Skip to main content

Sound Advice: September 20, 2023

Target Prices? Really?

For some investors, the temptation to build portfolios by selecting stocks with the highest target prices, compared to current prices, is up there with believing in the tooth fairy. Yet Investopedia, one of the more competent websites, states the following:

“When it comes to evaluating stocks, target prices can be even more useful than the ratings of equity analysts. Strictly defined, a target price is an estimate of a stock's future price, based on earnings forecasts and assumed valuation multiples.”

That may be accurate, though neither should be taken seriously.  Let’s consider the merit of each.

Current prices for stocks are the products of the following equation: earnings per share (i.e., company net income divided by the number of common shares outstanding) times the price-earnings multiple, which is a numeric valuation of the earnings per share (EPS).  If EPS are $2.00 and the stock sells for 40, the price-earnings multiple is 20.

Target prices are forward-looking extrapolations.  In other words, projected future EPS times an assumed price-earnings multiple.  If the EPS for Company X may grow to $3.00 in five years and the price-earnings multiple remains at 20, one might conclude that the price will rise to 60.

That’s interesting, but deeply flawed since it’s largely a function of the annual rate of earnings growth.  If the rate slows, the price-earnings multiple may narrow.  If it accelerates, the multiple may expand.  Either way, it’s essential to be aware that stocks (and the overall stock market) rarely sell at what might be considered normal valuations.  So target prices are nothing more than crap shoots.

If target prices are essentially meaningless, buy, hold or sell recommendations are total nonsense.  It’s well known that the majority of recommendations are buys pushed by Wall Street houses looking to move large blocks of stock or to satisfy the gullibility of retail investors. Despite this preposterous proposition, there have never been any studies demonstrating that these recommendations are of any value.

Indeed, during my extended tenure at a prestigious investment advisory company, which published stock ratings based solely on quantitative information, a short-term deviation in the ratings method that included the subjective view of the company’s analysts was quickly scotched after it became obvious that those views hurt, not helped, the ratings.

Although target prices and ratings may appear to be of merit, they’re running neck and neck with Casper the Friendly Ghost. 

N. Russell Wayne, CFP

Any questions?  Please contact me at nrwayne@soundasset.com

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sound Advice: January 3, 2025

2025 Market Forecasts: Stupidity Taken To An Extreme   If you know anything about stock market performance, you can only gag at the nonsense “esteemed forecasters” are now putting forth about the prospective path of stocks in the year ahead.   Our cousins in the UK would call this rubbish.   I would not be as kind. Leading the Ship of Fools is the forecast from the Chief Investment Strategist at Oppenheimer who is looking for a year-end 2025 level for the Standard & Poor’s Index of 7,100, a whopping 21% increase from the most recent standing.   Indeed, most of these folks are looking for double-digit gains.   Only two expect stocks to weaken. In the last 30 years, the market has risen by more than 20% only 15 times.   The exceptional span during that time was 1996-1999, which accounted for four of those jumps.   What followed in 2000 through 2002 was the polar opposite: 2000:      -9.1% 2001:     -11.9% ...
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

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