SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Technology Stocks : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (30504)2/19/1998 9:30:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 176387
 
Reginald, I've been using DCF techniques for the past twenty years, and am well acquainted with its virtues as well as its pit-falls, and among the problems that I see in your approach is that (a) there is no measurement of the average weighted cost of capital - there is simply a range of kw's; (b) I agree that cash is king (that's why we talk DCF, not profits), but your growth assumptions make no sense because you posit 1%, 2.5% and 4% perpetual growth rates. These are undoubtedly incorrect because the whole assumption of perpetual growth is incorrect (that is, you created it as a surrogate for an unknown stream of cash flows). So what you are trying to do is collapse this unknown stream of free cash flows into an equivalent stream assuming perpetual growth. Clearly, this cannot be done in the absence of a meaningful discount rate (which is measured, not assumed) and in the absence of an explicated free cash flow stream.

The usual way of relating growth to cash flow is through a dividend growth policy:

P = (Dt/Nt)/(ke-g)

where P is the value of a share, Dt is the dividend in the tth period, ke is the cost of equity and g is the growth rate.

Now this underscores the other problem I alluded to. If you use cash flow as a surrogate for income, you must make sure the corporation is not using any benefits derived from that cash flow such as interest income, share repurchase, purchase of plant and equipment etc.

Let me illustrate this with a simple analogy. Suppose a corporation's sole source of income is a bond paying 6%. Now, the corporation could dividend the entire interest payment to its shareholders or it could buy additional bonds at 6%. If it opts for the former there will be no growth in cash flow to the corporation but there will be a steady stream of dividends to the s/h's. In the latter case, the company's cash flows will increase at 6% per annum but there will be no dividends to the s/h's. BUT, the company has the same value in either case.

Sorry that I've gone on at some length about this, but I've been wrestling with this problem for years, and have concluded that there is no reasonable model for valuing growth.

If Jim Leon is lurking somewhere on this thread, perhaps he could throw his thoughts in as well. He and I have discussed this very problem on the TLAB thread some time ago.

Regards,

Paul