Canadian Money Forum banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
546 Posts
To get back to the OP question:

I analyse the company the same way I do any other business. Distributions are irrelevant. Only total return matters.

I restate the Income Statement reducing depreciation in half. Not long ago 2% depreciation was the norm. It was changed to 4% after that long spell of flat RE markets when accountants started finding that RE transactions were resulting in write-off on the building (i.e. the existing rate of depreciation was not covering the actual degradation). But I believe the old rate was actually a better estimate of economic degradation. Certainly in Vancouver, building do not retain value. It is only the land that goes up in value.

I calculate the operating rate of return on the capitalized costs of the properties, with and without including depreciation, before tax and interest and capital gains.

I compare that rate with the average rate being paid for debt (some disclose this in the notes, for others you have to add up all their individual debts) and to the current rates the company faces in today's tight funding market. This is where I often walk away. Leverage has a negative effect as well as positive one.

I evaluate growth by calculating the Revenues per square-foot. This is frequently amazingly low.

I evaluate growth in what I own with sq/ft-per-unit. Again most companies are growing by issuing more units without growing your own share's value.

I evaluate the capitalized cost of RE by calc its per sq-ft value. The newspapers report RE transactions once a week and you can find out the average per-sq-ft value from there. I have never really found much difference. There is enough turn-over of properties that the book values don't seem to get much out of what with market values.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
546 Posts
Yup. What valuation metric you think is appropriate depends on your analysis of the company and how you personally trade off the good points with the bad points. A valuation metric says nothing about the company itself. I make my decisions using fundamental analysis.

The following is an excerpt from a spreadsheet I use for downloaded financial data. The most important section is the first.
* Notice how much Riocan depends on new shares being issued.
* Notice that the dividends are greater than the NetIncome with Depreciation reversed out.
* Notice how 5-yr book value and EPS per share is declining
* In the 5yr growth section see how the value of ppty is growing at about the same rate as revenues, so the depreciation being booked may well be quite appropriate to the economic wearing out.


That leaves the investor with essentially no growth and only the distribution. For decades this company yielded 10%. The increase in the stock price is really due to the market's decision to require a lower return. Even for RE, I want a greater return than 6%.

 

· Registered
Joined
·
546 Posts
No, no no. The point was NOT that I think it over/under valued. The point is that you have make your own evaluation of every single company. And decide your OWN tradeoffs. When asking opinions, ignore the conclusions, and listen and evaluate the reasons given.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top