The Problem with P/E Multiples
Why this common metric isn't that useful for finding investment value.
Why this common metric isn't that useful for finding investment value.
We often get correspondence from our subscribers that discusses stocks in terms of a price/earnings (P/E) multiple--especially our higher-rated stocks that trade at high multiples. The letters usually go something like this: "I see you have a 5-star rating on stock XYZ. How can this company be a buy at a P/E multiple of 40 when the market trades at a P/E multiple of 20?"
The reality is that the P/E multiple is just a shortcut method for valuation, and a pretty bad shortcut at that. There are quite a few problems with P/E-based valuations.
Let's focus on the problems of using a P/E on a rapidly growing company. A great historical case where a P/E-based valuation would have led you astray is Home Depot (HD). The table below contains some of the metrics we've been discussing for the period 1990 to 2003. We calculated both the cumulative return had an investor held the stock to 2003, as well as the return over a five-year holding period.
Home Depot Metrics | |||||||
Year | Price* ( $ ) | Earnings ( $ Mil ) | Earnings Growth ( % ) | P/E Ratio | PEG Ratio | Return to | 5-Year |
1990 | 2.88 | 163 | 46 | 31 | 0.7 | 21 | 30 |
1991 | 7.48 | 246 | 51 | 60 | 1.2 | 14 | 8 |
1992 | 11.2 | 363 | 47 | 66 | 1.4 | 11 | 12 |
1993 | 8.78 | 457 | 26 | 40 | 1.5 | 15 | 36 |
1994 | 10.2 | 605 | 32 | 37 | 1.1 | 15 | 46 |
1995 | 10.6 | 732 | 21 | 32 | 1.5 | 16 | 34 |
1996 | 11.1 | 938 | 28 | 28 | 1.0 | 18 | 36 |
1997 | 19.6 | 1,160 | 24 | 38 | 1.6 | 10 | 4 |
1998 | 40.7 | 1,614 | 39 | 62 | 1.6 | -3 | -3 |
1999 | 68.6 | 2,320 | 44 | 73 | 1.7 | -15 | N/A |
2000 | 45.7 | 2,581 | 11 | 39 | 3.5 | -8 | N/A |
2001 | 51.0 | 3,044 | 18 | 43 | 2.4 | -17 | N/A |
2002 | 24.0 | 3,664 | 20 | 15 | 0.8 | 48 | N/A |
2003 | 35.5 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
* Data as of year-end date each year. |
In 1990, Home Depot was a bargain at a trailing P/E of 31. If you'd bought Home Depot in 1990 and held it to the end of 2003, your average annual return would have been 21% over that time period. In fact, in 1991, it was approximately fairly priced at a trailing P/E of 60, with a return to the end of 2003 of 13% per year.
One great example of a stock with similar characteristics today is CarMax (KMX). CarMax is trading at a trailing P/E multiple of about 32 times earnings--and we think it is a bargain at this price. Because CarMax is a great business and will continue to increase earnings for many years, our discounted cash-flow model values the company at $58, or a trailing P/E of about 54. The price of the company on Mr. Market's voting machine may not rise today, next week, or next month. But we think the success of the company will drive up the earnings and cash flows for many years to come, and eventually all that cash will start to pile up on Mr. Market's weighing machine. When Mr. Market looks at the scale, his greed will take over and the stock price will reflect the value of all of that cash.
We ran a screen Morningstar.com's Premium Stock Screener to search for other stocks that we think are good values despite high P/E multiples. We selected companies with a trailing P/E above 30 that we rate 4 or 5 stars. The examples below are other stocks like CarMax--stocks we like for their long-term growth potential.
CH Robinson Worldwide (CHRW)
Morningstar Rating: 4 Stars
Business Risk: Average
From the Analyst Report: "Our valuation assumptions include a return to healthier growth in net revenue (a logistics industry term for gross profit), averaging 14% over the next five years."
Iron Mountain (IRM)
Morningstar Rating: 5 Stars
Business Risk: Below Average
From the Analyst Report: "We assume the company will see 8.5% internal revenue growth (consistent with the past five years) through 2007, improving the gross margin to 55%."
Medtronic (MDT)
Morningstar Rating: 4 Stars
Business Risk: Below Average
From the Analyst Report: "We assume heart-device sales growth will settle into the high teens, while sales growth of diabetes, neurological, and spinal products should stay in the midteens to high 20s."
Paychex (PAYX)
Morningstar Rating: 5 Stars
Business Risk: Below Average
From the Analyst Report: "Our sales growth forecast averages 14% and our margins expand from about 36.5% in 2003 to 42.3% in 2008. We believe these assumptions are aggressive but attainable."
Click here to run this screen yourself. Note: The stocks mentioned above passed our screen as of March 12. The results of the screen may change due to daily price fluctuations or other factors. After clicking, you can save the search to use later by clicking the "Save Criteria" button in the bottom right-hand corner of the screen. (You will need to be logged in as a Premium Member to view and save the complete screen.)
Transparency is how we protect the integrity of our work and keep empowering investors to achieve their goals and dreams. And we have unwavering standards for how we keep that integrity intact, from our research and data to our policies on content and your personal data.
We’d like to share more about how we work and what drives our day-to-day business.
We sell different types of products and services to both investment professionals
and individual investors. These products and services are usually sold through
license agreements or subscriptions. Our investment management business generates
asset-based fees, which are calculated as a percentage of assets under management.
We also sell both admissions and sponsorship packages for our investment conferences
and advertising on our websites and newsletters.
How we use your information depends on the product and service that you use and your relationship with us. We may use it to:
To learn more about how we handle and protect your data, visit our privacy center.
Maintaining independence and editorial freedom is essential to our mission of empowering investor success. We provide a platform for our authors to report on investments fairly, accurately, and from the investor’s point of view. We also respect individual opinions––they represent the unvarnished thinking of our people and exacting analysis of our research processes. Our authors can publish views that we may or may not agree with, but they show their work, distinguish facts from opinions, and make sure their analysis is clear and in no way misleading or deceptive.
To further protect the integrity of our editorial content, we keep a strict separation between our sales teams and authors to remove any pressure or influence on our analyses and research.
Read our editorial policy to learn more about our process.