- 1 - LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY OF VALUATION MODELS New York City QUAFAFEW By Rawley Thomas, President LifeCycle.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
© 2004 LifeCycle Returns, Inc. All Rights Reserved LCRT VALUE AUDIT OF AN APPROVED LIST By Rawley Thomas President LifeCycle Returns, Inc. July 14,
Advertisements

Introduction to Firm Valuation. Equity vs. Firm Valuation Value of Equity: The value of the equity stake in the firm, the value of the common stock for.
© 2004 LifeCycle Returns, Inc. All Rights Reserved VALUATION MODELS: ACCURACY AND PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY (A WORK-IN-PROGRESS) Financial Management.
- 1 - © 2005 LifeCycle Returns, Inc. All Rights Reserved VALUATION MODELS: ACCURACY AND PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY (A WORK-IN-PROGRESS) Designed to be Challenging.
When Thinking About Valuation…  Key valuation questions are:  What is the company worth?  What would another party pay?  Remember that valuation involves.
Common Stock Valuation
Stocks and Their Valuation
 3M is expected to pay paid dividends of $1.92 per share in the coming year.  You expect the stock price to be $85 per share at the end of the year.
FIN352 Vicentiu Covrig 1 Common Stock Valuation (chapter 10)
Stock Valuation RWJ-Chapter 8.
COMPARATIVE PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY OF TRADITIONAL PORTFOLIO METRICS
Chapter 13 Common Stock Valuation Name two approaches to the valuation of common stocks used in fundamental security analysis. Explain the present value.
EVALUATING THE PERFORMANCE OF AN INVESTMENT CENTER ROE ROI EVA.
1 Solvay Business School – Université Libre de Bruxelles 1 Part 2 : Asset Valuation & Portfolio theory (6 hrs) 2.1. Case study 1 : buy side & sell side.
VALUATION OF FIRMS IN MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS OKAN BAYRAK.
FIN ©2001 M. P. NarayananUniversity of Michigan Valuation methods An overview.
Common Stock Valuation
8-1 CHAPTER 8 Stocks and Their Valuation Features of common stock Determining common stock values Efficient markets Preferred stock.
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2000
Stocks and Their Valuation
DES Chapter 2 1 A Complete Corporate Valuation for a Simple Company.
Lecture 7 The Value of Common Stocks Managerial Finance FINA 6335 Ronald F. Singer.
The Value of Common Stocks Chapter 4. Topics Covered  How Common Stocks are Traded  How To Value Common Stock  Capitalization Rates  Stock Prices.
Valuation: Principles and Practice: Part 1 – Relative Valuation 03/03/08 Ch. 12.
- 1 - LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2003 All Rights Reserved VALUE MANAGEMENT PAST, PRESENT, & FUTURE (A WORK-IN-PROGRESS) Financial Management Association.
- 1 - LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved COMPARATIVE ACCURACY OF FREE CASH FLOW MODEL METHODOLOGIES AND PARAMETERS By Rawley Thomas President.
VALUATION OF A FIRM.
The Value of Common Stocks
FIN 819: lecture 2'1 Review of the Valuation of Common Stocks How to apply the PV concept.
DES Chapter 2 1 Chapter 2 A Complete Corporate Valuation for a Simple Company.
7- 1 McGraw Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2009 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved Fundamentals of Corporate Finance Sixth Edition Richard.
1 Chapter 10 Equity Valuation Tools Portfolio Construction, Management, & Protection, 5e, Robert A. Strong Copyright ©2009 by South-Western, a division.
Assets Valuation Methods
©Cambridge Business Publishers, 2013 FINANCIAL STATEMENT ANALYSIS & VALUATION Third Edition Peter D. Mary LeaGregory A.Xiao-Jun EastonMcAnallySommersZhang.
1- 1 Corporate Finance and Applications – Review of Financial Topics for Case Studies Fall 2015 Dr. Richard Michelfelder.
The value of common stocks
Chapter 2- Capital Structure Determination. After studying this chapter, you should be able to: Define “capital structure.” Explain the net operating.
1- 1 Financial Management Princeton PMBA Program August 22, 2015 to November 24, 2015 Dr. Richard Michelfelder.
Forecasting and Valuation of Free Cash Flows Arzac, Chapter 2.
Chapter McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2008 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Cost of Capital 11.
- 1 - LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved COMPARATIVE ACCURACY OF RESIDUAL INCOME MODEL METHODOLOGIES AND PARAMETERS By Rawley Thomas President.
- 1 - LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved COMPARATIVE ACCURACY AND PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY OF LCRT AND FORMER MODELS By Rawley Thomas President.
CORPORATE FINANCE Week 4 – 17&19 Oct Stock and Company Valuation – Dividend Growth Model, Free Cash Flow Model I. Ertürk Senior Fellow in Banking.
7- 1 McGraw Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2009 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved Fundamentals of Corporate Finance Sixth Edition Richard.
© 2004 LifeCycle Returns, Inc. All Rights Reserved Sources: Financial Statements and Price Data – CapitalIQ Calculations – LCRT Platform THE RELATIVE.
Copyright © 2011 Thomson South-Western, a part of the Thomson Corporation. Thomson, the Star logo, and South-Western are trademarks used herein under license.
Conceptual Tools The creation of new and improved financial products through innovative design or repackaging of existing financial instruments. Financial.
Chapter 02 Financial Statements. 2 Value = FCF 1 FCF 2 FCF ∞ (1 + WACC) 1 (1 + WACC) ∞ (1 + WACC) 2 Free cash flow (FCF) Market interest rates Firm’s.
Investment and portfolio management MGT 531. Investment and portfolio management Lecture # 21.
1 CHAPTERS 15 & 25 Corporate Valuation and Merger Analysis.
Corporate value model Also called the free cash flow method. Suggests the value of the entire firm equals the present value of the firm’s free cash flows.
Common Stock Valuation
CHAPTER 8 Stocks and Their Valuation
Ch. 3 Financial Statements, Cash Flows and Taxes.
- 1 - LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved COMPARATIVE ACCURACY OF DIVIDEND DISCOUNT MODELS By Adam Gehr, Professor, DePaul University Rawley.
Copyright © 2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved McGraw-Hill/Irwin Cost of Capital Cost of Capital - The return the firm’s.
- 1 - LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved LARGE CAP PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY OF LCRT INTRINSIC VALUE MODEL By Rawley Thomas President LifeCycle.
DES Chapter 4 1 DES Chapter 4 Estimating the Value of ACME.
1 Research term paper Five major sections: Company background / introduction Competitive strengths Financial analysis (focus section) Stock valuation analysis.
Estimating the Value of ACME 1. Steps in a valuation Estimate cost of capital (WACC) – Debt – Equity Project financial statements and FCF Calculate horizon.
Chapter 12 Fundamentals of Corporate Finance Fifth Edition Slides by Matthew Will McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Valuation: Market-Based Approach
The Value of Common Stocks
Common Stock Valuation
Chapter 11 Risk-Adjusted Expected Rates of Return and the
Chapter 13 Learning Objectives
Chapter 4 The Value of Common Stocks Principles of Corporate Finance
VALUATION OF FIRMS IN MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS
Lecture 4 The Value of Common Stocks
Investments: Analysis and Management Common Stock Valuation
Presentation transcript:

- 1 - LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY OF VALUATION MODELS New York City QUAFAFEW By Rawley Thomas, President LifeCycle Returns, Inc. March 23, 2004

- 2 - LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved Predictive Capability of Models – QUAFAFEW March 23, 2004 Rt AN INTRINSIC VALUE CHART ENABLES US TO VISUALIZE THE MEASUREMENT OF ROBUSTNESS AND ACCURACY OF A DCF MODEL PRICE LEVEL USING ONLY ACTUAL REPORTED FINANCIAL DATA AND THE SAME GLOBAL PARAMETERS ACROSS THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE TO DRIVE A MECHANICAL LIFE CYCLE FORECAST OF CASH FLOWS FOR EACH COMPANY Sources: Financial Statements and Price Data – Simplystocks Calculations - LCRT’s Platform

- 3 - LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved Predictive Capability of Models – QUAFAFEW March 23, 2004 Rt LCRT’S RESEARCH METHODOLOGY CONTRASTS SHARPLY WITH THE TRADITIONAL VALUATION APPROACH Traditional Approach Forecasts 3-10 Years of Cash Flows Applies Perpetuity or Multiple for Terminal Value Discounts to Present (plan valuation) Implicitly assumes the structure and parameters of the terminal valuation are robust and accurate or “plugs” the parameters to explain current price LCRT Methodology Employs only actual data to empirically test robustness and accuracy of valuation models, methodologies, and parameters –Enables testing hypotheses in an independent way which does not contain a look- ahead bias by knowing current price Extends the best models to use as terminal values in traditional plan valuations using security analyst estimates or other forecasts

- 4 - LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved Predictive Capability of Models – QUAFAFEW March 23, 2004 Rt LCRT’s MODEL IS 28-67% MORE ACCURATE THAN OTHER MODELS (at 50 th Percentile) AND MORE ACCURATE FOR 67% OF THE UNIVERSE Sources: Financial Statements and Price Data – Simplystocks Calculations - LCRT’s Platform Constant Dollar Gross Investment > $100 Million 20,957 Company-Years Feltham-Ohlson: 67%=100% (79.2/47.4-1) Free Cash Flow 38% = 100% (65.7/47.4-1) 8 X EBITDA 28% = 100% (61.0/47.4-1) Residual Income 33% = 100% (63.4/47.4) LOG 2 of % Absolute Model Error versus Actual Price - Fiscal Year +3 Months % Greater Accuracy of LCRT Model at Cumulative 50 th Percentile of Universe Cumulative % of Universe Tracking error equals the % absolute difference between the Model Intrinsic Value and the actual stock price at Fiscal Year + 3 Months. The Chart compares models, methodologies, or parameters.

- 5 - LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved Predictive Capability of Models – QUAFAFEW March 23, 2004 Rt LCRT’S MODEL IS UP TO 25% MORE ROBUST THAN OTHER MODELS LCRT 8 X EBITDA Residual Income Free Cash Flow Perpetuity Feltham-Ohlson Sources: Financial Statements and Price Data – Simplystocks Calculations - LCRT’s Platform Constant Dollar Gross Investment > $100 Million

- 6 - LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved Predictive Capability of Models – QUAFAFEW March 23, 2004 Rt ~ 3,000 INDUSTRIAL AND MANUFACTURING COMPANIES WITH MEDIAN TOTAL SHAREHOLDER RETURN OF -7.84% DIVIDED INTO “WINNERS” AND “LOSERS” BASED ON INTRINSIC VALUE SCREENS AT FISCAL YEAR + 3 MONTHS SPLITTING DISTRIBUTION APPROXIMATELY IN HALF Sources: Financial Statements and Price Data – Simplystocks Calculations - LCRT’s Platform Constant Dollar Gross Investment > $100 Million Total Universe Median = -7.84% N = 17,697 Company-Years Panel Data “Winners” are under- valued at Fiscal Year + 3 Months and “Losers” are over- valued at Fiscal Year + 3 Months.

- 7 - LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved Predictive Capability of Models – QUAFAFEW March 23, 2004 Rt LCRT “WINNERS” OUT-PERFORM “LOSERS” BY 12.3% (= –(-14.38)) Sources: Financial Statements and Price Data – Simplystocks Calculations - LCRT’s Platform Constant Dollar Gross Investment > $100 Million “Winners” Median = -2.04% N = 8,628 Company-Years Panel Data “Losers” Median = % N = 8,771 Company-Years Panel Data “Winners” are under- valued at Fiscal Year + 3 Months and “Losers” are over- valued at Fiscal Year + 3 Months.

- 8 - LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved Predictive Capability of Models – QUAFAFEW March 23, 2004 Rt FREE CASH FLOW AND LCRT PERFORM THE BEST TO SEPARATE “WINNERS” FROM “LOSERS” Sources: Financial Statements and Price Data – Simplystocks Calculations - LCRT’s Platform Constant Dollar Gross Investment > $100 Million, Panel Data from , 17,697 Company-Years

- 9 - LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved Predictive Capability of Models – QUAFAFEW March 23, 2004 Rt FREE CASH FLOW AND LCRT PERFORM THE BEST TO SEPARATE “WINNERS” FROM “LOSERS” Sources: Financial Statements and Price Data – Simplystocks Calculations - LCRT’s Platform Constant Dollar Gross Investment > $100 Million, Panel Data from , 17,697 Company-Years

LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved Predictive Capability of Models – QUAFAFEW March 23, 2004 Rt COMBINING FREE CASH FLOW AND LCRT SCREENS SEPARATE “WINNERS” FROM “LOSERS” BY 17.0% = (-.45-(-17.50) FCF “Winners” & LCRT “Winners” Median = -0.45% N = 7,074 Company-Years FCF “Losers” & LCRT “Winners” Median = -7.74% N = 1,527 Company-Years FCF “Losers” & LCRT “Losers” Median = % N = 6,320 Company-Years FCF “Winners” & LCRT “Losers” Median = -7.54% N = 2,212 Company-Years Sources: Financial Statements and Price Data – Simplystocks Calculations - LCRT’s Platform Constant Dollar Gross Investment > $100 Million, Panel Data from

LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved Predictive Capability of Models – QUAFAFEW March 23, 2004 Rt THE LCRT INTRINSIC VALUE SCREEN SUCCESSFULLY SEPARATES “WINNERS” FROM “LOSERS” FOR ALL YEARS EXCEPT FISCAL YEARS Recall that Fiscal Years cover the “Bubble” time period from March of 1998 to March of The market peaked in August of Sources: Financial Statements and Price Data – Simplystocks Calculations - LCRT’s Platform Constant Dollar Gross Investment > $100 Million, Panel Data from , 17,697 Company-Years

LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved Predictive Capability of Models – QUAFAFEW March 23, 2004 Rt IN A CAREFULLY CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT IN AN ECONOMICS LABORATORY, VERNON SMITH et. al. DEMONSTRATES SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES OF TRADED PRICES FROM KNOWN INTRINSIC VALUES Vernon L. Smith, Gerry L. Suchanek, and Arlington W. Williams, “Bubbles, Crashes, and Endogenous Expectations in Experimental Spot Asset Markets,” in Vernon Smith, Papers in Experimental Economics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991, pp , chart from p. 352.

LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved Predictive Capability of Models – QUAFAFEW March 23, 2004 Rt BEHAVIORAL EXPLANATIONS OF VIOLATIONS OF INSTANTANEOUSLY EFFICIENT MARKET’S HYPOTHESIS People employ significantly different and inconsistent models of fundamental valuation, relying on various forecasts Depending on the weights of all the classes of people buying and selling a stock at any point in time, the actual price will diverge significantly from the long term intrinsic value Strongly held academic beliefs in instantaneous market efficiency impede empirical research to show otherwise Price event studies only demonstrate that the market reacts in the correct direction, but not necessarily by the correct amount Robust, accurate DCF models of intrinsic valuation are required to empirically test instantaneous market efficiency

LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved Predictive Capability of Models – QUAFAFEW March 23, 2004 Rt COMPARISON OF FELTHAM-OHLSON AND FREE CASH FLOW PERPETUITY Feltham-Ohlson Based on market value of equity/ operating assets regressed against return on assets, change in return on assets, and growth rate in assets From Jing Liu and James A. Ohlson, “The Feltham-Ohlson Model: Empirical Implications,” Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 2000, v15 [3, Summer], pp , especially p Programmed with the aid of Sally Webber, Accounting Professor, Northern Illinois University Free Cash Flow Perpetuity Based on growing free cash flow for T years and capitalizing the terminal year’s free cash flow into perpetuity Free cash flow = income after taxes + depreciation and amortization – non-operating items after tax – normalized capital expenditures – working capital additions The terminal year’s cash flow is capitalized by a CAPM nominal discount rate less a nominal growth rate From specifications by Dan Van Vleet of Willamette

LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved Predictive Capability of Models – QUAFAFEW March 23, 2004 Rt COMPARISON OF RESIDUAL INCOME AND LCRT Residual Income From PV of growing excess residual income (EVA ® ) for T years plus release of capital at terminal value employing a CAPM cost of capital Bennett Stewart, The Quest for Value, Harper Business, 1991, especially p Programmed with the aid of Sally Webber, Accounting Professor, Northern Illinois University LifeCycle Returns (LCRT) From PV of net cash flows for 50+ years using a market derived discount rate Net cash flows derive from fading growth rates and cash economic returns applied to constant dollar gross investment less replacement assets less growth in gross investment See Bartley J. Madden, CFROI Valuation: A Total System Approach to Valuing the Firm, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1999.

LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved Predictive Capability of Models – QUAFAFEW March 23, 2004 Rt LCRT’S UNIQUE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND PROCESS CONSULTING Translates each dimension of a person’s belief structure into a testable hypothesis and model –Relies only on historical data for forecast estimates –Produces an intrinsic value for every company for every year at Fiscal Year + 3 Months to reflect disclosure lags and prevent look ahead bias –Displays tracking errors on a single chart where tracking errors = % absolute difference between the intrinsic model value and actual price for all 20,000+ company-years Measures the predictive capability of the % difference between intrinsic value and actual price for every company for every year for Months Fiscal Year +4, 5, 6, 9, 12, & 15 –Measures the risk of the distributions of “Winners” and “Losers” using the parameters of the fat tailed Stable Paretian Distribution Determines which models, methodologies, and parameters: –Produce the most accurate intrinsic values with the least tracking errors –Separate the universe into “Winners” and “Losers” with the greatest spread on relative wealth performance from Fiscal Year +3 Months to +15 Months Changes valuations, investment processes, and cultures with a powerful Platform by producing comparative quantitative feedback on belief structures of stock market pricing and reactions to fundamentals

LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved Predictive Capability of Models – QUAFAFEW March 23, 2004 Rt EXTRA SLIDES

LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved Predictive Capability of Models – QUAFAFEW March 23, 2004 Rt THE LCRT INTRINSIC VALUE SCREEN SUCCESSFULLY SEPARATE “WINNERS” FROM “LOSERS” FOR ALL YEARS EXCEPT Sources: Financial Statements and Price Data – Simplystocks Calculations - LCRT’s Platform Constant Dollar Gross Investment > $100 Million, Panel Data from Recall that Fiscal Years cover the “Bubble” time period from March of 1998 to March of The market peaked in August of 2000.

LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved COMPARATIVE ACCURACY AND PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY OF LCRT AND FORMER MODELS By Rawley Thomas President LifeCycle Returns, Inc. February 20, 2004

LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved Predictive Capability of Models – QUAFAFEW March 23, 2004 Rt LCRT’S RESEARCH MODEL IMPROVES ON FORMER MODELS WITHOUT ENHANCEMENTS AND OVERRIDES BY 13.7% (=100% (53.9/ )) Cumulative % of Universe LOG 2 of % Absolute Model Error versus Actual Price – Fiscal Year + 3 Months Sources: Financial Statements and Price Data – Simplystocks Calculations - LCRT’s Platform Constant Dollar Gross Investment > $100 Million,

LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved Predictive Capability of Models – QUAFAFEW March 23, 2004 Rt LCRT PERFORMS BETTER THAN FORMER MODELS WITHOUT ENHANCEMENTS AND OVERRIDES TO SEPARATE “WINNERS” FROM “LOSERS” Sources: Financial Statements and Price Data – Simplystocks Calculations - LCRT’s Platform Constant Dollar Gross Investment > $100 Million, Panel Data from

LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved Predictive Capability of Models – QUAFAFEW March 23, 2004 Rt LCRT PERFORMS 2.6% BETTER THAN FORMER MODELS WITHOUT ENHANCEMENTS AND OVERRIDES TO SEPARATE “WINNERS” FROM “LOSERS” Sources: Financial Statements and Price Data – Simplystocks Calculations - LCRT’s Platform Constant Dollar Gross Investment > $100 Million,

LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved Predictive Capability of Models – QUAFAFEW March 23, 2004 Rt COMPARISON OF LCRT RESEARCH AND FORMER MODELS WITHOUT ENHANCEMENTS AND OVERRIDES LCRT RESEARCH CER Fade-To based on 7 Year Past Median of Firms with Current Dollar Gross Investment > 100 $Million 45% CER Fade Rate, 50% Growth Fade Rate, 40% Sustainability Factor, 10% CER Momentum Market Derived Discount Rate related to leverage, inventory asset mix, and depreciating asset mix X plant life Excessive growth rates limited to -15% to +20% by arc-tangent function FORMER MODELS CER Fade-To based on long term CER for aggregate of large firms 10% CER Fade Rate, 10% Growth Fade Rate, 0% Sustainability Factor, 0% CER Momentum Market Derived Discount Rate related to leverage No limit on excessive growth rates

LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved VALUE MANAGEMENT PAST, PRESENT, & FUTURE (A WORK-IN-PROGRESS) (Excerpts) Financial Management Association International Denver, Colorado October 9, 2003 By Rawley Thomas President LifeCycle Returns, Inc.

LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved Predictive Capability of Models – QUAFAFEW March 23, 2004 Rt MOST ASSETS PRODUCE A NEARLY LEVEL USEFUL OUTPUT UNTIL FAILURE, INSTEAD OF THE STRAIGHT LINE OR THE DECLINING BALANCE CURVE REFLECTING DEPRECIATED PLANT Output Time (2) Most Assets Produce Nearly Level Output… Until Failure (1) Constant Output = Constant Dollar Level Annuity Economic Life (3) Straight Line Depreciation Net Plant (4) Accelerated Depreciation Net Plant Failure (One Horse Shay) (Economic Value Added Implicit Assumption)

LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved Predictive Capability of Models – QUAFAFEW March 23, 2004 Rt ECONOMIC VERSUS ACCOUNTING ANNUAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES In order to accurately reflect asset productivity, economic measures should assume constant dollar level annuities of cash flows In contrast, traditional accounting measures, like RONA (Return On Net Assets), do not reflect the reality of asset utilization. They only reflect the IRR of the underlying project, when the output declines linearly.

LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved Predictive Capability of Models – QUAFAFEW March 23, 2004 Rt TRADITIONAL ACCOUNTING MEASURES FIRST UNDERSTATE AND THEN OVERSTATE ECONOMIC RETURNS AS ASSETS AGE (ASSUMING CONSTANT OUTPUT = CONSTANT DOLLAR LEVEL ANNUITY) (A DESIRED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE MEASURE REFLECTS THE PROJECT IRR) NOTE: The Annual CER each and every year precisely equals the IRR of the project. -$10,000 PROJECT $1,740 Life = 8 Years IRR = 8.00% Annual Performance Measures of Project Year Income490 Depreciation1,250 Gross Cash Flow1740 Gross Plant10000 Accumulated Depreciation Net Plant Return on Net Assets = RONA = Income/Net Plant5.60%6.53%7.84%9.80%13.07%19.60%39.20%∞ Cash Economic Return (CER)8.00% Difference-2.40%-1.47%-0.16%1.80%5.07%11.60%31.20%∞ Return on Gross Assets 17.40%

LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved Predictive Capability of Models – QUAFAFEW March 23, 2004 Rt CASH ECONOMIC RETURN REFLECTS THE AVERAGE INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN OF ALL THE PROJECTS IN PLACE Cash Economic Return Existing Projects

LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved Predictive Capability of Models – QUAFAFEW March 23, 2004 Rt IMPROVED MEASUREMENTS (PORTFOLIO) GREATER INSIGHTS SUPERIOR DECISIONS Portfolio Applications TraditionalLCRT Framework CER (Cash Economic Return) E.P.S.RisingPurchaseCERDecliningSell P/ELowPurchaseCER< Cost of Capital and Growing Sell E.P.S.LevelAvoidCERRisingBuy

LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved Predictive Capability of Models – QUAFAFEW March 23, 2004 Rt THE LIFE CYCLE OF THE AVERAGE FIRM Growth Phase Decay from Drop-Outs Due to Acquisition & Bankruptcy Investors price for these expectations in Firms’ life cycles and associated cash flows. Corporate Average Start-Up Growth Phase Surviving Mature Firm Fade

LIfeCycle Returns, Inc. © 2004 All Rights Reserved Predictive Capability of Models – QUAFAFEW March 23, 2004 Rt VALUATION: SIMPLE DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW PRESENT VALUE PRINCIPLES Since the corporate rate of return of 20% exceeds the investor’s discount rate of 10%, the price of $109 exceeds the $100 cost of the Gross Investment. Gross Investment Time 0Time 1 $100 $120 Value $109 $20 Gross Cash Flow 20% Return