- Galactic Advisors

# Investing In Extremely Valued Businesses | How Much Is Too Much?

There is a constant debate amongst investors on whether one should focus on

(i) **buying quality businesses** which, most of the time are available **at extreme valuations** or

(ii) **focus on buying businesses at cheap**/fair valuations instead.

We all know many great businesses like Nestle, HDFC Bank, etc. that have passed the test of time but never seem to be available at cheap valuations. As a result, the majority of the Indian investors never invest in such businesses and in turn lose the opportunity to earn well above-market returns while investing.

Businesses like the ones mentioned above have consistently hovered around the high-end range of P/E which most would find over-valued, but this doesn’t mean that an investor has to outright ignore them for their valuations. Such businesses require a different approach which should be less to do with numbers and more to do with understanding the business.

**Case In Favour Of Valuations**

Before starting, let’s consider this first – Actually, the valuation process forms an important element of the investment process because buying at the right valuation protects you from the speculative component (current market valuation), the one which **you can’t control**. It lets you focus on the business component (businesses with quality earnings growth) which is **in your control** as you can choose whether to invest in the business or not.

In other words, how the share price performs over the next 10 years is not under anybody’s control. Rather what we can do is to invest in businesses trading near fair value range whose performance will dominate the share price movement, leaving the P/E component alone.

Buying at different valuations can have a great impact on shareholder returns. Let’s take the example of Infosys.

An investor who bought INFY at the top of the Internet Bubble in March 2000 would have effectively ended up with no return till December 2008. This is more than 8 years without any price return on the investment, actually negative returns if you consider inflation even when the PAT grew from 285 CR in 2000 to 4470 cr in 2008! The P/E for Infosys in March 2000 was around 312 which got deflated to 16 in December 2008!

Therefore, to explain our previous statement on the importance of valuation, if one would have bought Infosys at a fair value of say 30 P/E (FY02 & 03), he would have still ended up with excellent returns even after the share prices halved in FY09 i.e. the returns would have been largely in line with the business performance and not influenced by market sentiment.

This is just one example, the point we are trying to make here is that valuations do matter for ALL the businesses. It’s just that it depends on the nature and factors associated with different businesses that some require more attention to valuations and others require more attention to qualitative factors. **More emphasis must be put on valuations if investing for short term or in a low growth / risky business.**

Businesses with P/E as low as 10 could prove to be expensive while others with P/E as high as 80 could prove to be fair if not cheap. Let’s see how these P/E 80 businesses can be valued.

**A Different Approach...**

Now, we know that there are some businesses like Nestle, HUL, Asian Paints, etc. that continue to trade at extreme P/E ratios year after year. These stocks when looked over multiple years continue to hold their P/E ratings for a long time now. But what is unique in them that markets are valuing them at such high prices? Let’s find out the reasons for this by using the below approach –

Starting with the most basic factor, what generally is the main goal of every investor – making money from stock market investing. Correct? Therefore, let’s consider the price return for our study. Take a look at the following formula –

**Price per share (P) = Price to Earnings Ratio (P/E) * Earnings per share (E)**

Looking at it mathematically, it’s pretty straightforward, P = P/E * E as the E component cancels out each other leaving us with P i.e. price per share. Let’s divide this into two parts,

(i) earnings component and

(ii) P/E component, and try to decode it by logic.

**1. The Earnings Component**

Part 1 - Now, The Above Formula Can Also Be Written As -

**Price Return = Return from Earnings Growth + Return from change in P/E ratio**

Take a look at the following case – – Company X is trading at a P/E of 20 and reports an EPS of Rs. 50 for FY20. As a result, price per share comes out to be 20 * 50 = 1,000 for FY20. Now, for FY21, P/E remains unchanged at 20 and EPS grows to Rs. 60. Similarly, for FY21, P/E remains stable at 20 and EPS declines to 40. Here is how the price got affected:

This directly shows that earnings change or** Growth** is a DIRECT factor that influences the price of the stock (straight mathematics). Further to establish if earnings growth is a direct factor of price, let’s compare NIFTY share price return and compare it directly with its EPS:

We took the data from Jan 2004 up to date (June 2020) and rebased the numbers to 100 to make them comparable. As a result, both the components gave a CAGR of 10.99% and 10.12% respectively when the data was run for 16 years. The small difference in returns is mainly attributable to PE expansion in NIFTY from 21.09 in Jan 2004 to 23.91 in June 2020.
We ran a test between Nifty Price and its EPS and found out a **correlation score of 94.31%** for the years 2004-2020. This is indicative of the fact that earnings growth is indeed a major driver of stock price returns in the **LONG RUN.** Emphasis has been highlighted in the long run because, in the short run, the returns are at the mercy of the public where their sentiments and emotions can heavily impact the stock price through P/E expansion or contraction.

For example, if we were to look at price vs EPS performance in the above chart during GFC, one would notice that EPS didn’t decline the way prices did, and neither it climbed the way prices did.

Part 1 - Now, The Above Formula Can Also Be Written As -

Earnings Growth (E) = Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) * Retention Ratio (R)

This is pretty much straightforward. If a company needs to grow, it needs to re-invest (retained earnings) what it earned (which comes in the form of ROCE) in the previous years. Therefore, companies need to create new assets to increase their production capacity in order to grow and in order to create new assets, the company needs cash to re-invest back into the company. If the company gives out all its profits in the form of dividends (retention ratio being zero), it won’t be left with cash to re-invest, which would make it nearly impossible for the company to grow.

**ASSUMPTIONS TO THIS APPROACH**

**(i)** Doesn’t apply to the services sector – these can grow disproportionately to the amount the re-invest back as their assets are mainly employees. (Infosys, TCS, CRISIL)

**(ii)** The company is assumed to be running near full capacity. A company running at 50% can still double the output without any re-investment.

**(iii)** Can be disproportionate in companies with pricing power or improving operational efficiencies. However, the major driver still remains re-investment in the long run as one cannot __constantly__ improve margins over the years.

**CORRELATION BETWEEN HIGH ROCE COMPANIES WITH THEIR PAST PERFORMANCE**

Now, we have established that share price returns have a direct relationship with earnings growth which is in turn directly linked with high ROCE. This isn’t just theory, but a proven fact:

1. In a book called __Coffee Can Investing__, Saurabh Mukherjea constructs a portfolio that focuses solely on ROCE and growth using the below two filters:

The business should have ROCE > 15% every year AND

The business should have Sales Growth > 10% every year for 10 consecutive years.

He buys these stocks without any qualitative inputs and here are the results ->
This portfolio has proved to beat the market index **every time** (alpha of 5-7%~ compared to Sensex) when held for 10 years.

2. Another investor, Anoop Vijaykumar tested the relationship between high ROCE companies and stock returns. The conclusion was below:

In good times, all except the worst ROCE companies do just fine.

In bad times, all except the best ROCE companies struggle.

The highest ROC decile outperforms all others by a wide margin. Almost all ROC deciles outperform lower deciles.

We recommend to check out his __article__ here. With this, let’s discuss the other component that would impact our returns.