Valuation using multiples

Abstract: This paper focuses on equity valuation using multiples. Our basic conclusion is that multiples nearly always have broad dispersion, which is why valuations performed using multiples may be highly debatable. We revise the 14 most popular multiples and deal with the problem of using multiples for valuation: their dispersion. 1,200 multiples from 175 companies illustrate the dispersion of multiples of European utilities, English utilities, European constructors, hotel companies, telecommunications, banks and Internet companies. We also show that PER, EBITDA and Profit after Tax (the most commonly used parameters for multiples) were more volatile than equity value. We also provide additional evidence of the analysts' recommendations for Spanish companies: less than 15% of the recommendations are to sell. However, multiples are useful in a second stage of the valuation: after performing the valuation using another method, a comparison with the multiples of comparable firms enables us to gauge the valuation performed and identify differences between the firm valued and the firms it is compared with.

Abstract: We examine the valuation performance of a comprehensive list of pricing multiples. We find that multiples derived from forward earnings explain stock prices remarkably well for most firms: pricing errors are within 15 percent of stock prices for about half of our sample. In terms of relative performance, the following general rankings are observed: 1) forward earnings measures, 2) historical earnings measures, 3) cash flow measures and book value of equity (tied), and 4) sales. Contrary to the popular view that different industries have different ?best? multiples, we find that these overall rankings are observed consistently for almost all industries examined. Adjusting the ratio formulation typically followed in practice to allow for an intercept offers some improvement, especially for multiples that perform poorly. No improvement is observed, however, when we consider more complex measures of intrinsic value based on short-cut residual income models (where forward earnings are combined with book values, estimated discount rates, and generic terminal value estimates).

Abstract: This study addresses the problem of differences between firms and the impact on valuations based on multiples. We investigate the extent to which industry-based multiples ignore additional firm-specific information and develop measures for identifying peer groups that are not comparable with the target firm. Additionally, we compare the performance of different methods that control for differences between firms. We find that differences between firms lead to systematic errors in the value estimates of different multiples. These errors are consistent with our hypotheses, statistically significant, economically substantial, consistent between different value drivers and robust over time. We find that these errors can be predicted very accurately by comparing the financial ratios of the target firm with the financial ratios of its peer group. We show that when adequately controlling for differences between firms, valuation accuracy is improved substantially and all considered value drivers perform almost equally well.