Skip to main content

Sound Advice: December 16, 2020

 SEEING THE FUTURE: Sunny, with occasional clouds

Estimating earnings (the prime determinant of stock prices) can be a fascinating task, especially if there’s a substantial basis for making such estimates. Some analysts develop their numbers starting from an overall economic and industry perspective. Others build their numbers from the bottom up. 

Either way, the critical factor when considering estimates of earnings is the level of confidence in the numbers. The level of confidence is indicated by the Coefficient Variance, a technical term that measures the dispersion of estimates. If, for example, the mean of all analysts’ earnings estimates is $2.00 a share, with a low of $1.00 and a high of $3.00, that’s a wide dispersion and the Coefficient Variance will be high, probably 5.00 or greater. In such a case, it seems as if everyone’s guessing, since there’s little agreement on what the number will be. In contrast, when the mean is $2.00, with a low of $1.90 and a high of $2.10, that’s a narrow dispersion and the Coefficient Variance will be low, probably 2.00 or under.

This is a simple enough concept. If the CV is low, the perceived risk of an earnings disappointment is low and investors will look more favorably and pay more for a stock.


Free cash flow is another important factor. A company that is generating and keeping more of the cash that it is generating is in much better shape financially to move ahead than one strapped for funds and always scratching about for the wherewithal to keep its balance sheet on an even keel.

The trend in profit margins is another important indicator. Ideally, one would want to see profit margins widening over time, as fixed costs become a steadily lower proportion of company overhead. This is a reasonable expectation for smaller and midsized companies, but it becomes less doable with companies that are mature. A useful comparison is current pretax profit margins with the average of the past five years. Those able to show advances are worthy of consideration.

Although I find little credibility in what purports to be technical analysis, it would be unwise to totally ignore the trend in stock prices. If the fundamentals appear strong, but the stock price is plunging, there may be a problem. One part of the equation may be wrong and on occasion the fundamental view may be flawed. 

A simple method for reducing error exposure is to view the relative strength of candidates being considered for purchase and assigning them to quintiles. Thus, relative strength of 80 to 100 would be the top quintile, 60 to 79 would be the second quintile, and so on. Once the quintiles are assigned, only those in the top two quintiles would be considered for purchase. Those in the middle quintile could be held. Those in the bottom two quintiles would not be considered for purchase and should be sold, if held.

N. Russell Wayne, CFP®

Questions?  Please contact me at nrwayne@soundasset.com

Sound Asset Management Inc.

Weston, CT  06883

203-222-9370

www.soundasset.com

www.soundasset.blogspot.com

 

 

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sound Advice: July 16, 2025

Fixed annuities are poor investments Fixed annuities are often criticized as poor investments for several reasons, despite their reputation for providing stable, predictable income.  Here are the key drawbacks and concerns:   High Fees and Commissions Internal Fees:  Fixed annuities can carry a range of fees, including administrative charges, mortality expense risk fees, and rider fees. These can add up to 2%–4% per year, significantly eroding returns over time. Commissions:  Sales agents and financial advisors often receive high commissions for selling annuities—sometimes as much as 5%–8% of the invested amount. This creates a financial incentive for advisers to recommend them, even when they may not be the best fit for the client. Comparison to Other Investments:  Mutual funds and ETFs typically have much lower fees and commissions, making them more cost-effective for long-term growth. Limited Growth a...
Post a Comment
Read more

Sound Advice: October 8, 2025

How many investors have outperformed the stock market over the last 20 years? Very few investors have outperformed the stock market over the past 20 years.   Data shows that only about 6% to 8% of actively managed equity funds in the U.S. beat the market over this period, with the vast majority—over 90%—underperforming the S&P 500 or equivalent broad indexes. Percentage of Investors Beating the Market Only 8% of equity funds investing in large companies managed to outperform the market over a recent 20-year span. About 94% of all domestic funds underperformed the S&P 1500 Composite Index from 2005-2024. Over shorter timeframes (5-10 years), typically fewer than 15-20% of fund managers beat the S&P 500, and performance persistence is rare. Why It Is Rare The S&P 500’s high returns have proven immensely difficult to beat, especially as indexing has become popular and markets have ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Sound Advice: January 15, 2025

Why investors shouldn't pay attention to Wall Street forecasts   Investors shouldn't pay attention to Wall Street forecasts for several compelling reasons: Poor accuracy Wall Street forecasts have a terrible track record of accuracy. Studies show that their predictions are often no better than random chance, with accuracy rates as low as 47%   Some prominent analysts even perform worse, with accuracy ratings as low as 35% Consistent overestimation Analysts consistently overestimate earnings growth, predicting 10-12%                 annual growth when the reality is closer to 6%.   This overoptimism can                 lead investors to make overly aggressive bets in the market. Inability to predict unpredictable events The stock market is influenced by numerous unpredictable factors, including geopolitical events, technological changes, and company-specific news.   Anal...
Post a Comment
Read more