-
20-11-2015, 05:42 PM
#2461
Originally Posted by gv1
Pls let me know if I am doing something not right. I used the valuation formula:
V=EPS*(7.5*2g) with g only as 10%
=1331
Is this correct.
Seems OK even though you have a typo in that it should be +2g and not *2g. The original formula was 8.5 and not 5.5
Working backwards you seemed to have used an EPS of 48.4,- the FY15 number
So just under half price eh
”When investors are euphoric, they are incapable of recognising euphoria itself “
-
20-11-2015, 05:47 PM
#2462
Originally Posted by winner69
Seems OK even though you have a typo in that it should be +2g and not *2g. The original formula was 8.5 and not 5.5
Working backwards you seemed to have used an EPS of 48.4,- the FY15 number
So just under half price eh
Thanks winner, typo error, should be addition, I have used 7.5 because sparky used it . Yeah EPS of 48.41.
If 8.5 used then it will be around $18.
Winner what EPS should I use.
Last edited by gv1; 20-11-2015 at 05:49 PM.
-
20-11-2015, 06:19 PM
#2463
Member
Originally Posted by gv1
Thanks winner, typo error, should be addition, I have used 7.5 because sparky used it . Yeah EPS of 48.41.
If 8.5 used then it will be around $18.
Winner what EPS should I use.
I would use PEG for growth stock (med term growth >=10%)
I consider PEG=1.5 as "fair value" and PEG <=1 as "extremely under value"
so for RYM my fair value is (156.7/500)*15*1.5 = 7.05$ for now.
-
20-11-2015, 06:54 PM
#2464
Originally Posted by gv1
Thanks winner, typo error, should be addition, I have used 7.5 because sparky used it . Yeah EPS of 48.41.
If 8.5 used then it will be around $18.
Winner what EPS should I use.
The 48.1 eps is FY15 NPAT
Many should say you should use underlying earnings which would be 27.1 cets.
Using the 27.1 gives you 748 (with your 10% g)
Takes your pick - and soe wold say your g of 10 could/should be say 15%
What you reckon is a pretty fair intrinsic value
”When investors are euphoric, they are incapable of recognising euphoria itself “
-
20-11-2015, 07:01 PM
#2465
Long overdue I crunched my numbers again, ($6.50 was a VERY long time ago). Using my own personal modified Ben Grahame intrinsic value formula where v = best estimate of current year true EPS, that's underlying earnings (27.1 x 1.15) = 31.17 cps x (8.5+ 1G) where G = growth 15, (Note Ben Grahame uses 2G based on historical earnings) I now see good value at 31.17 x 23.5 =$7.32.
Hey Winner, it looks like the SP ostensibly tracking sideways for two years has nearly worked its magic for us and its nearly time to reconsider this one.
Last edited by Beagle; 20-11-2015 at 07:03 PM.
-
20-11-2015, 07:16 PM
#2466
Originally Posted by Roger
Long overdue I crunched my numbers again, ($6.50 was a VERY long time ago). Using my own personal modified Ben Grahame intrinsic value formula where v = best estimate of current year true EPS, that's underlying earnings (27.1 x 1.15) = 31.17 cps x (8.5+ 1G) where G = growth 15, (Note Ben Grahame uses 2G based on historical earnings) I now see good value at 31.17 x 23.5 =$7.32.
Hey Winner, it looks like the SP ostensibly tracking sideways for two years has nearly worked its magic for us and its nearly time to reconsider this one.
Didn't we start that discussion when the share price was about $9
Not much in the way of shareholder returns over 2 years or more eh Roger. And in that time Ryman profits have gone up at 15% a year. NOT FAIR IS IT.
Yes getting closer to a good buy again ....maybe in another year?
”When investors are euphoric, they are incapable of recognising euphoria itself “
-
20-11-2015, 07:23 PM
#2467
It's gone from massively overvalued, to almost worth considering for me
-
20-11-2015, 07:32 PM
#2468
Originally Posted by winner69
Didn't we start that discussion when the share price was about $9
Not much in the way of shareholder returns over 2 years or more eh Roger. And in that time Ryman profits have gone up at 15% a year. NOT FAIR IS IT.
Yes getting closer to a good buy again ....maybe in another year?
Yes it was $8 something if my memory serves me correctly so quite a disappointing two years, (all the more so with the really low unimputed dividend yield), for holders and we quite rightly picked it as overvalued two years ago. After having a look at the result / outlook and running the numbers again I'm thinking sooner than 12 months now mate.
I agree with you TJ, it was massively over-valued and almost everyone thought I was nuts saying it was only worth $6.50 about two years ago but with the benefit of hindsight its become clear that was really all it was worth back then.
P.S. Just brought up the comparative chart between NZX50 and RYM for the last 24 months on the super chart menu on ANZ securities, (sorry don't know how to post an image) but NZX50 is up 24% and RYM is actually down 5% in the last 2 years, a 29% under-performance v the index, ouch ! And you are quite right Winner it got to $9.00 in May 2014. SP performance in the last 18 months especially has been really dreadful !
Last edited by Beagle; 20-11-2015 at 07:59 PM.
-
20-11-2015, 08:30 PM
#2469
roger..have you looked at say 3 4 5 year comparison....again being old school ....why on earth would someone invest in a retirement entity with a two year horizon.....?????????.......and again I say what if they have another share split....am I wrong ?.......man I feel like an Island...
-
20-11-2015, 10:10 PM
#2470
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks