This ROIC and EV/EBIT list for possible buys is crazy to me.
Imo, something is not right there in the way the current numbers are used.
First, I like my method better. Ok, I'm nobody, and Greenblatt's the professor and billionaire. Aren't we essentially looking for the same thing here though? High returns on equity and paying a low price for that. Ok my use of ROE doesn't take account of debt (EV), and I still use low p/e as a sign of stock price (value).
I'm looking at Yahoo numbers for some of the listed stocks. GM has desirable high returns on equity? I don't see that. Ford? Really? Who believes that using a high roe or roic for Ford (if it even had it) for a reason to buy this obvious cylical business is a good idea? I'm a long-term holder of refiner VLO. Another obvious cyclical. If I'm going to buy on my high roe, low p/e model, the roe has got to at least look like it's sustainable for a while (based on it being high in previous years)
Secondly, imo, a reason for having a package of 20+ of these types of stocks, is that this is just what I don't want:
"Understand the "Why": The final column in the table is key. A low EV/EBIT almost always comes with a catch. Is the company cyclical? In a dying industry? Facing litigation? The market is efficient; a low price usually means high risk. Your job is to determine if that risk is overblown."
I am betting of course that there's something strange or unusual or wrong with any company that showing high roe and low p/e and the market doesn't care. The purpose of the package is to reduce risk that the market is right. Maybe right in a couple, but not all. Further, if I went on to research each company for the "why", there's enough negative reasons resulting, that I'd just pass over many of these stocks that will turn out to be superior investments.
Anyway, just my opinion. Stocks in that list could be very good buys. (And I own several.)
I just don't see that they're buys because they fit the Greenblatt model as described in his book. |
