Login
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login. New Registrations are disabled.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
wthomas1  
#1 Posted : Thursday, November 16, 2006 8:36:30 AM(UTC)
wthomas1

Rank: Member

Posts: 12

I want to begin a discussion on what I have stated as the subject above, or put another way,
Studying Supergrowth Stocks. There are some companies of a class by themselves that I have discovered that fit in this category. Example:
Quality Systems, Inc. (QSII). This is small-cap
company that provides IT & other services to the Healthcare sector. In the last few years a few quality stocks, growing at phenonomal rates (20% annualy, or more) similar to this one, are demonstrating that they can sustain this growth rate and even forecast this rate of growth in their guidance for the future. Some analyst have
estimated next 5 yr. rates up to 38-40%. Atempting to analyze and determine the future fair value of these unusual stocks using NAIC SSG methodology doesn't seem to work very well. Realistic comparisons and projections for that kind of growth over a short history and with nominal PEs about the same as their price and growth rates, defies making comfortable jugments
regarding adding them to your porfolio. What would be you risk/reward ratio for QSII at 40.00?

Wanna join the discussion?! Login to your forum account. New Registrations are disabled.

arminfields  
#2 Posted : Saturday, December 2, 2006 5:30:35 PM(UTC)
arminfields

Rank: Advanced Member

Posts: 271

William Thomas asked: >

Before I share my findings, I’d like to know what judgments you decided to use for your SSG as well as what data you used?

Here, I want to just note that there are substantial differences between the StockCentral/Hemscott and the SDS&P/OPS data files, particularly in terms of the Historical Hi & Lo PEs. For example, TK5’s Alt-M, which eliminates the 5 highest PEs and averages the rest, is 4.0 points lower for Hemscott’s Hi PE (23.7 vs 27.7). On the other hand, Hemscott is 5.4 points higher in terms of its Median Hi PE (38.1 vs 32.7). Still another even larger difference is the 10 year ave Hi PE where Hemscott is a whopping 17.9 points higher (65.4 vs 47.5).

Armin Fields
wthomas1  
#3 Posted : Sunday, December 3, 2006 12:42:38 PM(UTC)
wthomas1

Rank: Member

Posts: 12

Armin,

The source of data for the QSII stock study I used was SDS&P/OPS. As for judgements, that is the purpose of posting the original message. As you site in your reply, using the tools offered by NAIC with TK2 and SA3 will disqualify this
company at it's present price. With SQII's
PE continuing to expand, and projected PEG ratio
about 1 to 1, a solid revenue stream and no debt;
What is a realistic valuation and risk reward ratio for this and other continuing high growth companies?

Bill T.
jncraig  
#4 Posted : Sunday, December 3, 2006 3:17:48 PM(UTC)
jncraig

Rank: Advanced Member

Posts: 561

Bill,

I appreciate your starting this thread. QSII and (I think) CTSH are two companies that seem to break the mold of what we're taught to look for. Actually, maybe they are what we are taught to look for, only better!

I wonder if we can get some guidance by looking at other companies that may be further along in their corporate life spans, but would have looked like these companies if we look back 5 or 10 years. Do you have any examples?
Joe
wthomas1  
#5 Posted : Tuesday, December 5, 2006 2:25:16 PM(UTC)
wthomas1

Rank: Member

Posts: 12

There are not many comparable companies like SQII and CTSH.  Corporate Executive Board  EXBD, Portfolio Recovery Assoc. PRAA, Infosystems Technologies LTD INFY are similar. As far as companies that might have parallel past fundamentals that would fit these company profiles; Starbucks SBUX, I think would  look about the same between 1997 through 2002. It's EPS growth was 25% + with an ave. PE in 2002 of 40.0 (Ave PE 1997 thru 2002 was 43.0) with little LTD. Then there is Apollo Group APOL that had EPS growth of 30%+ during the same 1997-2002 period, with ave. 2002 PE of 37.5 (ave. PE 1997-2002 was 40.22) and no debt. Investors Financial Services IFIN had 1996-2001 EPS growth of 38.7% with ave. PE 2001 of 49.5 (expanded from 20.5 in 1996), but debt/equity of 2.73 in 2001 would have scared me away. And finally, Career Education Corp. CECO grew 35.5% from 1996 to 2001 with ave 2001 PE of 31.9 and small debt/equity. Most of these are still in favorable positions in my industry leaders list.

 

 

 

rajivroy  
#6 Posted : Tuesday, December 5, 2006 5:41:30 PM(UTC)
rajivroy

Rank: Advanced Member

Posts: 20

I  must confess that I lean towards these types of stocks for my personal portfolio.

EBAY between 01 and 05 (inclusive) was similar roughly 70% EPS growth (0.03c in '01 to 0.52c in '05). PE was approx 300.

Rajiv

www.stockfundas.com

 

 

 

 

jncraig  
#7 Posted : Tuesday, December 5, 2006 6:03:34 PM(UTC)
jncraig

Rank: Advanced Member

Posts: 561

Rajiv,

I thought that one of Bill's main points was identifying companies with high growth rates but with relatively low PEG ratios.  The companies he mentioned fall into that category.

EBAY, by way of contrast, had a PEG of 4+.

Just a thought ...


Joe
wthomas1  
#8 Posted : Thursday, December 7, 2006 10:59:40 AM(UTC)
wthomas1

Rank: Member

Posts: 12

Joe,

I discovered another stock I think fits this group that might be compared with Bershire Hathaway as it is rather pricy. It is Chicago Mercantile Exchange CME. This specialized Investment firm went public in Dec. 2002, and has 38%+ growth over the last five years after a shaky start. It was put into the S&P 550 Index last August and is forecast to continue it's spectacular growth by a host of analyst. The StockCentral data had only the past three years data so I went to MSN Money to get the financial history for a SSG (see attachment). Notice the unusually high rate of expansion of the PE. Just how high can it go???? MSN  has forward P/E at 46.8.

Bill T.

 

 

 

rajivroy  
#9 Posted : Saturday, December 9, 2006 11:24:06 AM(UTC)
rajivroy

Rank: Advanced Member

Posts: 20

Thanks Joe, I missed the PEG point.

Bill, I loaded up the CME SSG onto stockfundas.

http://www.stockfundas.c...rmUsrId=3&tckId=2140

I think I have updated PE etc to match yours including your rather bold stroke of striking out the Avg PE of 29.1 and making the High PE 50.

Care to share your thinking on the High PE?




wthomas1  
#10 Posted : Saturday, December 9, 2006 12:47:23 PM(UTC)
wthomas1

Rank: Member

Posts: 12

Rajiv,

The object of this discussion centers around whether it is reasonable to use "perferred procedure" for judgement with stocks that exibit extraordinary growth such as the ones I have listed. Do you believe that CME will only have an average high PE of 25+ over the next five years? Or is it more likely to be at least equal to the current PE.

Bill T.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rajivroy  
#11 Posted : Sunday, December 10, 2006 6:41:26 AM(UTC)
rajivroy

Rank: Advanced Member

Posts: 20

Hi Bill,

Two seperate questions you have raised:
a)  Use of preferred procedure
b)  Whether CME will have an average high PE >25 over the next few years.

a)  The Use of preferred procedure for the specific case of CME, is warranted primarily because of the pending merger with CBOT.
   - Looked up the Investor presentation on www.cme.com at http://investor.cme.com/downloads/22454cme.ppt
   - One red flag is that after the merger the Operating Income % goes from 57 to 52 and the Net Income % goes from 35 to 32. Just that alone puts a lot more more pressure on PE multiple to be correspondingly higher.
   - The good news is on the last page $125m in synergy savings. If you now apply the whole $125m to the NI line. (An aggressive treatment, but stay with me), the NI goes from 32% to 39%, which is better than now. So that allows for some PE expansion from the current 25+.

So to answer your question. Yes I would use the Preferred Procedure.

b) This is the harder one. My gut feel says that PE may be slightly higher. Say even 35 as opposed to 30, not sure about 50. However, the EPS because of the claim to be accretive, may be quite understated. I do not have a feel for the post-transaction EPS projections. But the combined High price projection of $1284 , may not be out of line.

My 2 bits.
wthomas1  
#12 Posted : Sunday, December 10, 2006 12:30:09 PM(UTC)
wthomas1

Rank: Member

Posts: 12

Rajiv,

I see the pending merger nothing but a plus, plus; even if there is a slight pause in growth until 2008, the return to 40%+ growth by 2010 is greater with the combined companies. If you agree that the possibility of $1284 high price in 2010, then use 25.8 as the ave high PE, but you will then need to project the EPS growth rate at 50%. With ave high PE of 35 requires EPS growth rate of 30%, which is probably the best judgment for the SSG of all, and the "preferred procedure" still the least likely to occur.

Bill T.

 

rajivroy  
#13 Posted : Monday, December 11, 2006 4:53:03 PM(UTC)
rajivroy

Rank: Advanced Member

Posts: 20

Hi Bill,

Thanks for pointing me to CME, I am seriously considering it for my portfolio.

>>With ave high PE of 35 requires EPS growth rate of 30%, which is probably the best judgment for the SSG of all

Agree.

>>"preferred procedure" still the least likely to occur.

Here is my rationale for why one analyzing such a stock around the merger would look at a preferred procedure.
- Clearly historical based techniques such as least squares, etc have limited value.
- The preferred procedure allows over-riding of anyone of the following, which you have to because the info would typically come from  pro-forma statements. In this particular instance, I was swagging and did nto find the detialed pro-froma statements


Projected 5 Year Sales: ( 10-yr data )

%
2982

Less Expenses(5 yr Avg. %PTP Margin): ( 10-yr data )
%

1385

Less Taxes (Last yr. TaxRate): ( 10-yr data )
%

837


Less Preferred Dividends (Cur. Pref's Div):



0


Projected 5yr Total Earnings:

  837

Divided By Shares Outs. (Cur. Sh's. Outs. (M)): ( 10-yr data )


In stockfundas, the preferred procedure is in the Analysis tab, and is in the section which allows over-riding of High EPS (Preferred Method)




rajivroy  
#14 Posted : Friday, January 12, 2007 10:45:26 AM(UTC)
rajivroy

Rank: Advanced Member

Posts: 20

Bill,

I gotta ask you this. Did you buy this?

Or like I watched increduluosly at it shot up from $500 at time of discussion to $572.

wthomas1  
#15 Posted : Friday, January 12, 2007 11:17:58 AM(UTC)
wthomas1

Rank: Member

Posts: 12

No Rajiv, but I did buy QSII.

Bill

 

rajivroy  
#16 Posted : Monday, January 22, 2007 4:53:44 AM(UTC)
rajivroy

Rank: Advanced Member

Posts: 20


Bill, Your CME got me looking at it. Coincidentally Jim Cramer had talked of the NYX being the #1 stock for 2007. So I started looking at NDAQ as a possibility

As you had mentioned trying to do an SSG on NDAQ with limited data is challenging to say the least. CME and NDAQ are both at a PE of 50. NYX is at a stratospheric PE of 100.

NDAQ seems to be faced with the uncertainity of whether their hostile takeover of the London Stock Exchange will go through or not.

Both NYX and NDAQ have competition. Goldman Sachs, Citi and a number of other financial power houses are banding together to form an alternative exchange to open for business in 2008.


Following are the fundamentals from Fidelity research. CME seems to have better fundamentals. Better margins, much lower debt.

Rajiv





 

 

 



Company Name
NASDAQ STOCK MARKET, INC. (THE)
CHICAGO MER EXC A

 

 

 



Trade/Add to Watchlist
Trade
Add to Watch List

Trade
Add to Watch List


 

 

 




# Employees

917

1,321

 

 

 




Price Performance (Last 4 wk)
1.2%
10.1%

 

 

 




Price Performance (Last 3 months)
-4.6%
17.8%

 

 

 




Price Performance (Last 52 wk)
-8.6%
53.3%

 

 

 




Beta

0.7

1.5

 

 

 




Earnings/Dividends




Current Quarter Consensus Earnings Estimate

0.24

2.96

 

 

 




Dividend (Most Recent Quarter)

N/A

0.63

 

 

 




Dividend (Trailing 4 Quarters)

N/A

2.52

 

 

 




Dividend Yield (Last 4 Quarters)

N/A

0.00%

 

 

 




Dividend Ex-Date



12/06/06

 

 

 




Dividend Growth Rate (1-year Average)

N/A

78.07%

 

 

 




Dividend Growth Rate (5-year Average)

N/A

N/A

 

 

 




Payout Ratio (Last 4 Quarters)

N/A

21.38

 

 

 




Valuation




P/E (Last 4 Quarters)

52.38

53.16

 

 

 




P/E (Most Recent Quarter)

39.28

48.93

 

 

 




P/E (5-year Average)

N/A

30.78

 

 

 




Price/Cash Flow (Last 4 Quarters)

21.24

44.32

 

 

 




Price/Sales (Last 4 Quarters)

2.35

18.53

 

 

 




Price/Book, TTM

1.09

3.96

 

 

 




PEG Ratio (Last 4 Quarters)

2.95

2.35

 

 

 




Growth




EPS Growth (Most Recent Quarter)

37.50%

32.88%

 

 

 




EPS Growth (Last 4 Quarters)

106.25%

31.48%

 

 

 




EPS Growth (Last 5 Years)

-12.48%

30.47%

 

 

 




Projected EPS Growth (Next Year vs. This Year)

105.33%

26.35%

 

 

 




Projected EPS Growth (Next 5 Years)

17.78%

22.61%

 

 

 




Revenue Growth (Last 4 Quarters)

86.44%

23.32%

 

 

 




Revenue Growth (Last 5 Years)

1.11%

18.91%

 

 

 




Capital Spending Growth (Last 5 Years)

-33.54%

23.04%

 

 

 




Book Value per Share Growth (Last 5 Years)

-18.29%

30.06%

 

 

 




Cash Flow Growth (Last 4 Quarters)

0.10%

0.07%

 

 

 




Cash Flow Growth Rate (Last 5 Years)

-12.26%

28.54%

 

 

 




Profitability




Profit Margins




Gross Margin (Annualized)

20.53%

65.61%

 

 

 




Gross Margin (Last 4 Quarters)

19.71%

64.55%

 

 

 




EBITD Margin

19.71%

64.55%

 

 

 




Operating Margin (Annualized)

16.97%

59.15%

 

 

 




Pretax Margin (Annualized)

12.35%

59.15%

 

 

 




Pretax Margin (Last 4 Quarters)

9.28%

58.03%

 

 

 




Returns




Return on Sales (Annualized)

7.50%

36.01%

 

 

 




Return on Sales (Last 4 Quarters)

5.46%

35.29%

 

 

 




Return on Equity TTM

10.11%

30.14%

 

 

 




Return on Assets TTM

2.83%

9.96%

 

 

 




Return on Investment TTM

3.47%

30.14%

 

 

 




Return on Capital TTM

2.67%

-0.07%

 

 

 




Debt




Long Term Debt/Equity (Annualized)

121.03%

0.00%

 

 

 




Long Term Debt/Equity (Last Fiscal Year)

750.00%

0.00%

 

 

 




Total Debt/Assets (Annualized)

45.34%

0.00%

 

 

 




Total Debt/Assets (Last Fiscal Year)

0.58%

0.00%

 

 

 




Total Debt/Capital (Annualized)

53.32%

0.00%

 

 

 




Total Debt/Equity (Last Fiscal Year)

750.00%

0.00%

 

 

 




Current Ratio (Last Fiscal Year)

1.83

1.34

 

 

 




Payout Ratio (Last 4 Quarters)

N/A

21.38

 

 

 




Operating Metrics




Income/Employee (Last 4 Quarters)

$87,535.44

$288,437.55

 

 

 




Revenue/Employee (Last Fiscal Year)

$1.60

$0.82

 

 

 




Assets Turnover (Annualized)

0.45%

0.33%

 

 

 




Asset Turnover (Last 4 Quarters)

0.52%

0.28%

 

 

 




Inventory Turnover (Annualized)

N/A

N/A

 

 

 




Inventory Turnover (Last Fiscal Year)

N/A

N/A

 

 

 




Receivables Turnover (Annualized)

7.06%

9.15%

 

 

 




Receivables Turnover (Last 4 Quarters)

6.45%

9.19%

 

 

 




















C
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2024, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 3.638 seconds.