|
Price on Value
Earnings Forecasts
Made Easy
John Price, PhD
This article describes research on a new test
that is included in the Conscious Investor Investment System.
The result is that we can provide earnings forecasts on selected
stocks that are five times more accurate than the average
of analysts' forecasts.
In the long run, the value of a stock is the
discounted value of the cash that can be taken out of the
company during its remaining life. The usual analysis requires
two inputs. Firstly, a forecast of how much cash the company
is going to generate year by year. This is generally written
as a percentage growth rate starting with the current cash.
Secondly, a rate at which this cash should be discounted.
There are two extra ingredients that are often
pushed to the background. The first is what do we mean by
the cash that can be taken out of the company. The simple
answer is the earnings. A better answer is one of the variations
of free cash flow. Ill talk about this in a later article.
To keep things straightforward, here I will just use earnings.
The second extra ingredient is confidence. How
confident are we with the earnings forecasts? I have seen
investors' eyes glaze over as they started imagining the yacht
they were going to buy. They had found a stock and forecast
its earnings to grow at 30% per annum. The market had missed
it and now our starry-eyed investors were ready to make a
killing. Alas, even though this was the forecast, what are
the odds of it being accurate?
First, lets consider how well the professional
do. In 1997 Lawrence Brown published a study in the Financial
Analysts Journal looking at 130,000 forecasts by analysts
from 1985 to 1996. He found that the average absolute error
was a whopping 91.6 percent.
The difficulty is that analysts are starting
behind the eight ball. They are assigned a group of companies
and told to forecast their earnings. Unfortunately the earnings
of companies such as Chiquita Brands and the Venator Group
have more ups and downs and twists and turns than The Beast
roller coaster in Cincinnati.
But we do not have this problem. No one tells
us which companies to analyze. We have 10,000 companies to
choose from so why not turn the problem around and focus on
those companies about which we can have confidence?
One way to do this is to eyeball the historical
earnings of companies and pick out those companies with earnings
that grew smoothly. Next, extrapolate the data for these companies
to forecast future earnings. This works to some extent, but
I wanted to automate the selection/forecasting process.
This is where STAEGR enters, a new test
I developed for my investment software Conscious Investor.
It measures the stability of earnings growth from year to
year and expresses it as a percentage. The maximum figure
of 100% represents earnings that go up, or down, by the same
percentage each year. The calculations are based on fitting
an exponential curve to the historical data with more emphasis
on the stability of the growth of recent earnings. Special
adjustments are made for negative earnings, for extreme outliers,
and for earnings near zero.
Using Value Line data, I considered all the
companies with eleven years of earnings data from 1988 to
1998 inclusive. Next I divided the companies into ten groups
ranging from those with the highest STAEGR over the ten years
from 1988 to 1997 to those with the lowest STAEGR over this
period. Each group contained 115 companies.
The next step was to calculate the earnings
growth over the ten-year period using another Conscious Investor
function. Earnings in 1998 were forecast using 1997 data and
this historical growth figure. Finally the forecasted earnings
were compared with the actual earnings in 1998.
The result of most interest to
us was that the forecasted earnings of the high STAEGR group
were extremely accurate. For the technically minded, the forecasted
earnings explained 98 percent of the variation of the actual
earnings. This can be seen in the accompanying chart.
The points represent the earnings figures, forecast
and actual, of the companies in the group. Most of the points
lie on or near a straight line which means that actual earnings
were very close to the forecasts using historical earnings.
The STAEGR of this group of 115 companies was 93% and up.
Another way of describing the results is that
the average absolute error for this group of was 16 percent
compared to the analyst error of 91.6 percent for all stocks.
The difference is even more significant than it appears since
the forecasts for the STAEGR method were for a full year whereas
those of the analysts were only for the next quarter.
The results for the second group of stocks was
similar. Their STAEGR ranged from 90% to 93%. This means that
when we focus on stocks with the highest levels of STAEGR,
say 90% and up, then the past growth or earnings is a statistically
reliable predictor of earnings for the following year.
The accompanying chart shows the data for group
of stocks with the lowest STAEGR. 
In contrast, to the previous chart, clearly
the dispersion of the data points is much higher. Notice that
for some of the points the forecast is negative while the
actual earnings are positive and for other points the opposite
holds, positive forecasts resulting in negative outcomes.
The way these points are scattered is typical
of the groups of stocks with lower STAEGR. In each case, the
accuracy of the predictions using historical data was lower
in two ways. Firstly the data points were more dispersed.
Secondly the line of best fit had slopes further away from
1 and in many cases it was negative.
The study shows that you can have more confidence
that earnings will continue to grow as in the past for stocks
with a high level of STAEGR.
Here are some of the companies with the highest
levels of STAEGR.
| Company |
Ticker |
STAEGR |
| William Wrigley Jr. |
WWY |
99.80% |
| Trustco Bank Corp |
TRST |
97.20% |
| Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. |
BBBY |
98.90% |
| Westamerica Bancorporation |
WABC |
98.90% |
| Harley-Davidson, Inc. |
HDI |
98.60% |
| Matthew's International |
MATW |
98.50% |
| Johnson & Johnson |
JNJ |
98.50% |
| C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. |
CHRW |
98.20% |
| Quality Systems, Incorporated |
QSII |
97.50% |
| Old Second Bancorp, Inc. |
OSBC |
97.30% |
| FactSet Research Systems, Inc. |
FDS |
97.20% |
Companies with the lowest levels of STAEGR were
Chiquita Brands CQB (1.0%) and the Venator Group Z (0.8%).
Of course, just because we have confidence in
our forecasts of future earnings of a company does not mean
that we should rush out and buy it. But it does provide a
solid basis for any buy/sell/hold analysis. Sorting stocks
with the high levels of STAEGR for earnings as well as sales
is another of the unique features of Valuesoft.
Free Newsletter
To help you keep up with timely investment news
and information and with additions to the website, you are
invited to subscribe to our
Free Newsletter.
|