.35
  • WPX Energy Inc (WPX) 0.33
  • Healthsouth Corp. (HLS) 0.32
  • Navistar International Corporation (NAV) 0.32
  • GT Advanced Technologies Inc (GTAT) 0.31
  • Telephone & Data Systems, Inc. (TDS) 0.29
  • Micron Technology, Inc. (MU) 0.29
  • Tesoro Corporation (TSO) 0.28

Data: StockScreen123

It will be interested to check back on these stocks after a few months. Do any of the names above look interesting to you? Please leave your responses in the comments section below.

The above list of low Return on Enterprise Value stocks should only be used as a starting point for further research. Always remember, past performance does not guarantee future results.

DisclaimerAt the time this post was published, I did not own shares in any of the companies mentioned.

Return on Enterprise Value (ROEV) Backtest

Jan.24, 2012 in Stock Fundamentals 2 Comments

Return on Enterprise Value (ROEV) is a stock valuation ratio that can be useful for comparing the values of different companies. It is simply net cash flow divided by enterprise value. Net cash flow is net profit plus amounts charged off for depreciation, depletion, and amortization.

I was unfamiliar with this stock fundamental until Ken Faulkenberry of AAAMP Blog left the following comment on my Enterprise Value to EBITDA Ratio Backtest post:

Great post; glad to read someone uses this strategy in this day of “passive management”. This kind of valuation of stocks needs much more attention!

Personally I prefer Net Cash Flow / Enterprise Value which would include interest expense. I have written an article titled “Best Stock Valuation Calculation to Value Company Shares is ROEV” for anyone interested.

I decided to backtest Net Cash Flow / Enterprise value and compare it to the excellent results of the EV / EBITDA Ratio backtest.

I used StockScreen123 to conduct a 10-year backtest of the Return on Enterprise Value metric. I filtered out ADRs, non-US companies, companies in the miscellaneous financial services industry category (to mainly filter out closed-end funds), stocks trading below $2, market caps less than $433 million, and companies that did not have a net cash flow/EV ratio due to missing data. The results are as follows:

Return on Enterprise Value: Rolling 3-Yr Periods Excess Returns vs. Universe

As you can see from the table and charts above, stocks ranked in the highest 20% (1st quintile) of Net Cash Flow / EV ratio produced a CAGR of 11.48% from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2011. Averaging the annual excess returns versus the universe using four different quarterly start dates, the average excess returns for the first quintile is 4.80%. That is just slightly better than the 11.37% CAGR for EBITDA/EV 10-year backtest and the 4.59% average excess returns for the first quintile. The first quintile Sharpe and Sortino ratios for ROEV were almost identical to the EV/EBITDA backtest ratios. The ROEV strategy first quintile outperformed 85% of 1-year periods, while EV/EBITDA only outperformed 72.5% of 1-year periods. More impressively, the ROEV strategy outperformed 100% of rolling 3-year periods. Interestingly, looking at the lowest ranked stocks in the 5th quintile, ROEV averaged -5.29% excess returns versus the universe while EV/EBITDA averaged -5.84%. The bottom 20% of ROEV didn’t quite underperform as much as EV/EBITDA. Given how close the 1st quintile and 5th quintile scores are when comparing ROEV and EV/EBITDA, I’m not really sure you can say statistically that ROEV is better than EV/EBITDA. I really wish I could run a 20- or 30-year backtest on return on enterprise value. (Let us know if you can?)

Given these backtest results, I’m strongly considering working Return on Enterprise Value into my investment process, but it’s still difficult to tell if it is truly better than EBITDA/EV. What do you think? What other fundamentals would you like to see backtested here? Please leave you responses in the comments section below.

Current Best Values: Enterprise Value to EBITDA Ratio

Jan.17, 2012 in Stock Research 4 Comments

Given that we recently backtested the highly effective Enterprise Value to EBITDA ratio that was presented in Quantitative Strategies for Achieving Alpha, I thought folks might be interested in seeing the current results for this screen. Here are the top 1% stocks ranked on EV/EBITDA:

  • American Equity Investment Life (AEL)
  • National Western Life Insurance (NWLI)
  • Career Education Corp. (CECO)
  • First American Financial Corp (FAF)
  • Unisys Corporation (UIS)
  • The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. (THG)
  • State Auto Financial (STFC)
  • Veeco Instruments Inc. (VECO)
  • Hartford Financial Services (HIG)
  • Power-One, Inc. (PWER)
  • General Motors Company (GM)
  • Visteon Corporation (VC)
  • CIGNA Corporation (CI)
  • Assurant, Inc. (AIZ)
  • Vishay Intertechnology (VSH)
  • American National Insurance Company (ANAT)
  • Lincoln National Corporation (LNC)
  • Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc. (MIG)
  • WellCare Health Plans, Inc. (WCG)
  • Principal Financial Group, Inc. (PFG)
  • OmniVision Technologies, Inc. (OVTI)

Data: StockScreen123

It will be interested to check back on these stocks after a few months. Do any of the names above look interesting to you? Please leave your responses in the comments section below.

The above list of low EV/EBITDA stocks should only be used as a starting point for further research. Always remember, past performance does not guarantee future results.

Disclaimer: At the time this post was published, I did not own shares in any of the companies mentioned.

Enterprise Value to EBITDA Ratio Backtest

Jan.13, 2012 in Stock Fundamentals 13 Comments

The EBITDA to enterprise value (EV) ratio is a widely used valuation multiple to assess the relative value of companies. It is calculated by simply taking earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) and dividing by enterprise value (EV). Of course, you need to know the definitions of both of those terms to really be able to understand this stock fundamental.

EBITDA is equal to net income with interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization added back into it. EBITDA is somewhat useful for analyzing and comparing profitability between companies and industries because it removes differences due to tax rates and eliminates the effects of financing and accounting decisions. However, many value investors shun this fundamental due to its past abuse during the tech bubble. Charlie Munger is quoted as saying, “I think that, every time you saw the word EBITDA [earnings], you should substitute the word “bullshit” earnings.” Read the rest of this entry »

Book Review: Quantitative Strategies for Achieving Alpha

Jan.10, 2012 in Book Reviews 4 Comments

Quantitative Strategies for Achieving AlphaOver the holidays, I read Quantitative Strategies for Achieving Alpha by Richard Tortoriello. I found this book to be very different than most of the books I’ve read on investing. Tortoriello spends a substantial portion of the book walking the reader though his process for evaluating various stock fundamentals. He then tests each of these fundamentals using twenty years of high quality backtesting data from the Standard & Poor’s Compustat Point in Time database. Unlike other books that discuss investment theory and qualitative analysis, this book is very empirical. The stock fundamentals Tortoriello analyzed include many value investor favorites. Based on that alone, I think many intermediate to advanced value investors could benefit from this book. Beginners might find this book a bit overwhelming.

While Quantitative Strategies for Achieving Alpha would obviously appeal to so called “quants”, I also think it is a book that value investors should not overlook. Tortoriello introduces the book by stating, “This book was written with qualitative investors in mind, particularly those who wish to “understand” the stock market from a quantitative (empirical) point of view and who desire to integrate quantitative screens, tests, or models into their investment process—or simply into their thinking.” While quantitative approaches often tend to focus on technical analysis, this book will appeal more to value investors given that it examines the theory of why each fundamental factor works and it relegates technical analysis to just one chapter on price momentum.

Ted Williams Strike Zone Chart

From page 39 of The Science of Hitting.

As I read through each chapter and flipped through the extensive results tables in the appendix, I started imagining Ted Williams’ strike zone graphic in The Science of Hitting. Could I use Tortoriello’s process and analysis to start building my own strike zone chart of where to find the fattest pitches in the stock market? By the time I made it through the second chapter, I was pretty excited with the idea of using Tortoriello’s method myself. With access to Portfolio123 data and this method, I might just be able to build myself a map of when and where to swing for the fat pitches.

Before I get too far ahead of myself, let me discuss why I like this book so much. Unlike Joel Greenblatt’s The Little Book That Beats the Market, Tortoriello’s Quantitative Stategies for Achieving Alpha provides all the details necessary for replicating his work. The method is clearly and fully described in a 26-page methodology chapter. There are no secret or ambiguous steps to his stock screens. I was never able to replicate Greenblatt’s Magic Formula (and I haven’t seen anyone else replicate his backtest results), but I feel confident that I can replicate Tortoriello’s work.  In fact, I’ve already started and will start sharing those results soon.

The method Tortoriello lays out begins with investment basics, building bocks, and finally mosaics.  An investment basic in this context is a grouping of investment strategies that generally work. The basics listed by Tortoriello are as follows:

  • Profitability
  • Valuation
  • Cash Flow
  • Growth
  • Capital Allocation
  • Price Momentum
  • Red Flags

A chapter is dedicated to each of these investment basics in Quantitative Strategies. Each of these basics are then composed of building blocks.  Tortoriello states, “A building block is a specific strategy that has investment value and works for a clearly understandable, nonstatistical reason.” Finally, these building blocks can then be pieced together to form a mosaic. The mosaics take the form of two factor screens, multi-factor models, and integrated investment strategies that combine quantitative results with qualitative vetting and risk management.

Each of the building blocks tested in this book are sorted by the value of the factor being tested and then divided into five equal sized portfolios. Each of these quintiles are backtested with 12-month holding periods from 1987 to 2006.  The portfolios are rebalanced every 12-months and compounded annually to more realistically replicate what an individual investor might be expected to do to avoid higher short-term capital gains tax and trading costs. To help ensure that the test is not impacted by seasonal or statistical effects, the backtest is also started at four different points during the calendar year.  The results of the quarterly tests are used to calculate the average excess returns for each quintile.  The test results for the Enterprise Value to EBITDA ratio are provide below as an example of the many result summaries presented in this book.

When two factor tests are constructed, both factors are not weighted equally by Tortoriello. Instead, he first forms a set of stocks based on the first factor and then from that set he selects stocks based on the second factor. Not much rationale is provided for why this method was preferred, except to say that the first factor ends up being weighted more heavily and that the portfolio sizes end up consistent. This is a bit different from the way Greenblatt equally weighted both factors in his Magic Formula.

As you saw in the backtest example, many statistics are provided for each of the quintiles.  These include your typical compound annual growth rate, average excess returns, and the percent of periods outperforming.  In addition, the author includes some more academic statistics such as Sharpe Ratio, Beta, and Alpha. The author gets points with value investors for disparaging Beta as a measure of risk and its use in calculating Alpha. However, he still provides these statistics with every summary, I guess to cater to some quants that expect to see those stats. In addition to these statistics, many of the basic building blocks are also tested by industry sector.

Tortoriello uses a fairly intuitive and and basic set of criteria to evaluate each of the strategies tested in this book.  He write, “Our criteria for a strategy that works are (1) the top quintile outperforms the market by a significant margin; (2) the bottom quintile significantly underperforms; (3) outperformance and/or underperformance have been consistent over the years; and (4) there is some linearity in the performance of the quintiles, indicating a strong relationship between the strategy and excess returns.”  In addition, he also mentions that he prefers strategies with low volatility and low maximum loss for the top quintile and high volatility and high maximum loss for the bottom quintile.  Most importantly, Tortoriello doesn’t forget to emphasize that a strategy that worked well in the past may not work as well in the future.

The book concludes with two chapters on pulling together the most successful building blocks.  These included, but are not limited to, the following factors: EV to EBITDA, Free Cash Flow to Price, ROIC, Cash ROIC, 52-Week Price Range, 7-Month Relative Strength, External Financing, 1-Yr Reduction in Shares, EPS Score, and FCF Per Share Score. Several two-factor, three factor, and a complex multi-factor model built using Monte Carlo simulation to optimize weightings are presented. The use of Monte Carlo simulation makes me a bit uncomfortable with the potential for data mining and model overfitting, but at least it introduced me to another approach.

While the analysis in Quantitative Strategies for Achieving Alpha is valuable, this book is not an easy read. I would not recommend taking this book to the beach. Instead, I found it ideal to read this book over short intervals in a quiet study or during the quiet morning subway ride I take to work. I found myself referring back to the methods section and some individual building block backtest results several times. This is one of those books you’ll want to own and markup versus borrowing it from the library.

This book has inspired me to test out many of the stock fundamentals that are popular with value investors. Within the next few days, I’ll provide my own backtest of the Enterprise Value to EBITDA ratio from 2001 to 2011 using StockScreen123. What other fundamentals would you like to see tested?

Closing Out 2011, Kicking Off 2012

Jan.03, 2012 in Model Portfolios 1 Comment

Happy new year fellow investors! I hope you enjoyed the holidays as much as I did. It was great spending time with my family this past week, taking a break from work, and reflecting on the future.

2011 was a challenging year, especially for fellow investors and website owners. The long hoped for economic recovery hasn’t really materialized yet. Web ad sales have been terrible and interest in stock market blogs was flat at best.

Thankfully, the portfolios I track for Fat Pitch Financials did pretty well in 2011.  The flagship Fat Pitch Financials Port that I track at Marketocracy returned 5.98% last year. Since inception, it is up 56.58% or 6.35% annualized. The Special Situations Real Money Portfolio had a rough year, but it was still able to return 7.14% in 2011. Since inception, the Special Situations Real Money Portfolio is 187.7% or 25.4% annualized! Finally, the Workouts model at Covestor recovered nicely in the last quarter of 2011, so it was able to return 9.51% in 2011. Since inception, it is up 7.07% or 6.01% annualized (Edit: Workout model numbers updated with end-of-year results). My hope that in 2012 I will start attracting some subscribers to the Workouts model now that it is starting to outperform the market.

I plan on kicking off 2012 with a return to fundamentals. I recently finished reading Quantitative Strategies for Achieving Alpha by Richard Tortoriello. My favorite investment tool, StockScreen123 also just upgraded its backtesting function to include dividends in returns, four new benchmarks that include dividends (total returns), and a new screening function for examining stock splits. I’m planning to combine what I learned in Tortoriello’s book with the new features of StockScreen123 to create a series of posts that examine how well the fundamental ratios most watched by value investors performed over the past decade. My end goal is to create a Ted Williams style strike zone chart that will show me when to swing for the fat pitch stocks in 2012.

What are the “Top 5″ blogs (or online resources) you particularly enjoy reading?

Dec.20, 2011 in Financial News 3 Comments

Shai Dardashti just sent me a survey asking:

What are the “Top 5″ blogs (or online resources) you particularly enjoy reading?

This is apparently part of Shai’s excellent New Years Resolution for 2012, which is to learn faster and more efficiently. I think this is a great effort.  I encourage you to also respond to his survey. Just click on What are the “Top 5″ blogs (or online resources) you particularly enjoy reading? to share your favorite sites.

Read the rest of this entry »

Value Investing Research Group on Mendeley

Dec.08, 2011 in Research Tools 1 Comment

MendeleyI just started playing around with a an online reference manager and social network for researchers called Mendeley. I’ve found it to be a great tool for organizing my PDFs and online links to academic papers. Mendeley allows you to organize, tag, backup, sync, and annotate your PDFs. The desktop software for Mendeley is easy to use and has a great interface. The really unique aspect to this reference organizing tool is that you can create public groups to collaborate with others interested in the topic you are researching.

I was surprised to find that there wasn’t a value investing group on Mendeley.  I solved that little issue real by quickly setting up a group simply called Value Investing. I welcome fellow value investors to join this group and share their collections of papers.

I’m still looking for a collection of Benjamin Graham papers I have somewhere on my hard drive that I will add to the group as soon as I find them.  So far I have some classic Piotroski and Altman papers listed in the group. Please add your favorite value investing references to the list. I could see this group becoming a great resource for value investing students and researchers given the excellent collaboration features that Mendeley groups provide.

The Moats Book Seeks Editors

Dec.06, 2011 in Book Reviews Leave a Comment

Moats: The Competitive Advantages of Buffett & Munger BusinessesThe content for Bud Labitan’s Moats: Competitive Advantages Of Buffett& Munger Businesses book is now complete. The book is in the final editing phase. Anyone who wants to proofread, edit, and enhance a chapter can join the editing team by visiting http://www.frips.com/book.htm.

The book currently includes over 70 businesses.  These include the following:

  • Acme Brick Company, assigned to Adam Ward, UNO-CBA.
  • American Express Co. (AXP), Dr. Maulik Suthar, Gujarat, India.
  • Applied Underwriters, assigned to Adam Ward, UNO-CBA.
  • Ben Bridge Jeweler, assigned to Beryl Chavez Li, University of Manchester, UK.
  • Benjamin Moore & Co., assigned to Mr. Jack Wang CPA, Lexico Advisory.
  • Berkshire Hathaway Group
  • Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Companies, assigned to Beryl Chavez Li, University of Manchester, UK.
  • BoatU.S., assigned to Peter Chen, Singapore.
  • Borsheims Fine Jewelry, assigned to Tariq Khan, UNO-CBA.
  • Buffalo NEWS, Buffalo NY,
  • Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. assigned to David Leoy.
  • Business Wire, assigned to Larry Harmych.
  • BYD, assigned to Kevin Walsh, UNO-CBA.
  • Central States Indemnity Company, assigned to Azalia Khousnoutdinova, UNO-CBA
  • Clayton Homes, assigned to Erin Sestak, UNO-CBA.
  • Coca Cola (KO) assigned to Sebastian Jung, UNO-CBA
  • ConocoPhillips (COP), assigned to Adam D. Studts, PE, UNO-CBA.
  • CORT Business Services, assigned to Erin Sestak, UNO-CBA.
  • Costco Wholesale (COST), assigned to Jubin Jacob, AUC-SOM.
  • CTB Inc., assigned to Todd Sullivan.
  • Fechheimer Brothers Company, assigned to Ben Albaitis.
  • FlightSafety, assigned to Mark Murillo, Memorial High School
  • Forest River, assigned to Richard Konrad, CFA, Value Architects Asset Management.
  • Fruit of the Loom®, Dr. Maulik Suthar, Gujarat, India.
  • Garan Incorporated, assigned to Dr. Edwin Fuentes
  • Gateway Underwriters Agency, assigned Daniel Rudewicz, CFA of Furlong Financial, LLC.
  • GEICO Auto Insurance assigned to Florian Beil, UNO-CBA
  • General Re, assigned to Raghu Dasari, UNO-CBA.
  • H.H. Brown Shoe Group, assigned to Mervyn H. Teo (Singapore)
  • Helzberg Diamonds, assigned to Natalja Callahan, UNO-CBA
  • HomeServices of America, assigned to Sebastian Jung, UNO-CBA
  • IBM
  • International Dairy Queen, Inc., assigned to Tariq Khan, UNO-CBA
  • Iscar Metalworking Companies, assigned to Kevin Walsh, UNO-CBA.
  • Johns Manville, assigned to Manpreet Singh Saran.
  • Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), Beryl Chavez Li. & Jubin Jacob.
  • Jordan’s Furniture, assigned to Zehao Sun.
  • Justin Brands, Dr. Maulik Suthar, Gujarat, India.
  • Kraft Foods (KFT), assigned to Andrea Tagart, UNO-CBA.
  • Larson-Juhl, assigned to David Arthur Dawes
  • Lubrizol, with Scott Thompson, MBA.
  • M&T Bank Corp (MTB), Cliff Orr, Kellogg-Northwestern.
  • Marmon Holdings, Inc., assigned to Robert Williams.
  • McLane Company, Dr. Maulik Suthar, Gujarat, India.
  • Medical Protective, assigned to Michael Murillo, KCUMB
  • MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company, assigned to Dr. Maulik Suthar, Gujarat, India.
  • MiTek Inc., assigned to Mr. Jack Wang CPA, Lexico Advisory.
  • Moody’s (MCO), assigned to Raghu Dasari, UNO-CBA.
  • National Indemnity Company, assigned to Jen Iwanski, UNO-CBA.
  • Nebraska Furniture Mart, assigned to Julie Rosenbaugh, UNO-CBA.
  • NetJets®, assigned to Christian Labitan.
  • PacifiCorp., assigned to Beryl Chavez Li, University of Manchester, UK
  • Precision Steel Warehouse, Inc., assigned to Adam D. Studts, PE, UNO-CBA.
  • Procter & Gamble (PG), assigned to Beryl Chavez Li, University of Manchester, UK
  • RC Willey Home Furnishings, assigned to Azalia Khousnoutdinova, UNO-CBA.
  • Richline Group, Daniel Doyon, Purdue University.
  • Scott Fetzer Companies, Cliff Orr, Kellogg-Northwestern.
  • See’s Candies, assigned to Jen Iwanski, UNO-CBA.
  • Shaw Industries, Richard Konrad, CFA, Value Architects Asset Management
  • Star Furniture, assigned to Pamela A. Quintero.
  • The Pampered Chef® assigned to Julie Rosenbaugh, UNO-CBA.
  • TTI, Inc., assigned to Peter Chen, Singapore.
  • United States Liability Insurance Group, assigned to Stephen Chan, University of Manchester, UK.
  • US Bancorp (USB), assigned to Richard Konrad, CFA, Value Architects Asset Management.
  • USG Corp (USG),
  • Wal-Mart (WMT) with Florian Beil, UNO-CBA.
  • Washington Post (WPO), assigned to Andrea Tagart, UNO-CBA.
  • Wells Fargo (WFC), assigned to Natalja Callahan, UNO-CBA.
  • Wesco Financial Corporation, assigned to Stephen Chan, University of Manchester, UK.
  • XTRA Corporation, assigned to Ryan M Shuck, UNO-CBA

Special Situations Real Money Portfolio Third Quarter 2011 Update

Oct.03, 2011 in Special Situations Real Money Portfolio 2 Comments

The Special Situations Real Money Portfolio ended the third quarter of 2011 with a balance of $38,633.48 when the market closed on September 30, 2011. The portfolio is down 5.69% for the year. In comparison, the total year to date return for the S&P 500 was -8.68% as of September 30, 2011. In general, 2011 has been a rough year for the stock market so far.

Thankfully, the Special Situations Real Money Portfolio has produced a total return of 221.95% since inception back in 2004. The annualized rate of return to date is still a healthy 23.63%.

Special situation opportunities have been exceedingly hard to find. Many of the available deals have been of lower quality and higher risk variety. I am hoping things will turn around soon.

Balance: $38,633.48
IRR: 23.63%
Return: 221.95%
YTD: -5.69%

Funded By