CategoryUncategorized

I have always wondered why analysts give price targets, when it is extremely difficult to predict the price level of a security, which is dependent on a host of factors with a few of these factors related to the psychology of the market at a future date.

The typical research report ( at least the free ones which I typically read) usually starts off with a very brief background of the industry. It would then discuss the latest results with a brief analysis of the last 2-3 years. The next 2-3 years income statement and balance sheet is projected. The report would typically end with a price target with simplistic analysis which is typically based on the projected EPS and a PE no.

The more rigorous analyst would give his logic for the PE assumed(often  based on the past PE of the company ). Most don’t bother to do even that.

PE as a measure is fairly flawed measure as it does not consider the ROE of the firm, its competitive advantage, impact of industry dynamics etc. At the same time the number used in backward looking (based on past PE, earning etc).I would assume a more rigorous mode of valuation would be based on DCF, with various scenarios being considered and valuation range being arrived at (with degree of confidence for this range).

But then the analyst is giving the consumer (the investor) what he wants – A precise price target (which would be hopefully achieved in the future) , a certainty,  where none exists.

It’s not that all analyst reports are of a poor quality. Some do discuss the industry in depth and attempt to do a more thorough valuation exercise. But most are superficial and not worth reading. I have found the original source of the information – The annual reports, far more useful than the analyst reports and have never made a serious commitment of capital based on an analyst report.

Do we have any good source of analyst reports in India? If you are aware please email me.,

For those interested in the discussion on brands and how strong, and powerful brands add value to a business, there is an article in fortune which discusses the top ten brands across the globe.

How to Build a Breakaway BrandHow ten companies, making products from drills to waffles, took good brands and made them much, much better.By Al Ehrbar
What do Gerber, Google, and Eggo have in common? They’re all selling familiarity, trust, and quality—those intangible traits summed up by the word “brand.” Right now that word is more important than ever before, because competitors are more instantly reactive and consumers more sophisticated than ever before. The Model T Ford was in production for 18 long years with little change; Sony’s Cyber-shot digital cameras go out of production while the packaging is still crisp. And once upon a time shoppers pretty much believed the hype; these days Internet-powered bargain hunters are armed with accurate pricing and product information—and brutal in their search for value.
In this cutthroat marketplace, which brands have been most successful? To find out, FORTUNE turned to Landor Associates, a brand and design consultant in San Francisco. Landor mined a huge database of brand perceptions called the BrandAsset Valuator, or BAV, to identify ten products that scored the largest increases in brand strength from 2001 to 2004. (Landor is part of WPP Group’s Young & Rubicam division, which owns the BAV.) Landor’s partner, the New York consultancy BrandEconomics, then calculated the pop in economic value each of these breakaway brands gave their parent companies.
Here’s how it works. First, Landor and BrandEconomics asked consumers—9,000 of them—what they thought of 2,500 U.S. brands. Then they looked at brand strength. This is a combination of two properties: differentiation and relevance. Differentiation is the degree to which a brand stands out. Relevance is the degree to which consumers believe a brand meets their needs. That all sounds rather obvious, but what’s surprising is that the two factors don’t necessarily go together. Rolls-Royce has stellar differentiation but hardly any relevance, since few people can pay $300,000 for four wheels. Kleenex is highly relevant but undifferentiated: Most tissues feel alike. The brands that do best are those that deliver on both counts.
In addition, the BAV measures a brand’s stature, which can also be broken down into two components—esteem and knowledge. Esteem is how well regarded the brand is, while knowledge refers to whether the consumer understands it. And once again, those two qualities don’t operate in lockstep. A high-esteem, low-knowledge profile may be a sign of a brand on the rise—the consumer’s curiosity is piqued. A high-knowledge, low-esteem profile, on the other hand, is the consumer’s way of dissing a brand: We know it, and it’s nothing special (think Dodge or Coor’s Lite).
Weakening brands tend to depend more on coupons and discounts; muscular ones can command a premium. How much does that matter? A lot. The intangible value of a company is its market value minus its tangible capital (i.e., property, plant, equipment, and net working capital). A BrandEconomics analysis found that companies with strong, well-regarded brands had an intangible value of 250% of annual sales; companies with listless brands had one of only 70%.
In important ways, though, the value of a brand is incalculable. A rising brand secures more customer loyalty, higher margins, greater pricing flexibility, and new opportunities for growth. And brands on the way up, BrandEconomics research shows, ride through economic downturns with less trauma. “The combination of faster growth with less risk,” says Hayes Roth, vice president for global marketing at Landor, “is business nirvana.” Here’s a look at ten brands that are pretty close to paradise right now.

I had posted my thoughts on the difference between a brand and franchise. Initially my understanding was that they are the same and a strong brand equates to a good franchise (franchise can be defined as a business which earns more than its cost of capital and has a sustainable competitive advantage).

However I have seen cases where the two are not the same ( ex : titan, Mercedes etc, general motor brands etc).

I put out a question asking for comments and got replies from bruce (see below) and from george who has put his thoughts on his website Fat Pitch Financials.

I am listing a few criteria which came to my mind after I got the comments from bruce and george

So here goes
A strong brand would equate to profitable franchise if price is not the key differentiator or is not key factor in the purchase decision. I can think of the following cases

• Low value purchase v/s high value purchase (borrowed from george’s post on his website). I cannot think of anyone putting as much effort in buying a cola v/s buying a car. As a result a strong brand can charge more for a product
• A complex purchase decision requiring substantial information to asess the true price of a product. For ex: high end electronic products – A bose system ?
• Emotional association with the product – Disney products / Barbie dolls – try giving a child a regular lower price but equally good doll and you will understand what I mean
• Social proof / Association tendency – High prestige product which confer a social status on the owner . Ex : tiffany’s

Ofcourse the above are not sufficient for a strong brand to be a profitable franchise. Cost structures and other factors would also be important for the business to be a profitable franchise.

Now why go through all this in trying to distinguish between a franchise and good business (with or without a brand). If I remember correctly, warren buffett in his annual report has written about newspapers as very strong franchise with a kind of a toll bridge business model. Later with internet and other media, he commented that newspapers were still good businesses, but not bullet proof franchise. In the same section he also did a rough valuation exercise of a good franchise v/s good business and showed how strong franchises are worth more than good businesses.


Please share your thoughts on the above topic.

Comments :
Bruce said…
Here’s my abstract opinion (there are a LOT of ways of looking at this one question). A brand/franchise/whatever is something which signals a contract with the customer. It’s a popular solution to the prisoner’s dilemma problem that plagues all economic transactions to some extent. Game theory deals with this subject very well.A vendor spends a great deal of time and money developing an easily recognizable public image that is protected by law (from having other vendors use the same image). That image slowly becomes a reputation, but it also signals a commitment from the vendor not to cheat the customer quickly and then run away. The average consumer must keep track of a very large and growing number of brands and franchises. They don’t want to have to do the enormous work to validate a vendor every time they want to make an economic purchase. A brand/franchise allows them to make quick decisions, often in unknown places. So in a sense, a brand/franchise becomes a contract between the buyer and the vendor. The cost in establishing the brand (and also the value in not destroying it) is a fuzzy guarantee placed into the public by the vendor.When you have a comodity product or service, that brand becomes less important. Someone stands by the side of the road with a rock that you want to buy. They have no brand, but all you want is a rock which is easily verified during the purchase. Anyone spending lots of money to establish a brand is at a cost disadvantage to someone who just gathers rocks and stands at the side of the road. For that reason, comodity markets are won by whoever has the lowest cost. If the market demands 10,000 rocks, then you essentially line up the vendors from lowest cost to highest cost. You start with the lowest cost and work your way up until you buy 10,000 rocks (well, it’s more complicated than that due to the supply/demand curve). The market price essentially becomes the highest cost rock among the 10,000.So call it a brand or franchise or whatever, it’s really a sort of contract. It’s very important that the law upholds the property rights of the brand or everything breaks down. In fact, it’s always important for property rights to be upheld for economic activity to be efficient and effective. India has come a long way over the years and I suspect it will become a very major economic superpower so long as it continues on the path of free markets and property rights.
7:02 PM
Bruce said…
What makes a strong brand? Well, one view is covered very well in The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing. But a better answer is to look at your own behavior and where you rely on brand. Buffett made some comments about Coca Cola that make a lot of sense. One type of very good brand is small, repeat purchases that are almost habit.When you look at what a brand is all about (a contract), then you can ask yourself when is that contract valuable from the vendor’s perspective. One good thing is lots of confusion and doubt in the minds of customers. Another is a long delay before the customer finds out whether what they bought was good quality vs poor quality.
9:47 AM
George said…
This is a very interesting topic. I posted my comments about it over at my blog, Fat Pitch Financials. It would be nice to put together a set of criteria by which to gage how likely a brand will lead to a franchise.
8:04 PM