10-year

10-Year Anniversary Promotion (20% off)

Join GuruFocus Premium Membership Now for Only $279/Year

Once a decade discount

Save up to $500 on Global Membership.

Don't Miss It !

Free 7-day Trial
All Articles and Columns »

Bristol-Myers: Absolute Valuation Model versus Relative Valuation Model

August 29, 2014 | About:
ovenerio

ovenerio

5 followers

In this article, let´s consider Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMY), an $83.79 billion market cap that has a trailing P/E ratio that indicates the stock is relatively undervalued (PE 31.4x vs Industry Median 44.3x).

So in this article, let's take a look at a model that is applicable to stable, mature, dividend-paying firms and try to find the intrinsic value of the stock. Although the model has a number of characteristics that make it useful and appropriate for many applications, is by no means the be-all and end-all for valuation. The purpose is to force investors to evaluate different assumptions about growth and future prospects.

Valuation

In stock valuation models, dividend discount models (DDM) define cash flow as the dividends to be received by the shareholders. Extending the period indefinitely, the fundamental value of the stock is the present value of an infinite stream of dividends according to John Burr Williams.

Although this is theoretically correct, it requires forecasting dividends for many periods so we can use some growth models like: Gordon (constant) growth model, the Two- or Three-Stage growth model or the H-Model (which is a special case of a two-stage model). With the appropriate model, we can forecast dividends up to the end of the investment horizon where we no longer have confidence in the forecasts and then forecast a terminal value based on some other method, such as a multiple of book value or earnings.

To start with, the Gordon Growth Model (GGM) assumes that dividends increase at a constant rate indefinitely.

This formula condenses to: V0 = (D0 (1+g))/(r-g)=D1/(r-g)

where:

V0 = fundamental value

D0 = last year dividends per share of Exxon's common stock

r = required rate of return on the common stock

g = dividend growth rate

Let´s estimate the inputs for modeling:

Required Rate of Return (r)

The capital asset pricing model (CAPM) estimates the required return on equity using the following formula: required return on stockj = risk-free rate + beta of j x equity risk premium

Assumptions:

Risk-Free Rate: Rate of return on LT Government Debt: RF = 2.67%. This is a very low rate because of today´s context. Since 1900, yields have ranged from a little less than 2% to 15%; with an average rate of 4.9%. So I think it is more appropriate to use this rate.

Beta: β =0.31

GGM equity risk premium = (1-year forecasted dividend yield on market index) + (consensus long-term earnings growth rate) – (long-term government bond yield) = 2.13% + 11.97% - 2.67% = 11.43%[1]

rBMY = RF + βBMY [GGM ERP]

= 4.9% + 0.31 [11.43%]

= 8.44%

Dividend growth rate (g)

The sustainable growth rate is the rate at which earnings and dividends can grow indefinitely assuming that the firm´s debt-to-equity ratio is unchanged and it doesn´t issue new equity.

g = b x ROE

b = retention rate

ROE = (Net Income)/Equity= ((Net Income)/Sales).(Sales/(Total Assets)).((Total Assets)/Equity)

The “PRAT” Model:

g= ((Net Income-Dividends)/(Net Income)).((Net Income)/Sales).(Sales/(Total Assets)).((Total Assets)/Equity)

Let´s collect the information we need to get the dividend growth rate:

Financial Data (USD $ in millions)

Dec. 2013

Dec. 2012

Dec. 2011

Cash dividends declared

2,309,000

2,286,000

2,254,000

Net income applicable to common shares

2,563,000

1,960,000

3,709,000

Net sales

16,385,000

17,621,000

21,244,000

Total assets

38,592,000

35,897,000

32,970,000

Total Shareholders' equity

15,154,000

13,623,000

15,956,000

Ratios

     

Retention rate

0.10

-0.17

0.39

Profit margin

0.16

0.11

0.17

Asset turnover

0.42

0.49

0.64

Financial leverage

2.68

2.43

2.08

       

Retention rate = (Net Income – Cash dividends declared) ÷ Net Income =

0.10

       

Profit margin = Net Income ÷ Net sales =

0.16

   
       

Asset turnover = Net sales ÷ Total assets =

0.42

   
       

Financial leverage = Total assets ÷ Total Shareholders' equity =

2.55

 
       

Averages

     

Retention rate

0.11

   

Profit margin

0.15

   

Asset turnover

0.52

   

Financial leverage

2.40

   
       

g = Retention rate × Profit margin × Asset turnover × Financial leverage

 
       

Dividend growth rate

1.99%

   
       

Because for most companies, the GGM is unrealistic, let´s consider the H-Model which assumes a growth rate that starts high and then declines linearly over the high growth stage, until it reverts to the long-run rate. A smoother transition to the mature phase growth rate that is more realistic.

Dividend growth rate (g) implied by Gordon growth model (long-run rate)

With the GGM formula and simple math:

g = (P0.r - D0)/(P0+D0)

= ($50.54 ×8.44% – $1.44) ÷ ($50.54 + $1.44) = 5.44%.

The growth rates are:

Year

Value

g(t)

1

g(1)

1.99%

2

g(2)

2.85%

3

g(3)

3.71%

4

g(4)

4.58%

5

g(5)

5.44%

G(2), g(3) and g(4) are calculated using linear interpolation between g(1) and g(5).

Calculation of Intrinsic Value

Year

Value

Cash Flow

Present value

0

Div 0

1.44

 

1

Div 1

1.47

1.35

2

Div 2

1.51

1.28

3

Div 3

1.57

1.23

4

Div 4

1.64

1.18

5

Div 5

1.73

1.15

5

Terminal Value

60.63

40.43

Intrinsic value

   

46.63

Current share price

   

50.54

Final comment

In this case, we found that intrinsic value is lower than the share price; the stock is said to be overvalued and so subject to a potential sale.

Once the oracle of Omaha said, "It is far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at a wonderful price" (Warren Buffett (Trades, Portfolio)). So in this opportunity based on this analysis I recommend to stay away from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

We have covered just one valuation method and investors should not rely on one alone in order to determine a fair (over/under) value for a potential investment.

Gurus like Ray Dalio (Trades, Portfolio), Bill Frels (Trades, Portfolio), Mario Gabelli (Trades, Portfolio), Irving Kahn (Trades, Portfolio), Jean-Marie Eveillard (Trades, Portfolio), Jeff Auxier (Trades, Portfolio) and Jeremy Grantham (Trades, Portfolio) have sold or reduced the stock to their positions in the second quarter of 2014.

Disclosure: Omar Venerio holds no position in any stocks mentioned.


[1] This values where obtained from Blommberg´s CRP function.

About the author:

ovenerio
We provide independent fundamental research and hedge fund and insider trading focused investigation.

Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes)

Comments

Please leave your comment:


Get WordPress Plugins for easy affiliate links on Stock Tickers and Guru Names | Earn affiliate commissions by embedding GuruFocus Charts
GuruFocus Affiliate Program: Earn up to $400 per referral. ( Learn More)
Free 7-day Trial
FEEDBACK