← Money Lessons with Andrew Temte, PhD, CFA
Money Lessons with Andrew Temte, PhD, CFA
Three Lenses on Stock Value: Why Cash Is Still King
00:13:38
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:01]
A
A business ultimately is worth the present value of the cash it can generate over its lifetime, not the earnings reported in a single year, not the price the market is willing to pay. This morning, the cash. Hi, I'm Andy Tempte and welcome to Money Lessons. Join me every Saturday morning for bite sized lessons that are designed to improve financial literacy around the world. Today is May 16, 2026. Last week we walked through the three risks of owning stock, firm specific risk, market risk, and the big one, behavioral risk. Today we turn from what could go wrong to a different what is this stock worth? Notice that I didn't ask what it costs. Cost and worth not the same thing. And the gap between these two is where investors can win and lose. The practice of estimating worth is called valuation. That's our subject for today. Now, to talk about valuation, we have to talk about Ben Graham. We first met Benjamin Graham back in our November 1 episode on railroads. He's the father of value investing, the teacher who shaped Warren Buffett's career, and the man who insisted that a stock is fractional ownership in a real business. That insistence is the foundation of everything we'll talk about today. Because if a stock represents a piece of a real business, then the business has a value that can be estimated based on what it owns, what it earns, and the cash it generates. That estimated value is one number. The price that's quoted on your screen today is another. Now, these two are often close to each other, but sometimes they're very far apart. Valuation is the practice of estimating what the business is worth so you can decide what to do about the price the market is quoting. Today. Professional analysts use three primary lenses to estimate what a stock is worth. Relative valuation compares a stock's price to one of the company's underlying numbers, like earnings, sales, or book value value, and then it compares that ratio to other stocks or to a historical trend. Asset based valuation, which is the second lens, tallies up what the company owns, subtracts what it owes, and sees what's left for shareholders. And the third lens is cash flow based valuation, where we estimate the cash a business will generate over its lifetime, adjusted for time and risk risk. Each one of these lenses tells you something different, and the most rigorous analysis uses all three. We're going to survey these metrics today and save the math behind cash flow based valuation for a future series. Now let's start with relative valuation, because this is where most investors start. It's accessible, it's intuitive, and the data is everywhere. The most famous tool is the price to earning earnings ratio, or the PE, which we introduced back in our April 18 episode on equity Return Metrics. Today, we're going to put it to work. Suppose that Company A trades at $40 per share and earned $2 per share over the past year. You divide 40 by 2 and get a P E ratio of 20. That means investors are paying $20 today for every dollar of last year's earnings. Now suppose that Company B trades at $30 a share and earned $3 per share in earnings to generate a PE of 10. On a PE basis, Company B looks cheaper than Company a. You're paying $10 per dollar of earnings instead of 20. But all else is rarely equal. Company A might be growing really fast, with earnings expected to double in three years, which is why investors are paying more. Company B might be in a declining industry where earnings are expected to shrink. The PE tells you what the market is paying. It doesn't tell you whether the market is right. Now, two other multiples come up regularly. The price to sales ratio divides price by revenue per share and is useful when a company has no earnings track record. The price to book ratio divides price by book value per share and is most useful for asset heavy businesses like utilities. Each multiple is a different angle and the same question. How much am I paying per dollar of something the company has today? We'll come back to growth versus Value investing in a later episode and look at how investors apply these ratios in pract Now. Relative valuation has a major strength and a major weakness. The strength is that it's quick, comparable and grounded in real numbers. The weakness is that the comparison group itself might be wrong. If every stock in the reference group is overpriced, then a stock that looks reasonably priced relative to that group is still overpriced. To illustrate, let's go back to the dot com bubble. On March 10, 2000, the NASDAQ Composite Index peaked at 5,048. The price to earnings ratio of the index at that moment was around 200, roughly 10 times what historically been considered normal. Many of the dot com companies in the index had no earnings at all and were valued instead on revenue page views or some story about future Internet dominance. Pets.com is the most famous example. It had a sock puppet mascot, a gigantic super bowl ad, and no path to profitability. Its market value topped out at $300 million for a brief period of time, but by October 2002 the NASDAQ had fallen 78%. About $5 trillion in market value was wiped out and it took 15 years for the index to reclaim its 2000 peak, not until April of 2015. Pets.com itself shut down in November of 2000, nine months after going public. The lesson isn't that relative valuation is bad. The lesson is that relative val needs an anchor outside of the comparison group. When investors compared one expensive tech stock to another expensive tech stock, they concluded everything was reasonably priced. The reference group was the bubble. Now the second lens is asset based valuation. Here you simply tally up what the company owns, buildings, equipment, inventory and cash and subtract what it owes. What's left is book value, what shareholders would theoretically receive if the company sold everything and paid off all its debts. It's most useful again for those asset heavy businesses where value really does sit in physical things that you can count. It's much less useful for software companies or service businesses, where most of the value lives in people, brands and intellectual property that doesn't appear on a balance sheet or shows up as intangible assets. Now to the third lens and the principle that pulls everything together. A business ultimately is worth the present value of the cash it can generate over its lifetime. Not the earnings reported in a single year, not the price the market is willing to pay this morning. The cash cash flow based valuation is the most rigorous lens because it asks the deepest question. How much cash will this business generate over time? And how does that cash eventually find its way back to shareholders? Some of it comes through dividends and share buybacks. Cash which is returned directly to owners. The rest gets reinvested in the business to grow future cash. Cash generating capacity which lifts the share price, which the investor ultimately realizes when they sell the stock. Either way, cash is the engine. Now here's the critical thing to note. Stocks can trade at unhinged, speculative, completely disconnected prices for surprisingly long stretches, months and sometimes years. Speculation can run on stories, on momentum, on the conviction that a new technology, dare we say AI, has changed the rules. But speculation cannot run forever. Eventually the business has to generate cash or the price will be revalued to reflect the cash generating capacity that's there. Pets.com, a had a business model that was before its time, as evidenced by the current success of companies like Chewy. But it had no cash flows at the time and really never would. The unit economics of shipping heavy bags of pet food at a loss couldn't work no matter how the business scaled. In contrast, Amazon was also losing money and burning cash in the early 2000s. The difference was that Amazon's underlying economics were sound, a scalable retail model with improving margins as the business grew. Amazon turned its first profitable quarter in late 2001 and reached positive free cash flow in 2002. Same bubble, very different fates. The companies that survived weren't the ones with the cleverest stories. They were the ones whose underlying business model could have eventually produce cash flow, even if it hadn't done so yet. Now, what does this mean for you? The takeaway isn't that you need to memorize ratios or run calculations on every stock you read about. It's more durable than that. Price and value can drift apart, and sometimes the gap stays open for a long time. When you read that a stock quote, unquote can't lose, or that a sector is different this time, or that traditional valuation models have somehow broken down, the price has likely gotten ahead of value in that case, and a reckoning may be coming. However, when you read that a company is left for dead but the business is still generating cash, its value may have moved further than the price reflects. Next week, we'll explore what happens when a private company decides to go public, which is the initial public offering process, or ipo. We're going to talk about what changes when shares first trade on an exchange and what investors should understand about buying into a newly listed stock. So until next week, I wish you grace, dignity and compassion. My name is Andy Tempte and this is Money Lessons. You can find the show on all the major streaming services as well as out on YouTube. Please like subscribe, rate and most importantly, share this public educational good with your friends, your family, your colleagues and maybe a neighbor. The show is produced by Nicholas Tempte and we'll see you next time on Money Lessons.