Why valuation multiples can be 'useless' in assessing ASX shares: expert

Even though Amazon stocks were 'expensive' in 2006, you could have paid double and it still would be a 57-bagger today.

| More on:
sad, dejected person looking at document with laptop and cup of tea nearby

Image source: Getty Images

You’re reading a free article with opinions that may differ from The Motley Fool’s Premium Investing Services. Become a Motley Fool member today to get instant access to our top analyst recommendations, in-depth research, investing resources, and more. Learn More

How do you know whether an ASX share is expensive, cheap or otherwise?

A regularly used tool is to calculate the valuation multiple. This is seeing how a specific financial metric compares to the share price.

The traditional one is the price-to-earnings (PE) ratio. But there are also price-to-sales, enterprise-value-to-sales and enterprise-value-to-earnings, among a whole bunch of others.

According to Montaka Global Investments senior research analyst Amit Nath, valuation multiples are "probably the most enduring pieces of investment analysis of all time".

"'That company is expensive because its valuation multiple is high' — this is one of the most used and repeated phrases of market commentary," he wrote on a Montaka blog.

"Unfortunately, they are often completely useless."

If you only have a hammer, everything has to be a nail

Nath speculated that for many investors, valuation multiples are the only metric they have to judge a stock.

"The law of the instrument, or 'Maslow's hammer', is a cognitive bias where people rely too much on a familiar tool," he said.

"For many market commentators and armchair enthusiasts, valuation multiples are their Maslow's hammer, and they apply it indiscriminately."

According to Nath, valuation multiples are a "simplified, abbreviated and short-cut" way of analysing a business' worth.

"They don't tell the whole story or give a complete picture of underlying value and are prone to sizable error when applied in isolation," he said.

"And, sadly, multiples have never been less useful than they are today."

Abraham Maslow, the psychologist behind the eponymous hammer, explained it the best.

"It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."

The trouble is that the world is full of high-growth ventures that are revolutionising their industries or even creating new ones.

"For traditional valuation multiples to be effective, a company needs stable and predictable cash-flows, which are generally found in mature industries like utilities, real-estate and infrastructure," said Nath.

"Multiples provide an inadequate view when companies have high and relatively sustained growth rates, particularly for the world's best software-driven ecosystems like Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ: MSFT), Alphabet Inc (NASDAQ: GOOGL), Amazon Inc (NASDAQ: AMZN)."

Humans are terrible at exponential thinking

Nath explained that humans naturally prefer to use "a simplifying linear concept", and this simply doesn't represent non-linear phenomena like high-growth businesses.

"Google's world-renowned futurist and Director of Engineering, Raymond Kurzweil, believes humans are linear thinkers by nature, whereas technology, biology and our environment are often exponential," he said. 

"That, he says, creates enormous blind spots when we pursue higher-order thinking and seek to solve increasingly complex problems."

Kurzweil cited a simple thought experiment to demonstrate.

"It takes 7 doublings to go from 0.01% to 1%, and then 7 more doublings to go from 1% to 100%," said Nath.

"So within 14 time periods an emerging system has gone from being completely invisible in the linear world (0.01%), to entirely encompassing it (100%)."

The COVID-19 pandemic recently demonstrated in real life the power of exponential growth, but our brains simply can't handle the concept.

So what do we use instead of valuation multiples?

If valuation multiples are so flawed, what measure should investors use to judge whether a stock is expensive or a bargain?

"The truth is, there are no short-cuts in valuing a business," said Nath.

"It is a hard, detailed, and rigorous exercise that takes considerable time and insight to get right."

He revealed that Montaka conducts considerable research on the industry landscape and how the business might fare in 5 to 10 years.

It also puts together metrics like discounted cash flow (DCF) and total addressable market (TAM) for a full picture of the stock's potential.

Nath put up Amazon to demonstrate how useless it is to base one's stock-buying decisions purely on valuation multiples.

In 2006, Amazon shares were trading at an enterprise-value-to-EBITDA ratio of 26 times, while the US market generally was at 10.

Since then, the stock price has returned 115 times over.

"You could have paid double the share price for Amazon in 2006 and still made nearly 60 times your money today."

John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods Market, an Amazon subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool’s board of directors. Suzanne Frey, an executive at Alphabet, is a member of The Motley Fool’s board of directors. Teresa Kersten, an employee of LinkedIn, a Microsoft subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool’s board of directors. Motley Fool contributor Tony Yoo owns shares of Alphabet (A shares), Amazon, and Microsoft. The Motley Fool Australia's parent company Motley Fool Holdings Inc. owns shares of and has recommended Alphabet (A shares), Alphabet (C shares), Amazon, and Microsoft. The Motley Fool Australia's parent company Motley Fool Holdings Inc. has recommended the following options: long January 2022 $1,920 calls on Amazon and short January 2022 $1,940 calls on Amazon. The Motley Fool Australia has recommended Alphabet (A shares), Alphabet (C shares), and Amazon. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. This article contains general investment advice only (under AFSL 400691). Authorised by Bruce Jackson.

More on Investing Strategies

A woman sits at her computer with her chin resting on her hand as she contemplates her next potential investment.
Dividend Investing

2 market-leading ASX dividend stocks to buy in April

Analysts have put buy ratings on these market-leaders.

Read more »

Father in the ocean with his daughters, symbolising passive income.
Dividend Investing

I'd spend $8k on these ASX 200 shares today to target a $6,102 annual passive income

I believe these ASX 200 shares will continue rewarding passive income investors for years to come.

Read more »

Man holding Australian dollar notes, symbolising dividends.
ETFs

Want the latest dividend from the Vanguard Australia Shares ETF (VAS)? Here's what you have to do

If you want to bag the latest VAS dividend, here's what you need to do.

Read more »

A smiling businessman in the city looks at his phone and punches the air in celebration of good news.
Dividend Investing

Investing for passive income? Keep any eye out for that boosted Telstra dividend today!

If you own Telstra shares, keep an eye out for that juicy dividend payout today.

Read more »

Couple at an airport waiting for their flight.
Cheap Shares

Is Qantas a bargain ASX 200 stock today?

Analysts at Goldman Sachs think the Flying Kangaroo could be dirt cheap.

Read more »

Person holding a blue chip.
Blue Chip Shares

2 ASX blue-chip shares I'd buy with $3,000 right now

These are large businesses with compelling futures.

Read more »

A happy construction worker or miner holds a fistfull of Australian money, indicating a dividends windfall
Dividend Investing

Invest $12,000 in Woodside stock and get $5,700 in passive income

Reliable dividend shares are everywhere on the ASX. Here's how you could use that to your advantage.

Read more »

Doctor doing a telemedicine using laptop at a medical clinic
Cheap Shares

1 secretly cheap ASX 200 stock I'm buying for the long run

The best performer on the index last year has had a poor start to 2024. Let's examine whether this is…

Read more »