How did they value stocks?

A good old article (from 2001, yep, 2001!!!) from Gretchen Morgenson in the New York Times discussing the ways that analysts and salesmen were trying to value stocks back in the internet bubble days. In short, because these companies weren't reporting positive earnings, folks were looking for something else to use as a valuation metric (like number of viewers, or internet clicks, or marketing expenditure). Turns out that turning a profit is still a good way to stay in business, and continuing to make losses is a good way to go out of business.

The article (page 3) also discusses the extensive use of 'pro-forma' earnings numbers being peddled by companies at the time (and it still continues).
Last para in the article reads:

Byron Wien, chief United States investment strategist at Morgan Stanley, is fearful that companies that spin their results using pro forma figures could do serious damage to investor confidence in the financial markets. "Corporations have a lot of flexibility in how they report results," he said. "Nobody knows more about the truth than the corporate executives themselves. Taking a short-term view of truth may make things look good in a quarterly report. But it will ultimately catch up with them."

That is a good description of what seems to be happening today.

And continuous today.

Valuing mining companies can be tricky

Just ask shareholders in Ginadlbie Metals and Sundance Resources. An independent expert was unable to value the resources held by Sundance in Cameroon (see Oz article here). This is an example why I typically discourage students from choosing resource companies for the major assignment!

Is cash flow king?

Liu, Nissim and Thomas have recently published a paper in the Financial Analysts Journal, (Vol. 63, No. 2, pp. 56-65, 2007 to be exact) that shows that earnings does a better job than cash flow of explaining share prices. Here's the abstract of the paper:

Contrary to the common perception that operating cash flows are better than accounting earnings at explaining equity valuations, recent studies suggest that valuations derived from industry multiples based on reported earnings are closer to traded prices than those based on reported operating cash flows. The question addressed in the article is whether the balance tilts in favor of cash flows when the following are considered: (1) forecasts rather than reported numbers, (2) dividends rather than operating cash flows, (3) individual industries rather than all industries combined, and (4) companies in non-U.S. markets. In all cases studied, earnings dominated operating cash flows and dividends.

This is of course what we would expect. If (accrual-based) earnings didn't do a better job of explaining value (and summarising business performance generally), then we'd see accrual accounting disappear.

Note: UNSW students should be able to access the Financial Analysts Journal through Sirius at the UNSW Library webpage. [It's at the bottom left of the linked page].