I loves a bargain. Running my screen recently led me to Van Elle Holdings PLC, a company definitely meeting that criteria. Van Elle currently trades at a shade over seven times earnings, and only 0.67 times sales. It yields approximately 3.6% as well. But does it warrant a purchase? I’m going to enlist the help of one of my current holdings to try and find out.
Focusrite (LSE:TUNE) is a company I’ve had on my watchlist for a while. In fact, I’ve had their annual reports sat next to me for a good month or so now. Lazy investing does have its pitfalls! With their half-year results released this past week, I thought it time to actually take a look.
XLM are something of a media darling at the moment, in more ways than one. Their “materially ahead” trading statement on November 21st was music to holders’ ears, and led non-holders (myself included) to question why they aren’t invested already.
I actually looked at XL Media last year, and again earlier this year when researching Taptica (a company working in similar field). A quick discounted cash flow model suggested the company was trading at a massive discount to its intrinsic value. However, it’s up over 100% year to date, so is this still the case today?
If you read any of my company valuations posts, you’ll know I like to incorporate a discounted cash flow model when looking into the merits of a business. Make no mistake however, this is but one tool to be used when investigating a company, and obviously does not work under all circumstances (i.e. companies that don’t generate positive free cash flow). A discounted cash flow valuation can be as simple or as complicated as you want. I’d like to explore that idea a little bit.
The essence of value investing is in buying things which are out of favour. When these things decline further in price, we get excited and buy more. It is for this reason that I don’t place stops on any of my un-leveraged positions, and as it stands, Gilead Sciences is a case in point.
Valuation matters to me. In fact, I’m particularly fond of one of the many aphorisms coined by Warren Buffett: “Price is what you pay, value is what you get”. With that in mind, I read an article this week in Barron’s suggesting Under Armour could double from its current price (thanks to @chriswmayer). Eye catching for sure. The company has been beaten down recently, and isn’t particularly expensive, but this wasn’t always the case:
“Under Armour must have been overvalued back in 2005, when it sold at a P/E of 90 and had a price-to-sales multiple of 6.3. Despite what looked like a crazy valuation, it is up nearly 500% since 2005, even after the huge pullback in the past year.”
I’d have struggled to buy at 90 times earnings and over 6 times sales, but are there circumstances in which I would pay a higher price? Yes. I’d pay a higher price for perceived higher value, and one way to determine value is through free cash flows.