Me Knew its.
Ya'll Nibbiars So someone asked me to evalute a pair trade in two companies in the same industry and working largely in the same region. The sector is commoditised in my view. I presented a concept paper on why they should go LONG company A, and short Company B.
My concept paper highlighted why structurally Co A will do relatively better vs Co B...structural cost advantages, its aggressive growth strategy vs consolidation at Co B etc, that sort of tbing. But there was an hiccup. Since March 2020 Co Bs share price has fallen 60%, and Co As has fallen but recovered so is down only 20%. And im saying go long the co that has recovered and go short the company that is already quite down.
Consequent to the fall Co Bs valuation multiples are at 20% discount to Co As. An important rule i follow is never short on valuations. But i had to do more work on this. So I wondered how do I demonstrate that despite the correction Co B is still a good short play. here is what I did: Value of any company is made up of two components: A. Value of its existing business B. Present Value of Future Opp PVGO I assumed that neither company will see future growth. So assumed PVGO = 0.
I then input the data in the following formula: Mkt cap Co A = expected steady state PAT / Required return + PVGO (0) Here i know mkt cap, and have made a complex earnings model for steady state PAT..pvgo is a assumed to be zero. I solved the equation for the required return. For company A i got the required return as 8.5%, and Co B i got it as 10.5%. So its clear that the market had already priced in higher risk for Co. B. But how much higher?! Just 200 bps! Then I asked myself is 200 bps enough of higher risk priced in between a company that will be expanding capacity by 80%, vs a company that's reducing capacity by 20%? It is my opinion that it's not. Either absolutely or relatively. As such i stuck to my view of the long short trade. Just an interesting analysis that i thought students of investing might be interested in.
Bhagwan Ucha.