Professional Documents
Culture Documents
What Valuation Models Do Analysts Use PDF
What Valuation Models Do Analysts Use PDF
1
2.6%
2
1.9%
Single-
Period
Hybrid
1
2.6%
1
1%
Hybrid
and
Multi-
period
1
3.1%
1
2.6%
2
1.9%
E versus
E
22
68.8%
13.5
39.7%
20
52.6%
55.5
53.4%
DCF
DCF
3
9.4%
9.5
27.9%
9
23.7%
21.5
20.7%
As explained in Table 3, technology value is a technique used to value biotechnology companies. Technology value ofthe
finn equals market value less cash plus debt.
Accounting Horizons, December 2004
What Valuation Models Do Analysts Use? 235
SENSITIVITY ANALYSES
Length of Sampled Equity Research Reports
Our interest in comprehensive equity research reports that offer a detailed analysis of the firm
differs from previous studies that mainly base their results on the content analysis of short reports of
only a few pages in length.'* While prior work and our results report a preference for valuation by
single-period comparatives, the longer reports in our sample contain more examples of sophisticated
valuations than in the prior evidence. To examine the effect of excluding reports of less than 15
pages, we analyze a smaller sample of 22 short reports (with average length 8.1 pages per report) for
15 of the firms in our initial sample. The reports are written by analysts from the same investment
houses as in our initial sample. Seven (nearly one third) of these reports do not highlight any
valuation model in their main text. Two reports base their recommendation on the DCF model, while
the remaining thirteen use some form of single-period comparative valuation to generate a stock
recommendation. This limited analysis of shorter reports suggests a greater use of valuation by
comparatives than in longer reports, although multiperiod DCF models are still used. Prior results
based on short reports may understate the sophistication of the analysts.
Firms Reporting Losses
Differences in the use of DCF multiperiod models across sectors could be due to variation in the
incidence of reported losses. The presence of losses may force analysts to base their valuations on
something other than PE multiples. We find that half of the sampled pharmaceutical reports refer to
firms reporting losses, raising the possibility that our results could be due to the incidence of losses
rather than the high-tech nature of the industry. In order to discriminate between these two possibili-
ties, we examine another high-tech sector that does not have a high incidence of losses during our
sample period. Specifically, we examine 28 reports for 10 firms in the information technology
hardware sector.'^ Of the 28 reports, 24 refer to profitable firms. We find:
1) Sixteen (57.1 percent) of the IT hardware reports use DCF, and a multiperiod DCF model is
the dominant model in 11.5 (41.1 percent) reports.
2) There are 40 instances of single-period comparative valuation techniques and 18 instances
of multiperiod models. The greater use of multiperiod valuation models relative to single-
period models in information technology hardware compared to beverages is significant
(X^ = 4.52; p-value = 0.034).
3) Single-period comparative valuation models are the dominant choice in 14 IT hardware
reports, with multiperiod valuation models dominant in 11.5 reports. The greater use of
single-period comparatives as the dominant model in beverages compared to IT hardware is
statistically significant (x^ = 819; p-value = 0.004).
In the light of these additional findings, we conclude that the use of multiperiod valuation
models and DCF models in particular is greater in high-growth sectors irrespective of the incidence
of reported losses.
Brokerage Firms' House Styles
Bradshaw (2002, 40) suggests that "It would be interesting to examine the extent to which
analysts' reports systematically differ across brokerage houses ..." As mentioned earlier in the
descriptive analysis section, ahnost all the equity research reports include some form of single-
'* Breton and Taffler (2001), for example, analyze reports with an average length of 4.3 pages. Previts et al. (1994) examine
reports with an average length of 7.3 pages. This compares with the average length of reports in this study of 32.6 pages.
'^ In selecting and studying these reports, we follow the same criteria used to select and analyze our initial sample. The
reports are written by analysts from the same investment houses as our initial sample.
Accounting Horizons, December 2004
236 Demirakos, Strong, and Walker
period comparative valuation analysis. However, investment houses might differ in their preferences
for DCF and accounting-based economic profitability models. Panel A of Table 8 reports the fre-
quency of employing DCF analysis at each house; Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein (69.2 percent),
Credit Suisse First Boston (68.4 percent), and HSBC (45.5 percent) use DCF the most.'* Table 8,
Panel B offers a sell-side analysts' ranking based on the use of accounting-based economic profit-
ability models (rating to economic profit, accounting rates of return, economic value added, and
residual income valuation model). HSBC uses some form of economic profitability analysis for
valuation purposes in 72.7 percent of its reports, followed by Merrill Lynch (42.9 percent). Credit
Suisse First Boston (36.8 percent), and UBS Warburg (36.4 percent).
TABLE 8
Differences in the Choice of Valuation Model across Brokerage Houses
Panel A: Rankings of Sell-Side Analysts Based on the Use of the Discounted Cash Flow
(DCF) Model
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Sell-Side Analysts
Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein
Credit Suisse First Boston
HSBC
Merrill Lynch
Westib Panmure
Societe Generale
ABNAmr o
Deutsche Bank
UBS Warburg
%
69.2
68.4
45.5
42.9
30.0
22.2
16.7
16.7
9.1
Panel B: Rankings of Sell-Side Analysts Based on the Use of Accounting-Based Economic
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Profitability Models (EPM)
Sell-Side Analysts
HSBC
Merrill Lynch
Credit Suisse First Boston
UBS Warburg
ABNAmro
Societe Generale
Westib Panmure
Deutsche Bank
Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein
%
72.7
42.9
36.8
36.4
25.0
11.1
10.0
8.3
7.7
Accounting-based economic profitability models refer to REP, ARR, EVA""^, and RIV.
This variation in the valuation preferences of sell-side analysts does not appear to influence our results on cross-sectional
differences in the use of multiperiod and comparative valuation models, since the sum of the reports of the three
brokerage houses that employ DCF valuation more frequently (Credit Suisse First Boston, Dresdner, and HSBC) ac-
counts for 43.8 percent, 41.2 percent and 39.4 percent ofthe total beverages, electronics and pharmaceuticals reports,
respectively. However in order to test this more rigorously, we remove the top two (Dresdner Kleinwort Wassertstein,
Credit Suisse First Boston) and bottom two (UBS Warburg; Deutsche Bank or ABN Amro) users of DCF. The cross-
sectional differences in the use of multiperiod versus single-period valuation models between stable and growth sectors
remain significant.
Accounting Horizons, December 2004
What Valuation Models Do Analysts Use? 237
lype of Recommendation
In choosing the sample, we ignored the investment recommendation given in the report. How-
ever, when carrying out the analysis, we record the recommendations made by the analysts. Twelve
types of recommendation appear in the reports. Six types of recommendation (Strong Buy, Buy,
Accumulate, Market Outperform, Add, Undervalued) are positive. The 104 reports contain 64 posi-
tive recommendations. The categories Market Perform, Neutral, and Hold are neutral recommenda-
tions. The sample contains 25 of these. Only 15 reports contain one of the remaining three negative
categories (Market Underperform, Reduce, Sell). Counting the neutral recommendations as weak
negatives, the sample contains 64 positives and 40 negatives. A standard binomial test rejects the
hypothesis of an equal number of positive and negative recommendations at the 1 percent level.
These findings are consistent with previous work indicating a tendency for analysts' recommenda-
tions to be biased toward a buy.
Looking at the individual sectors, we find that the proportion of positive recommendations is
46.9 percent in beverages, 67.6 percent in electronics, and 68.4 percent in pharmaceuticals. These
differences could drive the choice of valuation model. We therefore examine whether the choice of
DCF as a valuation model varies significantly across types of recommendation. Of the 64 (40)
reports that have a positive (neutral/negative) recommendation, 27 (13) use DCF analysis i.e., 42.2
percent (32.5 percent) of the reports. A Chi-square test reveals that this difference is not significant
i;^^ = 0.98; p-value = 0.323). For reports containing a DCF valuation, the DCF valuation is
dominant in 15 out of 27 (55.6 percent) for the positive recommendation cases, and 6.5 out of 13 (50
percent) for the negative recommendation cases. This difference in the proportion of reports for
which DCF is the dominant valuation model across different types of recommendations is not
significant (^ ^ = 0.11; p-value = 0.74). These results suggest that the type of recommendation does
not drive the choice of valuation model.
SUMMARY
The main message to emerge from this content analysis of financial analysts' reports is that
analysts appear to tailor their valuation methodologies to the circumstances of the industry. PE
models remain the mainstay of valuation practice, but other forms of analysis complement these as
circumstances demand. In some cases DCF models are used, and in others, more detailed analyses of
price-to-sales multiples, growth options, or profitability analysis are used. Another finding is that use
of the RIV model is extremely limited, but analysts frequently use accounting data in single-period
comparative and hybrid models. Analysts appear to vary the choice of valuation methodology in
understandable ways with the context in which the valuation is made, but analyst familiarity with a
valuation model and its acceptability to clients is a strong driving force.
In terms of our positive approach to explaining valuation practices, we examine four hypoth-
eses. The pervasiveness of comparative valuation techniques results in no significant difference in
their use across sectors (HI). However, a more discriminating test shows that a multiperiod valuation
model rather than a single-period method of comparatives is more likely to be the analysts' dominant
model in the electronics and phannaceuticals sectors compared with beverages. This result is consis-
tent with the hypothesis that comparative valuation models are more popular in more stable sectors
where conventional accounting does a better job of capturing the value of the firm. Insufficient
instances of RIV mean that we cannot reject the null hypothesis on the relative use of DCF and RIV
across sectors (H2). However, if we broaden this hypothesis to compare the use of multiperiod and
hybrid valuation models based on cash and accruals, respectively, we find a significantly greater use
of accruals models in beverages than in pharmaceuticals. Analysis of the combined choice of fore-
casting system and valuation model shows that profitability analysis is more prominent in reports for
the beverages sector than for electronics or phannaceuticals.
Accounting Horizons, December 2004
238 Demirakos, Strong, and Walker
We find no report that uses a single-period cash fiow multiple as its dominant valuation model
(H3), consistent with analysts understanding the limitations of using a single-period cash fiow
number. Some analysts use price to single-period cash fiow as a sensitivity check in sectors where the
rate of growth is relatively stable. Finally, we find that over half of the analysts who construct a
multiperiod valuation analysis choose it is as their dominant model. However, we also find that over
one-quarter of these analysts subsequently adopt valuation by single-period comparatives as their
dominant model, inconsistent with H4. We conjecture that this latter finding is due to valuation by
comparatives, with the implicit support of a more sophisticated model, being preferred by the
analysts' clients.
This research suggests that careful study of comprehensive analysts' reports can improve our
understanding of the variations in valuation practice. Specifically, the types of valuations used to
justify analysts' recommendations depend on characteristics of the company being analyzed. In this
paper, we focus on differences across industrial sectors, but we anticipate that valuation behavior
may vary in other contexts. Further insights may emerge from studying analysts' reports for firms
involved in IPOs, mergers, and major capital issues. Also, analysts may employ different models for
dividend payers versus nonpayers. The special problems of valuing firms that report losses is also
worthy of further work. Finally, sensitivity analyses suggest that prior results based on short, less
comprehensive reports may understate the sophistication of the valuation models used by analysts.
Accounting Horizons, December 2004
What Valuation Models Do Analysts Use? 239
APPENDIX A
DISCOUNTED FUTURE EARNINGS (DFE)
When analysts value a firm based on a PE multiple, they control for the effects on earnings of
nonrecurring events, transitory components, and accounting conservatism. Where a firm has nega-
tive, very low, or very high earnings that are unlikely to continue, financial analysts try to normalize
earnings. The DFE approach to valuation, given by the following equation, is one such technique:
V, = ^{EBITDA,^^ )/(l + waccj ]x (EVIEBITDA), (1)
where F, is the fundamental value ofthe firm at date /, EBITDA^^^ is earnings before interest, taxes,
depreciation, and amortization in period / + x, wacc is the firm's weighted average cost of capital,
and (JEVIEBITDA)J is (enterprise value)/(eamings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortiza-
tion) for comparable firms at date /. Financial analysts project forward to the period when the firm is
expected to reach a sustainable level of performance and discount the relevant future earnings to the
present using the firm's weighted average cost of capital. Multiplying by a current benchmark value
of EVIEBITDA for a set of comparable firms yields the fundamental value ofthe firm.
APPENDIX B
RATING TO ECONOMIC PROFIT
The rating to economic profit (REP) is based on the relation between the market-to-book ratio at
the enterprise level and the ratio of the retum on invested capital to the weighted average cost of
capital:
REP = (EV,/IC,)/{ROIC,^J wacc) (2)
where EV^ is the market value ofthe firm's equity plus the book value ofthe firm's debt at date t, IC,
is the book value ofthe capital invested in the firm at t, ROIC,^^ is the expected retum on invested
capital in period / + 1, and wacc is the firm's weighted average cost of capital. Valuation theory
suggests that the book-to-market ratio is an increasing function ofthe finn's cost of capital, and that
a relatively high spread between the expected retum on invested capital and the weighted average
cost of capital should lead to a high market-to-book multiple. If the latter relation does not hold, then
the market does not impound properly all the available information about a firm's future perfor-
mance in its current market value, and, hence, the firm is undervalued. Similarly, a low expected
economic performance leads to a relatively low market-to-book ratio, otherwise the firm is overval-
ued. Although analysts consider REP to be a sophisticated form of price-to-book ratio, it can be
shown that REP equals EVINOPLAT (where the denominator is one-year ahead net operating
profit less adjusted tax) multiplied by the weighted average cost of capital. Assuming costs of capital
and leverage are constant within sectors, the profitability of an investment strategy based on REP
should be similar to one based on one-year-ahead PE ratios.
Accounting Horizons, December 2004
240 Demirakos, Strong, and Walker
REFERENCES
Arnold, J., and P. Moizer. 1984. A survey ofthe methods used by U.K. analysts to appraise investments in
ordinary shares. Accounting & Business Research 14 (55): 113-124.
Barker, R. 1999. The role of dividends in valuation models used by analysts and fund managers. The European
Accounting Review 8 (2): 195-218.
Block, S. 1999. A study of financial analysts: Practice and theory. Financial Analysts Journal (July/August):
86-95.
Bradshaw, M. 2002. The use of target prices to justify sell-side analysts' stoek recommendations. Accounting
Horizons 16 (I): 27-4\.
Breton, G, and R. Taffler. 2001. Accounting information and analysts stock recommendation decisions: A
content analysis approach. Accounting & Business Research 31 (2): 91-101.
Copeland, T., T. Koller, and J. Murrin, McKinsey and Company, Inc. 2000. Valuation: Measuring and Manag-
ing the Value of Companies. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Fairfield, P., and T. Yohn. 2001. Using asset tumover and profit margin to forecast changes in profitability.
Review of Accounting Studies 6: 371-385.
Govindarajan, V. 1980. The objectives of financial statements: An empirical study ofthe use of cash flows and
earnings by security analysts. Accounting, Organizations and Society 5: 383-392.
Lev, B., and Sougiannis, T. 1996. The capitalization, amortization, and value-relevance of R&D. Journal of
Accounting and Economics 21: 107-138.
. 2001. Intangibles: Management, Measurement, and Reporting. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institu-
tion Press.
Moizer, P., and J. Arnold. 1984. Share appraisal by investment analystsPortfolio vs. non-portfolio analysts.
Accounting and Business Research 14 (56): 341-349.
Palepu K., P. Healy, and V. Bernard. 2000. Business Analysis and Valuation. Cincinnati, OH: South Westem.
Penman S. 2001. Financial Statement Analysis and Security Valuation. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Intema-
tional Edition.
Pike, R., J. Meerjanssen, and L. Chadwick. 1993. The appraisal of ordinary shares by investment analysts in
United Kingdom and Germany. Accounting and Business Research 23: 489-499.
Previts, G, R. Bricker, T. Robinson, and S. Young. 1994. A content analysis of sell side financial analysts
company reports. Accounting Horizons 8 (June): 5570
Rogers, R., and J. Grant. 1997. Content analysis of information cited in reports of sell-side financial analysts.
Journal of Financial Statement Analysis 3: 1730.
Schipper, K. 1991. Analysts' forecasts. Accounting Horizons 5 (4): 105-121.
Siegel, S., and N. J. Castellan, Jr. 1988. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Sofifer, L. C, 2003. Expected long-run retum on equity in a residual income valuation model. Review of
Accounting and Finance 1: 59-72.
Accounting Horizons, December 2004