Geographical Grouping
|
Includes
|
Rationale
|
---|---|---|
Australia, NZ and Canada
|
Australia, New Zealand and Canada
|
Share a reliance on natural resources.
|
Developed Europe
|
EU, UK, Switzerland and Scandinavia
|
Includes riskier EU countries, but reflects European company pricing and choices.
|
Emerging Markets
|
Asia other than Japan, Africa, Middle East, Latin America, Eastern Europe & Russia
|
A really mixed bag of countries from many regions with different characteristics, with variations in added risk.
|
Japan
|
Japanese companies
|
Different enough from the rest of the world that it still deserves its own grouping.
|
United States
|
US companies
|
Accounts for the biggest chunk of world market capitalization.
|
- Law of large numbers: The power of averaging gets stronger, as sample sizes increase, and using broader groupings results in larger samples. To illustrate, I have 1148 apparel firms in my global sample, thus allowing for enough firms in every sub grouping.
- Better measures: In both valuation and corporate finance, there is an argument to be made that the numbers we obtain for broader groups is a better estimate of where companies will converge than focusing on smaller groups.
![]() |
Download full list of industries |
I download data from both accounting statements and financial markets and in doing so, I do run into a mild timing issue. The accounting data that I have for most firms on January 1, 2019, is as of the third quarter of 2018 (ending September 30, 2018) and I use the trailing 12-month data as of the most recent financial filing. For companies in countries with semi-annual filings, the data will be even mow dated, but there is little that can be done about that. For market data, I use the market prices and rates, as of December 31, 2018. While you may think of that as a timing inconsistency, I do not, since that is most updated information an investor would have had on January 1, 2019.
Adjustments
With the accounting information, I use my discretion to change accounting rules that I believe not only make no sense but skew our perspectives on companies. The first adjustment that I make is to convert lease commitments to debt, which alters operating income and debt numbers, a modification that I have made for more than 20 years. I am pleased to note that accounting will finally come to its senses and try to do the same starting in 2019 and you should be able to get a preview of how margins, debt ratios and returns on capital will change from my computations. The second adjustment is to convert R&D expenses from an operating expense (which it clearly is not) to a capital expense, which it clearly is, again affecting operating income and invested capital. For purposes of transparency, I report both the adjusted and the unadjusted numbers for the statistics that are affected by it.
Statistics and Ratios
Since my interests lie in corporate finance, valuation and investment management, I compute a wide range of statistics, as can be seen in the table below (reproduced from last year). :
Risk Measures | Cost of Funding | Pricing Multiples |
---|---|---|
1. Beta | 1. Cost of Equity | 1. PE &PEG |
2. Standard deviation in stock price | 2. Cost of Debt | 2. Price to Book |
3. Standard deviation in operating income | 3. Cost of Capital | 3. EV/EBIT, EV/EBITDA and EV/EBITDA |
4. High-Low Price Risk Measure | 4. EV/Sales and Price/Sales | |
Profitability | Financial Leverage | Cash Flow Add-ons |
1. Net Profit Margin | 1. D/E ratio & Debt/Capital (book & market) (with lease effect) | 1. Cap Ex & Net Cap Ex |
2. Operating Margin | 2. Debt/EBITDA | 2. Non-cash Working Capital as % of Revenue |
3. EBITDA, EBIT and EBITDAR&D Margins | 3. Interest Coverage Ratios | 3. Sales/Invested Capital |
Returns | Dividend Policy | Risk Premiums |
1. Return on Equity | 1. Dividend Payout & Yield | 1. Equity Risk Premiums (by country) |
2. Return on Capital | 2. Dividends/FCFE & (Dividends + Buybacks)/ FCFE | 2. US equity returns (historical) |
3. ROE – Cost of Equity | ||
4. ROIC – Cost of Capital |
- Don’t assume that mean reversion is automatic: A great deal of valuation and investment management is built on the presumption that mean reversion will occur. Thus, low PE stocks will deliver high returns, as the PE converges on the average for the sector. While mean reversion is a strong force, it is not immutable, and when you have structural changes in the economy and sectors, it will break down.
- Trust, but verify: While I would like to believe that my computations of widely used ratios (from accounting ratios like return on equity and ROIC to pricing metrics like EV to EBITDA) are correct, they represent my views and may differ from yours. It is for this reason that I provide a full listing of how I compute my numbers at this link. If you do find a statistic that I report that you are not clear about, and you cannot find the description of how I computed it, please let me know.
- The data will age, and some more quickly than others, over the course of the year: I have neither the interest, nor the inclination, to be a full-fledged data service. So, please don’t expect daily, weekly or monthly updates of the data. In fact, God willing, the data will be updated a year on January 5, 2020. The only numbers that I plan to update mid year are the country risk premiums.
- Data Update 1: A Reminder that equities are risky, in case you forgot!
- Data Update 2: The Message from Bond Markets
- Data Update 3: Playing the Numbers Game
- Data Update 4: The Many Faces of Risk
- Data Update 5: Of Hurdle Rates and Funding Costs!
- Data Update 6: Profitability and Value Creation!
- Data Update 7: Debt, neither poison nor nectar!
- Data Update 8: Dividends and Buybacks – Fact and Fiction!
- Data Update 9: Playing the Pricing Game!