American International Group (AIG, Financial) more than doubled its quarterly dividend to $0.28 from $0.125 a share. This way, the stock would yield 1.8% if the share price stays at current levels, 100 basis points higher than the actual level. The dividend is payable on September 28 to stockholders of record at the close of business on September 14.
Further, the company also announced it will buy back up to $5 billion more of its common stock. Year to date, the giant insurer bought $4.7 billion of stock. AIG is funding these politics from asset sales, the company has divested in non-core assets. Moreover, the company beats Q2 EPS ($1.32 vs. $1.23 estimates) and achieved higher revenues ($15.7 billion vs. $14.48 billion), but shares were trading lower by 3% on yesterday´s trading session.
The company currently has a dividend yield of 0.8% and is close to 1-year low. The Yahoo! (YHOO, Financial) Finance consensus price target is $67.79, so now let´s try to estimate the fair value of the firm, for that purpose I will use the Dividend Discount Model (DDM). In stock valuation models, DDM define cash flow as the dividends to be received by the shareholders. The model 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).
Once selected 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.
Let´s estimate the inputs for modeling:
First, we need to calculate the different discount rates, i.e. the cost of equity (from CAPM). The capital asset pricing model (CAPM) estimates the required return on equity using the following formula: required return on stock j = risk-free rate + beta of j x equity risk premium
Risk-Free Rate: Rate of return on LT Government Debt: RF = 3.03%[1]. I think this is a very low rate. Since 1900, yields have ranged from a little less than 2% to 15%; with an average rate of 4.9%. So, I believe it is more appropriate to use this rate.
Gordon Growth Model 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%[2]
Beta: From Yahoo! Finance we obtain a β = 1.06
The result given by the CAPM is a cost of equity of: rAIG = RF + βAIG [GGM ERP] = 4.9% + 1.04 [11.43%] = 17.02%
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)
Collecting the financial information for the last 3 years, each ratio was calculated, and then to have a better approximation I proceeded to find the 3-year average:
| Retention rate | 0,96 |
| Profit margin | 0,10 |
| Asset turnover | 0,13 |
| Financial leverage | 5,31 |
Now, is easy to find the g = Retention rate Ă— Profit margin Ă— Asset turnover Ă— Financial leverage = 6.41%
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. In other words, 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)
= ($62.34 × 17.02% – $1.12) ÷ ($62.34 + $1.12) = 14.95%.
The growth rates are:
| Year | Value | g(t) |
| 1 | g(1) | 6,41% |
| 2 | g(2) | 8,55% |
| 3 | g(3) | 10,68% |
| 4 | g(4) | 12,82% |
| 5 | g(5) | 14,95% |
G(2), g(3) and g(4) are calculated using linear interpolation between g(1) and g(5).
Now that we have all the inputs, let´s discount the cash flows to find the intrinsic value:
| Year | Value | Cash Flow | Present value |
| 0 | Div 0 | 1,12 | Ă‚ |
| 1 | Div 1 | 1,19 | 1,018 |
| 2 | Div 2 | 1,29 | 0,945 |
| 3 | Div 3 | 1,43 | 0,894 |
| 4 | Div 4 | 1,62 | 0,862 |
| 5 | Div 5 | 1,86 | 0,846 |
| 5 | Terminal Value | 103,35 | 47,107 |
| Intrinsic value | Ă‚ | Ă‚ | 51,67 |
| Current share price | Ă‚ | Ă‚ | 62,34 |
| Upside Potential | Ă‚ | Ă‚ | -17% |
Final comment
Intrinsic value is above the trading price by 11%, so according to the model and assumptions, the stock is undervalued and subject to a potential “buy” recommendation. However, we must keep in mind that the model is a valuation method and investors should not be relied on alone in order to determine a fair (over/under) value for a potential investment.
As outlined in the article, the insurance giant reported better than expected results and increased its dividend. Despite this, the stock is actually overvalued according to the model, and perhaps that´s the reason why it tumbled in the stock market yesterday.
Guru Ken Fisher (Trades, Portfolio) has taken a long position in the stock in the second quarter of 2015, adding 9.13% to 20,992 shares.
Disclosure: As of this writing, Omar Venerio did not hold a position in any of the aforementioned stocks
[1] This value was obtained from the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
[2] These values were obtained from Bloomberg´s CRP function.
