Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (42374)	5/3/2001 12:27:46 PM
From: Pirah Naman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Mike: Looking at only the next four quarters makes no sense to me whatsoever for the very reason you mentioned -- that growth doesn't come in a linear fashion. Oh, I don't believe that one should only look at the next four quarters. I agree with you completely there. But any P/E is based on one year's worth of earnings. If one is to calculate a P/E for the next year, they should do it for the next fiscal 12 months, not use a fiscal year that is part way done or one which is still a couple of quarters off. - Pirah

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (42374)	5/4/2001 1:49:15 PM
From: Pirah Naman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Mike: As I fell asleep last night something you wrote here hit me, and leads me to believe that there was something else I did not express clearly: for the very reason you mentioned -- that growth doesn't come in a linear fashion. Actually what I was trying to express (original below) was not about whether growth is linear or not. Even a slow grower will not have linear growth - growth will be compounded. Of course everybody's growth will not follow a perfect curve. But that is not what I was writing about. What I was writing about was the problems with the rule of P/E should approximate the growth rate. A zero grower is not worth a P/E of zero, but is worth far more. When I wrote that "The faster an asset increases its asset flows, the more it deviates to a value well above where its PEG suggests it." I was pointing out that the higher the growth rate, the higher the P/E can be relative to the growth rate. e.g., a growth rate of 30% might support a P/E of 40, but a growth rate of 50% might support a growth rate of 75 (all numbers made up, don't take them seriously). Now of course many recognize this, but then they struggle with what P/E (or PEG) is acceptable for a given growth rate. That relationship can be worked out and tabulated, as I mention in the last paragraph below. - Pirah The big reason that PEGs tend to undervalue such companies is because of a problem inherent to PEGs. PEGs assume a linearity that does not exist. An asset which puts out a constant, not growing, stream of free cash flows is not equal to zero. The faster an asset increases its asset flows, the more it deviates to a value well above where its PEG suggests it. Even B. Graham recognized this - his formula for the value of a company based on its earnings started with "8.5+..." - though even that is only good, as Graham acknowledges, for growth rates which are modest. There is no need for us to use the linear relationship, or even to come up with discreet rules of thumb. If one understands the underlying principles one can come up with a chart which gives the appropriate PE ratio for any given growth rate. Which will work much better for emerging or strong gorillas.