Assessing Growth Estimates in IPO Valuations—A Case Study

A common practice in discounted cash flow (DCF) valuations of growth businesses is to forecast cash flows over some initial period (say, five years) and then use a "perpetuity-with-growth" calculation to estimate the "terminal" value beyond that period. The assumed growth rate generally has a very large effect on the overall valuation, and there is no universally accepted method for challenging the assumptions underlying the selected growth rate. This article presents a framework based on the concept of Market Implied Competitive Advantage Period (MICAP) analysis that can be used to evaluate such growth assumptions and then demonstrates the use of that framework in the IPO valuation of Jordan Telecom.     

Pricing assets with stochastic cash-flow growth

We model the time series behavior of dividend growth rates, as well as the profitability rate, with a variety of autoregressive moving-average processes, and use the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) to derive the appropriate discount rate. One of the most important implications of this research is that the rate of return beta changes with the time to maturity of the expected cash flow, and the degree of mean reversion displayed by the growth rate. We explore the consequences of this observation for three different strands of the literature. The first is for the value premium anomaly, the second for stock valuation and learning about long-run profitability, and the third is for the St. Petersburg paradox. One of the most surprising results is that the CAPM implies a higher rate of return beta for value stocks than growth stocks. Therefore, value stocks must have higher expected returns, and this is what is required theoretically in order to explain the well-known value premium anomaly.     

The Role of Real Options in Capital Budgeting: Theory and Practice1

Most discussions of capital budgeting take for granted that discounted cash flow (DCF) and real options valuation (ROV) are very different methods that are meant to be applied in different circumstances. Such discussions also typically assume that DCF is “easy” and ROV is “hard”—or at least dauntingly unfamiliar—and that, mainly for this reason, managers often use DCF and rarely ROV. This paper argues that all three assumptions are wrong or at least seriously misleading. DCF and ROV both assign a present value to risky future cash flows. DCF entails discounting expected future cash flows at the expected return on an asset of comparable risk. ROV uses “risk‐neutral” valuation, which means computing expected cash flows based on “risk‐neutral” probabilities and discounting these flows at the risk‐free rate. Using a series of single‐period examples, the author demonstrates that both methods, when done correctly, should provide the same answer. Moreover, in most ROV applications—those where there is no forward price or “replicating portfolio” of traded assets—a “preliminary” DCF valuation is required to perform the risk‐neutral valuation. So why use ROV at all? In cases where project risk and the discount rates are expected to change over time, the risk‐neutral ROV approach will be easier to implement than DCF (since adjusting cash flow probabilities is more straightforward than adjusting discount rates). The author uses multi‐period examples to illustrate further both the simplicity of ROV and the strong assumptions required for a typical DCF valuation. But the simplicity that results from discounting with risk‐free rates is not the only benefit of using ROV instead of—or together with—traditional DCF. The use of formal ROV techniques may also encourage managers to think more broadly about the flexibility that is (or can be) built into future business decisions, and thus to choose from a different set of possible investments. To the extent that managers who use ROV have effectively adopted a different business model, there is a real and important difference between the two valuation techniques. Consistent with this possibility, much of the evidence from both surveys and academic studies of managerial behavior and market pricing suggests that managers and investors implicitly take account of real options when making investment decisions.     

An Analysis of Contrarian Investment Strategies in the UK

The performance of contrarian, or value strategies – those that invest in stocks that have low market value relative to a measure of their fundamentals – continues to attract attention from researchers and practitioners alike. While there is much extant evidence on the profitability of value strategies, however, most of this evidence pertains to the US. In this paper, we provide a detailed characterisation of value strategies using data on UK stocks for the period 1975 to 1998. We first undertake simple one-way and two-way classifications of stocks in which value is defined using both past performance and expected future performance. Using sales growth as a proxy for past performance and book-to-market, earnings yield and cash flow yield as measures of expected future performance, we find that that stocks that have both poor past performance and low expected future performance have significantly higher returns than those that have either good past performance or good expected future performance. Allowing for size effects in returns reduces the value premium but it nevertheless remains significant. We go on to explore whether the profitability of value strategies in the UK can be explained using the three factor model of Fama and French (1996). Broadly consistent with the results for the US, we find that using the one-way classification the excess returns to almost all value strategies can be explained by their loading on the market, book-to-market and size factors. However, in contrast with the US, using the two-way classification there are excess returns to value strategies based on book-to-market and sales growth, even after controlling for their loading on the market, book-to-market and size factors.     

融资约束、审计费用与现金持有价值

审计费用和现金持有价值是公司财务审计研究领域的两个重要话题。审计费用高低所隐含的公司风险程度影响着投资者对公司增加现金持有量将产生积极还是消极效应的判断,会导致公司股票超额回报率的变化,进而也可能影响其现金持有价值,目前尚无相关的研究。本文以现金持有的边际价值模型为基础,引入审计费用和融资约束变量,对融资约束条件下审计费用与公司现金持有价值的关系进行研究后发现,过高的审计费用会降低公司的现金持有价值,审计费用增加得越多,公司的现金持有价值越低。进一步的分析发现,相对于其面临较高程度的融资约束时,公司面临较低程度的融资约束时审计费用对其现金持有价值的负向影响更为显著。     

Valuation of Corporate Innovation and the Pricing of Risk in the Biopharmaceutical Industry: The Case of Gilead

Much of a firm's market value derives from expected future growth value rather than from the value of current operations or assets in place. Pharmaceutical companies are good examples of firms where much market value comes from expectations about drugs still in the development “pipeline.” Using a new osteoporosis drug being developed by Gilead Sciences, Inc., the author combines discounted cash flow methods values and real option models to value it. Alone, discounted cash flow (DCF) calculations are vulnerable to the assumptions of growth, cost of capital, and cash flows. But by integrating the real options approach with the DCF technique, one can value a new product in the highly regulated, risky and research‐intensive Biopharmaceutical industry. This article shows how to value a Biopharmaceutical product, tracked from discovery to market launch in a step‐by‐step manner. Improving over early real option models, this framework explicitly captures competition, speed of innovation, risk, financing need, the size of the market potential in valuing corporate innovation using a firm‐specific measure of risk and the industry‐wide value of growth operating cash flows. This framework shows how the risk of corporate innovation, which is not fully captured by the standard valuation models, is priced into the value of a firm's growth opportunity. The DCF approach permits top‐down estimation of the size of the industry‐wide growth opportunity that competing firms must race to capture, while the contingency‐claims technique allows bottom‐up incorporation of the firm's successful R&D investment and the timing of introduction of the new product to market. It also specifically prices the risk of innovation by modeling its two components: the consumer validation of technology and the expert validation of technology. Overall, it estimates the value contribution per share of a new product for the firm.     

The term structures of equity and interest rates

This paper proposes a dynamic risk-based model capable of jointly explaining the term structure of interest rates, returns on the aggregate market, and the risk and return characteristics of value and growth stocks. Both the term structure of interest rates and returns on value and growth stocks convey information about how the representative investor values cash flows of different maturities. We model how the representative investor perceives risks of these cash flows by specifying a parsimonious stochastic discount factor for the economy. Shocks to dividend growth, the real interest rate, and expected inflation are priced, but shocks to the price of risk are not. Given reasonable assumptions for dividends and inflation, we show that the model can simultaneously account for the behavior of aggregate stock returns, an upward-sloping yield curve, the failure of the expectations hypothesis, and the poor performance of the capital asset pricing model.     

Valuing a high-tech growth company: the case of EchoStar Communications Corporation

This article uses real options to value a high-tech company with significant growth option potential. The case of EchoStar Communications Corporation is used as an illustration. The company's growth opportunities are modeled and valued as a portfolio of growth options, namely options to expand its pay television, equipment, and internet services. Expansion of the main business can occur geographically (in the USA, internationally, and through partnerships) or through cross-selling of new products and services to its customer base. The internet business can expand via switching to digital subscriber line and through partnerships. The underlying asset (business) for the expansion options is the ‘base’ discounted cash flow (DCF), after removing the constant growth rate in the terminal-value DCF assumption. The options-based estimate of present value of growth opportunities (PVGO) value substitutes for the terminal growth DCF estimate. We show that our options-based portfolio PVGO provides a better estimate of the firm's growth prospects than the terminal growth DCF assumption.     

Excess Cash and Stock Returns

I document a positive relationship between corporate excess cash holdings and future stock returns. The difference in returns of portfolios of high and low excess cash firms amounts to 5% annually or 6% after standard three-factor risk adjustment. Firms with more excess cash have higher market betas and earn lower returns during market downturns. High excess cash companies invest considerably more in the future than do their low cash peers, but do not experience stronger future profitability. On the whole, this evidence is consistent with the notion that excess cash holdings proxy for risky growth options.     

Choice of measurement basis and discretionary valuation of real estate: Evidence from Dutch Social Housing Associations

In this study, I examine choice of measurement basis and managerial discretion in accounting for real estate, where I compare measurement on the basis of discounted cash flow (DCF) with measurement based on historical cost (HC). I exploit unique data in the setting of social housing associations (SHAs) in the Netherlands, using data from a supervisory agency which makes an independent assessment of the value of real estate based on comparable assumptions across all SHAs, allowing for a comparison with reported carrying amounts. In line with prior literature, I find that leverage is positively associated with using DCF as measurement basis. In addition, I find evidence that both in case of DCF and HC measurement, carrying amounts increase with leverage, suggesting opportunistic use of managerial discretion in measuring assets. While the degree of opportunism does not differ on average, I find that opportunistic measurement increases as entities switch from HC to DCF measurement. Finally, detailed data on the supervisor’s adjustments allow to investigate the assumptions SHAs use to adjust reported DCF carrying amounts. SHAs mostly use the timing of cash flows, the expected sales revenue, parameters such as inflation and the expected rent increases, and the assumed lifespan of real estate.     

Valuing Companies with Cash‐Flow@Risk

The classic DCF approach to capital budgeting—the one that MBA students in the world's top business schools have been taught for the last 30 years—begins with the assumption that the corporate investment decision is “independent of” the financing decision. That is, the value of a given investment opportunity should not be affected by how a company is financed, whether mainly with debt or with equity. A corollary of this capital structure “irrelevance” proposition says that a company's investment decision should also not be influenced by its risk management policy—by whether a company hedges its various price exposures or chooses to leave them unhedged. In this article, the authors—one of whom is the CFO of the French high‐tech firm Gemalto—propose a practical alternative to DCF that is based on a concept they call “cash‐flow@risk.” Implementation of the concept involves dividing expected future cash flow into two components: a low‐risk part, or “certainty equivalent,” and a high‐risk part. The two cash flow streams are discounted at different rates (corresponding to debt and equity) when estimating their value. The concept of cash‐flow@risk derives directly from, and is fully consistent with, the concept of economic capital that was developed by Robert Merton and Andre Perold in the early 1990s and that has become the basis of Value at Risk (or VaR) capital allocation systems now used at most financial institutions. But because the approach in this article focuses on the volatility of operating cash flows instead of asset values, the authors argue that an internal capital allocation system based on cash‐flow@risk is likely to be much more suitable than VaR for industrial companies.     

Investing for the Long-run in European Real Estate

We calculate optimal portfolio choices for a long-horizon, risk-averse investor who diversifies among European stocks, bonds, real estate, and cash, when excess asset returns are predictable. Simulations are performed for scenarios involving different risk aversion levels, horizons, and statistical models capturing predictability in risk premia. Importantly, under one of the scenarios, the investor takes into account the parameter uncertainty implied by the use of estimated coefficients to characterize predictability. We find that real estate ought to play a significant role in optimal portfolio choices, with weights between 12 and 44%. Under plausible assumptions, the welfare costs of either ignoring predictability or restricting portfolio choices to traditional financial assets only are found to be in the order of 150–300 basis points per year. These results are robust to changes in the benchmarks and in the statistical framework.      

Buy rough,sell smooth

Recent work has documented roughness in the time series of stock market volatility and investigated its implications for option pricing. We study a strategy for trading stocks based on measures of their implied and realized roughness. A strategy that goes long the roughest-volatility stocks and short the smoothest-volatility stocks earns statistically significant excess annual returns of 6% or more, depending on the time period and strategy details. The profitability of the strategy is not explained by standard factors. We compare alternative measures of roughness in volatility and find that the profitability of the strategy is greater when we sort stocks based on implied rather than realized roughness. We interpret the profitability of the strategy as compensation for near-term idiosyncratic event risk.     

The Gap between the Theory and Practice of Corporate Valuation: Survey of European Experts

The valuation of companies or their assets is at the heart of most financing and investment decisions. Over the last five decades, academics have developed several simple and sophisticated models for corporate valuation. Yet valuation estimates of a firm or its assets appear to vary widely among practitioners. It is unclear whether these differences arise from practitioners' use of different valuation models or from differences in their assumptions about the inputs used in those models. To provide some insights into this issue, the authors recently surveyed 365 European finance practitioners with CFAs or equivalent professional degrees. They find that almost all survey respondents use the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) model (along with some version of Relative Valuation that relies on the use of “comparables”). But the estimation methods of such practitioners for almost all inputs in the DCF model, including beta, the equity market risk premium, leverage, cost of debt, and terminal value, vary widely. This can be a serious problem because even small differences in inputs can cause huge variations in valuations. Such differences arise primarily because theory provides little guidance on how to estimate parameters, leaving practitioners to make their own assumptions and judgments. In sum, the authors' findings suggest that the process of estimating valuation parameters can be as important as the choice of the valuation model itself, and requires the serious attention of academics and practitioners. The authors recommend that key valuation parameter estimates be disclosed in financial and valuation reports. Their findings are also relevant to policy makers because the concept of “fair value” plays such a central role in post‐crisis regulation.     

Corporate governance and firm cash holdings in the US

Using governance metrics based on antitakeover provisions and inside ownership, we find that firms with weaker corporate governance structures actually have smaller cash reserves. When distributing cash to shareholders, firms with weaker governance structures choose to repurchase instead of increasing dividends, avoiding future payout commitments. The combination of excess cash and weak shareholder rights leads to increases in capital expenditures and acquisitions. Firms with low shareholder rights and excess cash have lower profitability and valuations. However, there is only limited evidence that the presence of excess cash alters the overall relation between governance and profitability. In the US, weakly controlled managers choose to spend cash quickly on acquisitions and capital expenditures, rather than hoard it.     

An Analysis of the Burden of Corporation Tax upon Investment of Retained profits in Plant and Machinery

The burden of corporation tax in project appraisal is defined here to be the ratio of the net present value (NPV) of the tax cash flows to the pre-tax project NPV. This burden, under careful stated conditions, is shown to be a heperbolic function of the pre-tax profitability index. It may be well in excess of 100% for projects with marginal pre-tax profitability and it falls asymptotically with increasing pre-tax profitability to less than the nominal 35% rate of corporation tax. It falls more heavily upon long rather than short term projects, and the effects of inflation are capricions. These results are contrasted with the corresponding results for the fiscal arrangements which applied prior to the 1984 Finance Act.     

Errors and questionable judgments in analysts’ DCF models

We investigate the number of and reasons for errors and questionable judgments that sell-side equity analysts make in constructing and executing discounted cash flow (DCF) equity valuation models. For a sample of 120 DCF models detailed in reports issued by U.S. brokers in 2012 and 2013, we estimate that analysts make a median of three theory-related and/or execution errors and four questionable economic judgments per DCF. Recalculating analysts’ DCFs after correcting for major errors changes analysts’ mean valuations and target prices by between ?2 and 14 % per error. Based on face-to-face interviews with analysts and those who oversee them, we conclude that analysts’ DCF modeling behavior is semi-sophisticated in the sense that analysts genuinely make mistakes regarding certain aspects of correctly valuing equity but also respond rationally to the incentives they face, particularly the reality that they are not directly compensated for being textbook DCF correct.     

A Synthesis of Equity Valuation Techniques and the Terminal Value Calculation for the Dividend Discount Model

This paper lays out alternative equity valuation models that involve forecasting for finite periods and shows how they are related to each other. It contrasts dividend discounting models, discounted cash flow models, and residual income models based on accrual accounting. It shows that some models that are apparently different yield the same valuation. It gives the general form of the terminal value calculation in these models and shows how this calculation serves to correct errors in the model. It also shows that all models can be interpreted as providing a particular specification of the terminal value for the dividend discount model. In so doing it shows how one calculates the terminal value for the dividend discount formula. The calculation involves weighting forecasted stocks and flows of value with weights determined by a parameter that can be discovered from pro forma analysis.