The Stock Investers Pocket Calculator WWW - Dl4all

The Stock Investor’s
Pocket Calculator
This page intentionally left blank
Pocket Calculator
A Quick Guide to All the
Formulas and Ratios You Need
to Invest Like a Pro
Michael C. Thomsett
American Management Association

New York • Atlanta • Brussels • Chicago • Mexico City • San Francisco
Shanghai • Tokyo • Toronto • Washington, D.C.
Special discounts on bulk quantities of AMACOM books are
available to corporations, professional associations, and other
organizations. For details, contact Special Sales Department,
AMACOM, a division of American Management Association,
1601 Broadway, New York, NY 10019.
Tel.: 212-903-8316. Fax: 212-903-8083.
Website: www.amacombooks.org
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative

information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with
the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering
legal, accounting, or other professional service. If legal advice or
other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent
professional person should be sought.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Thomsett, Michael C.
The stock investor’s pocket calculator : a quick guide to all the formulas and ratios
you need to invest like a pro / Michael C. Thomsett.
p. cm.
Includes index.
ISBN-13: 978-0-8144-7460-0
ISBN-10: 0-8144-7460-8
1. Investments—Mathematics. 2. Investment
analysis—Mathematics. 3. Business mathematics. I. Title.
HG4515.3.T463 2007
332.63⬘2201513—dc22
2007010455
2007 Michael Thomsett.

All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
This publication may not be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in whole or in part,
in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of AMACOM,
a division of American Management Association,
1601 Broadway, New York, NY 10019.
Printing number
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Contents
Introduction
The Basic Dollars and Cents Problem: Overcoming the Numbers 1
Chapter 1
Rates of Return on Investment: What Goes In, What Comes Out 5
Chapter 2
Returns on Capital: Putting Cash to Work 23
Chapter 3
Leverage and Risk Analysis: Maximizing Other People’s Money 41
Chapter 4
Long-Term Trends: Patience Rewarded 61
Chapter 5
Core Earnings and Net Worth Adjustments: Making the Numbers
Real 89
Chapter 6
Fundamentals: Balance Sheet Tests You Need to Know 109
Chapter 7
Fundamentals: Operating Statement Tests You Need to Know 133
Chapter 8
Technicals: Price and Volume Calculations 153
Chapter 9
Combined Testing: Merging Price and Financial Tests 175
Chapter 10
Taxation of Investments: Uncle Sam’s Share 191
v
vi Contents
Appendix A
Stock Market Formulas: Summarizing the Essentials 201
Glossary of Terms 225
Index 237
Pocket Calculator
I N T R O D U C T I O N
The Basic Dollars

and Cents Problem
Overcoming the Numbers
ou have so many different ways of calculating ‘‘profit’’ or ‘‘yield’’
Y or ‘‘return’’ that no clear, simple answer will suffice. It is different

in each situation.
Figuring out the mathematical aspects of investing money does
not have to be difficult or confusing. It is made so by (a) the varia-
tion and unnecessary complexity of statements you receive from
brokerage firms and mutual funds; (b) the cross-use of terms
meaning approximately the same thing; and (c) the often mislead-
ing claims made in ads about the kinds of rates you can expect to
earn (or would have earned if only you had invested five years ago).
None of these calculations are complicated at all. This book
attempts to sort through the confusion and present you with a me-
thodical, logical, and easy way to figure out the answers and inter-
pret what you read and hear. Each chapter tackles a specific topic
and provides examples of formulas in context. The topics covered
include ‘‘returns’’ (return on investment and return on capital,
which are not always the same); how leverage changes the equa-
tion; calculations over the long term; adjusting for what corpora-
1
2 The Stock Investor’s Pocket Calculator
tions report versus what is accurate; fundamental and technical

analysis of stocks; and tax-related calculations.
More important than anything else, everyone should remember
this: No investment calculation is so complex that you cannot figure
it out. As long as you clarify what you are interested in finding out,
you can crunch the numbers. At times, knowing the right questions
to ask is the most difficult part of the calculation; so this book
shows you how to go through that initial phase.
It also helps to think of these investment calculations in practi-
cal terms. Figuring out profitability is a method for keeping track
of your investing success. So any series of calculations performed
to figure out a percentage of profit has a specific context and pur-
pose. Unfortunately, it becomes complicated if and when you com-
pare two different investments without making sure they are
expressed on the same basis. It is all too easy to arrive at a distorted
answer. For example, if you own two stocks and make a net profit
of 10% on both, that is an identical outcome—if you owned those
stocks for exactly the same time period. But if you owned one stock
for exactly one year and another for two years, the outcome is not
the same. If it takes two years to earn 10%, that is an average of
only 5% per year—or half as high as earning the same percentage
in half the time.
Many adjustments, similar to this, need to be made in order to
arrive at an accurate outcome. This is one of the major problems
you see constantly in any type of financial study. Companies selling
products make the issue more complex through the way they ex-
press numbers, often exaggerating outcomes to make what they
offer seem more attractive than it is, or more profitable than it has
been.
So when it comes to calculating outcomes, you are on your
own. You need to take the information you are presented (or pro-
ject into the future based on your own assumptions) and take steps
to make sure you are using like-kind comparisons. So many inves-
tors make mistakes in their assumptions and basis for comparison,
leading to a low quality of information. If nothing else, improving
the quality and consistency of your calculations is going to help you
to become a better informed and more confident investor. In figur-
ing out likely outcomes, one purpose is to evaluate risks—not only
The Basic Dollars and Cents Problem 3
of specific products but also in comparing one to another—and

this is an essential step in making any decision. So the more reliable
your calculations, the more likely you are to make informed deci-
sions.
With the Internet, you can find a mind-numbing array of free
information, much of it useful in performing investment calcula-
tions. Many Web sites will be included in this book to help you
make calculations when necessary. But be aware that the Internet
also offers a lot of misleading information and advice. One of the
problems with free information is deciding which has value and
which is useless. It certainly makes sense to evaluate information
as broadly as possible in your initial research and before making
decisions, but once you have narrowed down your sources and de-
termined which kinds of calculations are valid and useful, you may
discover that the large volume of free online advice is mostly useless
in the decision-making process. A lot of it is promotional, and the
useful information can be divided into a limited number of catego-
ries, including four primary areas:
1. Information and background. One of the most amazing things

about the Internet is the availability of free articles and tutorials
on a vast number of topics. Many of these are provided on sites
trying to attract subscribers, and that is not a problem. You can
read the articles and follow links without being obligated to sign
up, and the Internet is an excellent place to get a free financial
education.
2. Definitions. Another good use of the Internet is for gaining an
understanding of terms. The investment arena has thousands
of specialized words and phrases that have specific meaning
and importance, and for the novice, this can be overwhelming.
But the Internet makes it simple to look up words. For example,
www.investopedia.com is a free site with many articles and tu-
torials and an excellent dictionary.
3. Free quotes and research. Numerous sites provide free market
information. Most allow you to look up stock symbols by com-
pany name and then find the current stock price and chart.
You can also link directly to companies and view annual and
quarterly reports online. This is very valuable. Before the In-

ternet, investors depended on stockbrokers and mail to send
away for annual reports, and often had to wait several weeks
before receiving them.
4. Calculators. If you do an online search for some of the more
complicated formulas, such as mortgage amortization, for ex-
ample, you will find dozens of free calculators to simplify the
process. For these more complicated formulas, you don’t need
to know how to figure them out (although you will be better
informed if you understand the basic reasoning for the calcula-
tion). You can simply go to one of the free sites and punch in
the raw numbers.
This book is designed for a spectrum of investors, from novices

to seasoned professionals. Its purpose is to summarize in a single
text the limited number of calculations everyone needs to be a better-
informed investor. This involves three broad areas where calcula-
tions need to be made. First is the basic investment calculation in-
volving your portfolio, the computation of yield and return you need
to make in order to judge your success. Because you hold invest-
ments for varying amounts of time, it is essential to develop a
method of uniformity, so that your calculations are truly comparable
and consistent. Second is the range of calculations used by corpora-
tions in computing their profitability, cash flow, and use of capital.
As an investor, you need to understand these calculations so that
you will be able to track corporate reporting and outcome of opera-
tions. Third is a broad range of stock analysis, which is the means
for picking one company over another. This occurs in two separate
ways, involving fundamental analysis and technical analysis. The
fundamentals are the financial reports and the study of them, and
technical analysis involves a study of a stock’s price trends.
This book is set up to break down the many calculations every
investor needs into logical chapters and to then present information
in context. Most people will agree that investment success is more
likely to occur when your information is sound. Not only do you
need solid information to know when or if to buy or sell; you also
need to utilize intelligent formulas and tests in order to make in-
formed judgments.
C H A P T E R 1
Rates of Return
on Investment
What Goes In, What Comes Out
ven the most seemingly easy calculation can get quite involved.
E For example, what is your ‘‘return’’? If you invest money in a

stock or mutual fund, you need to be able to figure out and com-
pare the outcome. But as the following explanation demonstrates,
there are many different versions of ‘‘return,’’ and you need to be
sure that when comparing two different outcomes, you are making
a like-kind study. Otherwise, you can be deceived into drawing an
inaccurate conclusion. And accuracy is one of your goals in going
to the trouble of drawing conclusions in the first place.
The ‘‘return’’ you earn on your investments can be calculated
and expressed in many different ways. This is why comparisons are
difficult. If you read the promotional literature from mutual funds
and other investments, the return provided in the brochure could
be one of many different outcomes.
This is why you need to be able to make distinctions between
return on investment and return on capital. Your investment return
is supposed to be calculated based on the amount of cash you put
into a program, fund, or stock. Most investors use ‘‘return on in-
vestment’’ in some form to calculate and compare. The return on
5
capital is usually different and is used by corporations to judge op-

erations. To further complicate matters, capital is not the same as
capitalization, so corporate return calculations can be difficult to
compare. Return on capital normally means capital stock. Capital-
ization is the total funding of an organization, including stock and
long-term debt.
■ Judging the Outcome—What Did You Expect?
All investment calculations are done in order to monitor and judge

standards. You enter an investment with a basic assumption, an
expectation about the return you will be able to earn.
In order to judge the quality or the investment and the reliabil-
ity of your own decision-making capabilities, you will need to figure
out how well the investment performed. In so doing, you need to
be aware of some popular mistakes investors make, including the
following primary points:
1. The purchase price is the assumed ‘‘starting point.’’ It is an easy

trap to believe that the point of entry to any investment is the
price-based starting point. Thus, the assumption is that price
must move upward from that point. No consideration is given
to the realistic point of view that price at any given moment is
part of a continuum of ever-evolving upward and downward
price point movements. As a starting point, price does not al-
ways move upward. In other words, profitability is not the only
possible outcome; the rate of return may also be negative.
2. There is no possibility of a loss of value. Investors also tend to
overlook the possibility that they can lose money in an invest-
ment. But there is an unavoidable relationship between oppor-
tunity and risk. The greater the opportunity for profit, the
higher the risk; this is inescapable. So picking the ‘‘best’’ invest-
ment is a matter of identifying how much risk you are willing
and able to take.
3. A bail-out and/or profit goal is not specifically set. Too often, an
investment is made with little or no idea about the individual’s
Rates of Return on Investment 7
expectations. Do you plan to double your money? Triple it? Or

would you settle for a 15% return in one year? Equally impor-
tant is the question of possible loss. How much of your invest-
ment capital will you lose before you cut your losses and close
it out? If you don’t set goals and identify the point at which you
will close the investment, then you cannot know what to expect.
4. The specific method of calculation is not understood. It is diffi-
cult to determine whether an investment is a success or a failure
unless you also know how the return calculation is made. This
includes making clear distinctions between different types of
returns, the effect of taxes, and how the formula works. All
these variables have to be made consistent between compari-
sons or they will not be valid.
5. The time factor is not considered. You need to take into account
the reality that not all investments produce a return in the same
amount of time. The longer the time required (thus, the longer
your capital is tied up), the less effective the return. So the
time element is crucial to the comparison of one investment to
another.
6. The varying degrees of risk are not taken into account. Risk is
not only an aspect of opportunity; it is really the reverse effect
of it as well. Opportunity for profit and risk of loss are like
two sides of the same coin. This relationship between the two
attributes is shown in Figure 1.1.
Even so, some investors focus only on the ‘‘heads’’ side and
invest with the profitability potential in mind but have made no
plans for the contingency of loss. How much could you lose?
How much can you afford? What criteria do you use to judge
risk? For example, investors who base their decisions on funda-
mental analysis look for revenue and earnings trends and com-
pute working capital and capitalization ratios. Investors who
prefer to trust in technical signals check price volatility and look
at charts. Whatever method you use, a decision should be
judged based on potential for both profit and loss.
7. Comparisons fail to include compound rates of return versus
simple return. In calculating return, there are numerous meth-
FIGURE 1.1. OPPORTUNITY AND RISK.
y
nit
o r tu
O pp
k
Ris
ods in use, and these are explained in this chapter. However, in

estimating future returns, it is important to know whether you
will earn a simple return or a compound rate of return. For
example, if you are buying shares of a mutual fund, will you
take your dividends and other distributions in cash? If so, your
annual returns will be simple. But if you instruct the fund to
reinvest your earnings, your investment account balance will
increase each time you earn; the result is a compound rate of
return, and over many years it will be much higher. So without
deciding in advance how your mutual fund or stock earnings
are going to be treated, it is not possible to set profit goals for
yourself.
The important determination of an investment’s success has

two components. First is the decision as to how much profit you
expect (or how much loss you will accept). Second is deciding how
to compute the outcome.
Setting goals involves identifying the profit you hope to earn
and, if you do not plan to hold your investments indefinitely, the
point when you will sell. It also involves identifying when you will
sell if the investment falls in value. At what point will you bail out
and take a small loss to avoid a larger loss later on?
The second part—deciding how to compute profits and

losses—is equally important because you need a consistent, reli-
able, and accurate method in order to assess your investing success
and make valid comparisons between different investments.
■ The Basic Equation: Return on Cash Invested
Calculating return is perceived in many instances as rather simple.

And it is, as long as the amount of money placed into the invest-
ment is the entire amount invested. In some cases, though, you
deposit only a portion of the investment’s total value, deferring pay-
ment of the remainder. Anyone who has ever purchased a home
knows that the down payment is only a small portion of the proper-
ty’s total value; the remainder is financed and paid over many years.
The same thing happens with investments. For example, if you
use a margin account, you are allowed to buy stock and pay for
only one-half of the current market value. The balance is held in
margin, and interest is charged. The concept here is that when a
stock’s price moves upward, margin investors make twice the profit
(less interest) because they can afford to own twice as much stock.
It’s a great concept, unless your investments lose value or take too
long to become profitable.
Another example involves the use of options, which is explained
in greater detail later in this chapter. As one form of leverage, you
can control shares of stock with the use of options for a fraction of
their market value. So calculating return will be more complicated
when options are used.
The most basic calculation is return on purchase price, which is
simply the return you earn or expect to earn when you put the
entire amount of capital into the investment. For example, if you
buy 100 shares of stock and pay $2,587 in cash, you have paid the
entire purchase price in cash. If you later sell for a net of $2,934,
your profit is $347.
Return on purchase price is calculated by dividing the profit by
the original basis:
FORMULA: RETURN ON PURCHASE PRICE
SP
R
P
where S sales price

P purchase price
R return
The result is expressed as a percentage. In the example, the return

is calculated as:
$2,934 $2,587
13.4%
$2,587
Return on purchase price is the calculation most investors are de-

scribing when discussing or thinking about their investments. It is
the standard by which success is defined, and by which one invest-
ment is most likely to be compared to another. But what happens
to the return calculation when you do not put the entire amount
into the investment?
Return on purchase price may continue to be used as a com-
mon standard for the sake of ensuring consistency. But if you use
a brokerage margin account to leverage your capital, you can ex-
pect two differences in the return. First, profitable returns are
going to be much greater when you isolate the cash amount only;
second, risk is also considerably higher. So the higher return is
accompanied by far greater risks. Thus, it is not realistic to prefer
using margin for all investing just because returns are greater. You
also must accept greater risk levels.
For example, if your cost for 100 shares of stock is $2,587
but you deposit only one-half using your margin account, you may
continue to calculate return on purchase. But you will also want to
figure out your return on invested capital. In this case, only the
actual amount invested is involved in the final outcome. The
‘‘gross’’ return on invested capital (before deducting margin costs)
will involve a 50% investment, or $1,294. The formula for this cal-
culation is:
FORMULA: RETURN ON INVESTED CAPITAL
SI
R
I
where S sales price

I invested capital
R return
Using the example and assuming a sales price of $2,934, your re-
turn would be:
$2,934 $1,294
126.7%
$1,294
This calculation is a theoretical outcome only. It is not realistic to

count this triple-digit return as typical because not all investments
are going to be profitable; it does not take into account the higher
risk levels; and it ignores the fact that you continue to be obligated
for the margin debt.
The advantage to using margin is that your capital can be lever-
aged. However, if a particular position loses money and you sell at
a loss, you are still obligated for the amount borrowed. The return
on invested capital formula is important in fixing the outcome, but
only for a specific purpose: judging overall margin-based investing.
So if you buy stocks only with cash, your outcome will be reviewed
on the basis of the common formula, return on purchase price. If
you use margin and invest only one-half, you double your opportu-
nity and your exposure. A review of all outcomes on the basis of
calculated return on invested capital will enable you to decide
whether margin investing is more profitable or not. If your losses
offset or surpass your gains, the added exposure to risk will not be
worth the advantage (and greater risk) in leverage.
A third calculation that will help you to ensure like-kind com-
parisons in different markets and employing different strategies is
return on net investment. This is the same calculation as either of
the two previous formulas, but all outcomes are expressed on a net
basis. So if you use margin, the actual profit is decreased (or loss
is increased) by the interest cost of using margin. The formula is:
FORMULA: RETURN ON NET INVESTMENT
SIC
R
I
where S sales price

I invested capital
C costs
R return
For example, if your sales price was $2,934, the basis (amount
invested in a margin account) was $1,294, and margin interest was
$78, the outcome would be:
$2,934 $1,294 $78

120.7%
$1,294
An alternative method of computing this would assume that the

margin cost should be added to the invested capital. The formula
under this method is:
FORMULA: RETURN ON NET INVESTMENT WITH NET COST

BASIS
SI
R
IC
where S sales price

I invested capital
C costs
R return
So rather than deducting interest costs from the sales price, they
are simply added to the original basis. For example:
$2,934 $1,294
119.5%
$1,294 $78
This outcome is not significantly different from the previous calcu-

lation. However, the longer the holding period, the higher the
costs—and the more important this distinction becomes.
Two final versions of return involve calculations with the divi-
dends earned. First is total return, which includes a calculation net
of costs, but adds in any dividends earned during the holding pe-
riod. The formula:
FORMULA: TOTAL RETURN
SICD
R
I
where S sales price

I invested capital
C costs
D dividends earned
R return
For example, if your sales price was $2,934, the basis (amount
invested in a margin account) was $1,294, margin interest was
$78, and dividends earned were $124, the outcome would be:
$2,934 $1,294 $78 $124

130.3%
$1,294
The involvement of dividends is somewhat complicated, for two

reasons. First, you are able to reinvest dividends for most listed
companies and buy additional fractional shares rather than taking
dividends in cash. This creates a compound return and makes com-
parisons more elusive. Second, the holding period will also affect
the total return. If you own stock up to a few days before the ex-
dividend date, you will not earn the dividend for the last period,
which also affects overall return.
VA L U A B L E R E S O U R C E :
To find out more about reinvesting dividends in DRIP accounts (Dividend
Reinvestment Plans), check the Web site www.wall-street.com/
directlist.html.
The final calculation for return on cash invested is dividend yield,

also called current yield. This is the rate you earn on dividends,
calculated as a percentage of the stock’s market value. However, a
distinction has to be made. This yield is reported every day in the
financial press and is based on the stock’s closing price. But if you
buy stock, your actual yield will always be based on the price you
paid and not on what is reported later. So for anyone who already
owns shares, the daily changes in yield are meaningless. The for-
mula for dividend yield is:
FORMULA: DIVIDEND YIELD
D
Y
P
where D dividend per share

P current price per share
Y dividend yield
For example, a particular stock closed yesterday at $48.86 per

share. The dividend paid per share is $0.40 per quarter, or $1.60
per share per year. Yield is:
$1.60
3.3%
$48.86
The higher the stock’s price moves, the lower the yield (as long as
the dividend remains at the same amount per share), and the lower
the price, the higher the yield. For example, if the market share
price moved up to $55 per share, the $1.60 per share would repre-
sent a yield of 2.9% ($55 $1.60). And if share value fell to $40
per share, yield would increase to 4.0% ($40 $1.60). However,

if you were to buy shares at the current price of $48.86 per share,
your yield would remain at 3.3% for as long as you held those
shares.
This calculation becomes more complicated when you reinvest
dividends, creating a compound rate of return. Although the actual
yield values may be quite small, an exact calculation would assume
a continuing 3.3% yield on the original shares, plus an adjusted
yield calculated at the time dividends were posted in additional
fractional shares. For example, if you owned 100 shares and you
received the next quarterly dividend of $0.40 per share, or $40;
and at that time the share price was $42 per share, you would take
the dividend in the form of shares, or an additional 0.95 share of
stock. The yield on that 0.95 share would be 3.8% per year. (The
$0.40 per share is a quarterly dividend, so it is multiplied by 4 to
arrive at the annual $1.60. Divide this by the current share value of
$42 per share to arrive at 3.8%.) The result:
100 shares earn 3.3% current yield

0.95 share earns 3.8% current yield
If this calculation were performed each quarter, you would arrive

at a very accurate overall yield. However, with only 100 shares, the
difference this makes would be minimal. For portfolios with many
more shares, the calculation would be more significant because the
dollar values would be higher as well.
■ Calculating Option Trading Returns
The calculations of stock return and dividend yield involve subtle

variations. The key thing to remember is that comparisons should
be made consistently between different stocks, funds, and other
investments. The same level of calculation for options trading is far
more complicated and involves many more variables.
An option is an intangible contract, a right. The owner of an
option has the right to buy or to sell 100 shares of stock at a fixed
price and for a very specific period of time. Once an option expires,
it becomes worthless.
There are two types of options. A call grants its owner the right
but not the obligation to buy 100 shares of a stock at a fixed price.
A put is the opposite, granting the right to sell 100 shares of stock.
Every option is tied to one stock, called the underlying security; and
it cannot be transferred to other stocks. The strike price is the fixed
price at which the owner of an option can exercise. When a call
owner exercises that call, it means 100 shares of the stock can be
bought at the strike price, even when the stock price is substantially
higher. If and when a put owner exercises a put, he or she sells 100
shares of stock at the fixed strike price even though the stock’s
current market price is far lower.
In a nutshell, that is how options work. But because option
values change as stock prices changes, not all options are exercised.
In fact, about three out of every four options expire worthless. For
the owner of an option, one of three things can happen: First, you
can simply let it expire, in which case you lose the entire amount
invested. Second, you can exercise the option and buy (with a call)
or sell (with a put) 100 shares of stock. And third, you can sell the
call or put and take a profit or loss on the transaction.
You can also act as seller rather than as buyer. In other words,
instead of going through the sequence of buy-hold-sell, it is re-
versed to sell-hold-buy. Going short on options is far riskier than
buying in most situations because you may lose more money than
you can afford. One exception to this is the covered call, a strategy
in which you sell one call while also owning 100 shares of the un-
derlying security. If the call is exercised by its buyer, you have 100
shares to deliver; so even if the stock price moves far higher, you
do not lose on the option transaction. (You do lose the increased
market value of the shares, however.) You keep the money paid to
you when you go short, called the option premium. The covered
call is very conservative, and there are several possible outcomes.
Analyzing these outcomes helps you to decide whether a particular
position is worth the risks or should be avoided.
The calculation of profit or loss for buyers is simple. You buy
an option, and later you sell it. The difference is either profit or
loss. (If you allow the option to expire worthless, your loss is
100%.) Even though three-fourths of options expire worthless,
they remain popular as side-bets in the market. This is true partly
because the options market holds a certain allure for the more
speculative investor or trader. However, options are also cheap.
They can be bought for one-tenth or less of the price of stock. So
rather than investing $4,000 in 100 shares of stock, you can spend
$400 or less and own an option.
A comparative outcome is useful in identifying the attraction of
options. For example, if you were to buy 100 shares of stock and
the price rose four points, your profit upon sale (before calculating
trading costs) would be $400, or 10%. However, if you bought a
call option and spent $400 and the stock rose four points, you
would double your money and sell for $800, or a 100% gain.
I N - T H E - M O N E Y A N D O U T - O F - T H E - M O N E Y.
The illustration of an option’s value matching the stock price point for point
does not always occur. This is true only when the option is in-the-money.
This means the stock price is higher than a call’s strike price, or lower than
a put’s strike price. An in-the-money call will change in value point for point
with the stock; as the price of the stock rises, so does the call’s value. An
in-the-money put does the opposite; as the stock’s price falls, an in-the-
money put rises one point for each point the stock loses.
The comparison between a stock’s profit and an option’s demon-

strates the power of leverage. For $400, the call buyer controls 100
shares of stock, but without carrying the risk of investing $4,000
in shares. The maximum loss is limited to the price of the option.
For example, if your $4,000 investment in stock falls to $3,800,
your paper loss is $200 or 5%. However, you are not required to
take that loss, and you can hold onto shares indefinitely. The option
buyer, however, has to be concerned with expiration. The two-
point loss represents 50% of the premium value. So while profit
and loss can be far more substantial for options, their primary ad-
vantage is the lower dollar amount at risk. And the primary disad-
vantage is expiration.
The calculation of profit or loss for long positions is not com-
plex. In comparison, when you go short with a covered call, your
profit or loss is more complicated, for several reasons. First, there
are three possible outcomes (expiration, exercise, or closing of the
position). Second, because you also own shares of stock, exercise

means that your stock will be sold; so you need to structure a cov-
ered call with the related capital gain on stock in mind.
The first calculation involving options involves selling covered
calls and the sale of stock. Without options, the return on purchase
price is easily calculated, because that price does not change. But
when you sell covered calls, the outcome changes because the net
basis in stock is reduced.
For example, if you own 100 shares of stock originally pur-
chased at $40 per share, and you sell a covered call for 4 ($400),
that may be viewed as a reduction in your basis. Most calculations
of option return separate stock and options because it is compli-
cated to try and figure out the overall return. But if you treat the
covered call strictly as a form of reduced basis, then this calcula-
tion—return if exercised—can be very useful, especially in compar-
ing one stock investment with another. The formula:
FORMULA: RETURN IF EXERCISED
SI
R
IO
where S sales price of stock

I invested capital
O option premium received
R return
For example, if your covered call was sold with a strike price of 45
(or $45 per share) and ultimately exercised, the outcome in this
case would be:
$4,500 $4,000
13.9%
$4,000 $400
If the covered call had not been included, the two sides of the trans-
actions would be calculated apart from one another. Thus, the cap-
ital gain on stock would be 10% ($400 $4,000). And the gain
on the covered call would be 100% (because you received $100

upon sale, and it is all profit). But this is unrealistic; upon exercise,
the premium you receive for selling a covered call reduces the basis.
The outcome may also involve keeping the call open until it
expires. In this situation, the option premium is 100% profit; but it
may also be used to reduce the basis in stock on an ongoing basis.
You can write an unlimited number of calls against 100 shares of
stock and allow each to expire in turn. Until one is actually exer-
cised, you keep your stock. So the true net basis in stock could be
viewed as being discounted over a period of covered call writes.
Finally, a covered call may be closed and a profit taken. When
you close a short position, it involves a closing purchase transac-
tion. Your original order was a sell, so closing this requires a buy.
For example, if you sell an option for $400 and later close it for
$150, you have a $250 gain, or 62.5%. You may want to close the
covered call for a number of reasons. For example, once it is closed,
you are free to write another one with a higher strike price and
more time until expiration. That extended time means the option
premium will be higher, so it is profitable for you to sell. Remem-
ber, upon sale, you receive the premium, so the higher it is, the
more profitable.
The discounting effect of covered call writing complicates the
calculation of return on your investment. But it also discounts your
basis in stock and provides a third way to gain (after capital gains
and dividends) from investing in stock. Computing your invest-
ment return is also complicated by the effect of federal and state
income taxes.
■ Taxes and Investment Return
There are two aspects to taxes that concern all investors: the effec-
tive tax rate and its impact on net returns, and the viability of tax-
free investing (based on pretax and after-tax returns).
The effective tax rate is the rate that you pay on your taxable
income. This is not the same as total income, gross income, or
adjusted gross income. The formula for taxable income is:
FORMULA: TAXABLE INCOME
1) I A G
2) G E D T
where I total income, all sources

A adjustments
G adjusted gross income
E exemptions
D deductions (itemized or standard)
T taxable income
This formula describes federal taxable income. The formula used

by various states will vary considerably. The effective tax rate is the
percentage that your total tax liability represents of your taxable
income:
FORMULA: EFFECTIVE TAX RATE (FEDERAL)
L
R
T
where L liability for taxes

T taxable income
R effective tax rate
This formula applies to the federal tax rate. To find your overall tax
rate (combining both federal and state and, where applicable, local
income taxes), add together the computed tax liability and federal
liability, and divide the total by the federal taxable income:
FORMULA: EFFECTIVE TAX RATE (TOTAL)
FL SL LL
R
T
where FL liability for taxes, federal

SL liability for taxes, state
LL liability for taxes, local
T taxable income (on federal return)
R effective tax rate, total
The state-based taxable income may not be identical to the federal

figure, but based on the rationale that federal taxes are normally
greater than those paid to the state or locality, using the federally
computed taxable income is the most logical.
To compute after-tax income on any investment, you need to re-

duce the gross return by your effective tax rate:
FORMULA: AFTER-TAX INCOME
I 冉 100 R
100
冊
A
where I income before taxes

A after-tax income
By deducting your effective tax rate from 100, you arrive at the
percentage of after-tax income you earn. This is divided by 100 to
produce the decimal equivalent of the remaining portion of income.
(For example, if your overall effective tax rate is 40%, you deduct
40 from 100 and arrive at 60. This is divided by 100 to find 0.60.
This is the decimal equivalent of 60%, or your after-tax rate.)
There are many forms of investing free of income tax alto-
gether, or with taxes deferred until the future. For example, munic-
ipal bonds are issued without a liability for federal or state taxes.
But the interest rate is lower than you would earn from buying
other bonds, so a comparison is necessary. By computing your ef-
fective tax rate, you can determine whether you would be better off
one way or the other. The comparison would be to reduce the in-
come on a taxable bond by your effective tax rate, resulting in your
after-tax income. Is this higher or lower than the yield from a tax-
free bond?
Another type of tax deferral is that earned in qualified accounts,
such as individual retirement accounts. In these accounts, current
income is not taxed until retirement or withdrawal, and, in some
types of IRA accounts, you can withdraw your principal and leave
earnings to accumulate without paying tax until later. In calculating
a true and comparative return on investment, you have to consider
the true net basis, the time the investment was held, and the tax
consequences of profits. In the case of capital gains, a lower rate
applies if the gain is long-term; this affects your effective tax rate
as well.
Return on investment is far from simple or consistent, which is
why you need to ensure that the methods you use are applied in
the same manner in each instance. A much different method of
calculations is used by corporations. When you invest in a company
and examine the balance sheet, you discover that returns on capital
are key indicators in picking the stock of one company over an-
other. This is the topic of the next chapter.
C H A P T E R 2
Returns on Capital
Putting Cash to Work
he investor is primarily concerned with calculating a rate of
T return on invested capital. ‘‘How much did I invest and how much
did I take out? How long did it take? What is my return?’’ In com-
parison, the corporation looks at a range of ‘‘performance’’ returns
in a much different manner. From a corporate perspective, use of
capital and cash are more important than to the individual.
The two—individual investors and corporations—both want to
maximize their available capital, and both are concerned with
profitability. As an investor, you expect your capital to grow due to
expanded market value. As a corporation, the expectation is based
on profit and loss and how well that is accomplished. Corporate
evaluation and judgment depends on many aspects to this question:
competition, keeping expenses under control, identifying and mov-
ing into many different product and geographic markets, and keep-
ing a sensible balance between net worth (equity) and debt
capitalization (borrowed money, or debt capital). The task faced
by the corporation in setting up and monitoring these aspects of
corporate returns on capital involves a few calculations that are
much different from those executed by investors.
23
■ Calculating Returns from the Corporate View
The first question in the mind of a corporate analyst is, ‘‘How well
did the company put its capital to work to produce profits?’’ This
analysis is performed not only by the internal accounting or audit-
ing departments, but also by outside analysts advising clients to buy
or not to buy the stock of a particular company. So an analyst may
make a recommendation to a client based on one company’s supe-
rior return versus another.
This is not the same calculation as net return, which involves a
study of revenues, costs, and expenses. In a later chapter involving
fundamental analysis, you will be provided with a complete list of
calculations to evaluate profitability on the corporate level. For
now, the concern is with return on capital, the profitability ex-
pressed as a percentage of corporate equity. Corporations are re-
sponsible to their shareholders, who expect to gain a better return
on capital from their investments than other investors earn from
the company’s competitors.
If the calculation were to involve only net profits and capital
stock, the return on capital or, more accurately, return on equity is
not difficult to calculate. The basic formula assumes (a) that the
dollar value of capital did not change during the year and (b) that
the calculation is concerned only with equity (capital stock). To
compute return on this basis, the formula is:
FORMULA: RETURN ON EQUITY
P
R
E
where P profit for a one-year period

E shareholders’ equity
R return on equity
This formula is limited by what it excludes. It assumes that the

value of capital stock is the same at the beginning of the year and
at the end of the year. In reality, capital stock may change due to
new issues of stock, retirement of stock (companies may buy their
Returns on Capital 25
own stock on the open market and permanently retire it as ‘‘trea-

sury stock,’’ for example), or the effects of mergers and acquisi-
tions.
The formula also is limited to an evaluation of equity. From a
shareholder’s point of view, this is valuable information; but return
may further involve the use of debt. Total capitalization is the sum
of capital stock and accumulated earnings, and bonds or long-term
notes. So in addition to return on equity, it is also important to
calculate return on total capitalization. This includes both equity
and debt capitalization and presents a broader picture. Recognizing
that corporations fund operations by selling stock and by borrow-
ing money, this calculation can be revealing when tracked over
many years. To calculate:
FORMULA: RETURN ON TOTAL CAPITALIZATION
PI
R
EB

I interest paid on long-term bonds
B par value of long-term bonds
R return on equity
Total capitalization includes both shareholders’ equity and long-

term bond obligations. So ‘‘return’’ consists of profit on equity plus
interest on bonds. Although that interest is an expense to the corpo-
ration, it is income to bondholders.
Par value of long-term bonds is the face amount of the debt,
which is also the amount that will be repaid at the conclusion of the
bond term. This distinction has to be made here because bond cur-
rent value may be at a discount (lower than par value) or at a pre-
mium (above par value).
This calculation is more complex than a simple return on in-
vested capital (shareholders’ equity) because of the inclusion of in-
terest expense as a form of ‘‘return.’’ But this calculation includes
both sides of the capitalization equation, so both forms of return

have to be allowed for as well. The balance between equity and debt
capitalization is an important and permanent concern for corporate
management. For the long term, a balance between equity and
debt—or between production of profits and payments of interest—
may decide whether investors select one company over another.
The higher the interest expense (due to heavy debt capitalization),
the lower the net profit. For the shareholder, this also means there
will be less cash available in future years to fund growth in opera-
tions and to pay dividends.
■ Calculating Average Net Worth
The calculation of return on capital is easily performed if capital

value remains identical throughout the year. The ‘‘return’’ is an
annual event; in other words, the profits (or profits plus interest
expense) occurring over a one-year period are simply divided by
the capital stock (or capital stock plus par value of long-term
bonds).
In practice, however, the capital stock dollar value does not
always remain identical from the beginning to the end of the year.
Because of this, the calculation is going to be inaccurate if it is
restricted to either beginning balance or ending balance of capital.
It is going to be necessary to calculate average capital stock value
for the year. This cannot be done by merely adding beginning and
ending balances together and dividing by two. You need to weight
the average based on when the dollar value changes.
For example, if the beginning value is $4,500,000 and addi-
tional common stock is issued on March 1 for $1,200,000, the
average net worth would be:
(2 months at $4,500,000 10 months at $5,700,000) 12

($9,000,000 $57,000,000) 12
$5,500,000
The formula for this weighted average capital is:

FORMULA: WEIGHTED AVERAGE CAPITAL
(p1 v) (p2 v)
W
pt
where p1 period 1 (number of months)

p2 period 2 (number of months)
v value
pt total periods (months in the year)
W weighted average capital
If more than two periods are involved, they would all be added
together and the total divided by the full year’s periods, or 12
months. For example, assuming the above, if the company had also
purchased its own stock on October 31 and retired it in the amount
of $360,000, the calculation would have to allow for this reduction.
Now the beginning year’s capital stock, $4,500,000, would apply
for 2 months; the value after the new issue of $5,700,000 would be
applied to 8 months; and the reduced value of $5,340,000 would
apply for the remaining 2 months:
(2 $4,500,000) (8 $5,700,000)
(2 $5,340,000)
$5,440,000
12
The accurately calculated average net worth is used in the previous

calculations of return on capital. However, the degree of accuracy
you require depends on the amount of change during the year. For
example, a significant level of change occurring in the middle of a
month could make calculations of weighted average based on 12
months inaccurate. So in those instances, you can apply an as-
sumption that all changes occurring in a particular month are as-
sumed to occur at the mid-month level, and that the year consists
of 24 equal periods. In this case, the previous calculation would
involve adjusting the ‘‘period’’ calculation. In that example, the be-
ginning balance lasted for 2 months and changes occurred in the
third and tenth months. So the complete period based on 24 half-
months would create a calculation assuming:
(4 $4,500,000) (15 $5,700,000)

(5 $5,340,000)
$5,425,000
24
As a weighted average, this lower result would be more accurate if

changes actually occurred on days other than the end of the month.
Each month’s holding period is doubled with the assumption that
changes take place halfway through the month, so this accom-
plishes an average effect and avoids the assumption that change
must conform to the standard of a 12-month year. The need for
this added complexity should rely on the dollar value of actual
changes as well as frequency of those changes.
The detail you employ in calculations of weighted average
should depend on the significance and timing of changes. The aver-
age of anything should be computed to be as fair and accurate as
possible. In the case of capital stock, new issues of stock or retire-
ment of outstanding shares can be quite significant, so steps should
be taken to make the average as accurate as possible; this explains
the mid-month application in which the year is divided into 24 half-
month periods. However, if you are going to compare formulas
between two or more companies, you will also need to use the same
weighted average formula in all instances.
Following is a simple Excel formulation for weighted average.
The example is identical to the 24 half-month weighted average
provided above:
Enter information in cells as:

A period in the weighted average
B number of months
C value
Program formula:
cell formula
B5 SUM(B1:B3)
D1 SUM(B1*C1)
D2 SUM(B2*C2)
D3 SUM(B3*C3)
D5 SUM(D1:D3)
D6 SUM(D5/B5)
Cells D2 and D3 can be automatically set by highlighting D1 and

then pasting to D2 and D3. This is useful when many more periods
are involved in the calculation.
The indicators above instruct:
: add together the range of cells

* multiply
/ divide
The outcome:
A B C D
1 4 4,500,000 18,000,000
2 15 5,700,000 85,500,000
3 5 5,340,000 26,700,000
4
5 24 130,200,000
6 5,425,000
Cell D6 is the weighted average. Using this formula, you need only
enter the values in column C and the number of periods in column
B, and the weighted average will result automatically. For example,
you can easily revert to 12 monthly periods using this method. But
because the formula is set, you could also use a much more detailed
version, such as the number of days in a 365-day field. The use
of the Excel formula enables you to simplify the entire process of
computing weighted average.
■ Net Worth Versus Total Capitalization
Another range of calculations that affects judgment about corpo-

rate strength or weakness involves analysis of overall capitalization.
How much of the total consists of debt? That is the important
question that investors and analysts need to ask.
If debt levels are allowed to rise over time, the corporation will
be committed not only to repayments of the debt in the future, but
also to ever-growing annual interest. For shareholders, this threat-
ens the future growth in dividends and also hampers a corpora-
tion’s ability to continue funding growth and expansion. The more
profits must be used to service ever-growing debt, the more re-
stricted the corporation will be in the future.
The debt ratio is the calculation of long-term debt as a percent-
age of total capitalization. This is one of the key tests of a company
and, although often overlooked, may be used to compare one com-
pany to another. To compute:
FORMULA: DEBT RATIO
D
R
C
where D long-term debt

C total capitalization
R debt ratio
For example, if total capitalization is $23.6 billion and long-term

debt listed on the company’s balance sheet is shown as $4.7 billion,
the debt ratio is:
$4.7
19.9%
$23.6
For example, if you are considering investing in a retail corpora-

tion, you may check a series of ratios, including the debt ratio. As
of September 2006, latest reported annual year-end debt ratios for
four leading stores showed:
Wal-Mart (WMT) 35.6%

Federated (FD) 36.8
Target (TGT) 37.7
J.C. Penney (JCP) 39.41
1
Standard & Poor’s Stock Reports.
While these debt ratios are within close range of one another, there
are slight differences. This is one of several ratios that may be used
to identify a ‘‘normal’’ level or even to eliminate one or more pros-
pects from your list. For example, a check of four energy sector
companies reveals a lower debt ratio percentage range, but a
greater spread:
ExxonMobil (XOM) 4.4%

BP (BP) 9.6
Chevron (CVX) 13.4
ConocoPhillips (COP) 14.1
The ratio reveals that in the case of ExxonMobil, for example, only
4.4% of total capitalization consists of debt; the remainder, 95.6%,
is made up of equity capitalization.
The debt ratio may be overlooked in the overall analysis of
companies, and more information about this problem is provided
in the chapters involving fundamental analysis. For example, some
investors will focus only on the current ratio (a comparison be-
tween current assets and liabilities) as a test of cash flow. However,
when corporations are reporting net losses, it is possible to bolster
the current ratio by accumulating a growing level of debt. The bor-
rowed funds are simply kept in cash, for example, to offset annual
net losses. By doing this, the current ratio is not affected and inves-
tors whose analysis is limited to that test may be misled.
The solution is to check both current ratio and debt ratio. As
long as both remain consistent from one year to the next, the con-
clusion that money is being managed well is confirmed. The pur-
pose of performing any tests on reported corporate assets or
liabilities (as well as profits) is to identify trends. But a single trend
is not always reliable. When a corporation keeps its current ratio
level by allowing its long-term debt to rise each year, it is creating
future problems to satisfy short-term requirements. So confirming
the apparent trend is essential. You confirm cash flow trends by
checking both current ratio and debt ratio. By the same argument,
the effectiveness of internal controls is checked by comparing in-
creased revenues with expense levels, hoping to find improved mar-
gins. However, if you discover that the growth in expenses is
keeping pace with higher revenues or outpacing that trend, it is a

danger signal.
All financial tests can be confirmed by checking beyond the sin-
gle ratio, and your ability to draw well-informed conclusions is vastly
improved when you get a broader view of the corporation’s finan-
cial status.
■ Unlisted Liabilities and Core Net Worth
One big problem in performing any tests of corporate health is that

of reliability. Is the information you receive complete and accurate?
In many instances, it is not.
An alarming reality about corporate financial reporting is the
fact that some material items are excluded. For example, under the
accounting rules (GAAP, or generally accepted accounting princi-
ples), companies are not required to list as liabilities their debt for
pension plans. This is often significant. For example, as of 2006,
General Motors (GM) owed more in current and future unfunded
pension benefits than its net worth. If those liabilities were shown
on the books, GM would have reported negative net worth.
The flaws in the system that allow such large liabilities to simply
be left off the balance sheet should concern every investor. From
an analytical point of view, this also means that it is most difficult
to use published balance sheets for any reliable calculations of re-
turn on capital, debt ratio, and related tests of corporate strength
or weakness. If small items are excluded or reported inaccurately,
it does not have a big effect. But in the case of pension liabilities,
GM’s involved over $10 billion. Making matters even more severe,
GM’s debt ratio is 91%, meaning the company is funded 91% by
debt and only 9% by equity.
Determining which adjustments, if any, are needed to make
financial statements accurate is a tall order. Most investors are un-
able and unwilling to go through the 100-plus pages of highly tech-
nical footnotes to find all the adjustments that may have to be made;
and even making that effort, there is no certainty that a nonaccoun-
tant investor would be able to decipher those footnotes.
In spite of legislation intended to make corporate reporting as
transparent as possible, the current reporting format is highly unre-

liable and cannot be relied upon to produce dependable ratios or
trends. To arrive at the ‘‘core net worth’’ of a corporation, it is
necessary to adjust the reported value of both assets and liabilities.
Because this may involve a great amount of detail, identifying the
major adjustments may be enough. The formula for core net worth
is:
FORMULA: CORE NET WORTH
N () A () L C
where N net worth as reported

A adjustments to reported value of assets
L adjustments to reported value of liabilities
C core net worth
You may not be able to find the various adjustments required, and
you may need to depend on the advice of a financial professional or
a subscription service in order to identify what levels of adjustment
should be made.
Failing the ability to adjust reported net worth, consolation may
be taken in the fact that the inconsistencies and exclusions of GAAP
apply to all corporations and to all years. With this in mind, trends
need to be evaluated not only in their current year but as part of an
ongoing trend over many years. For example, an evaluation of a 10-
year record of GM’s stock price, debt ratio, revenues, and earnings
reveals a serious decline in results even though reported net worth
is far from accurate.
A symptom of problems involving adjustments to core net
worth is also found in the core earnings adjustments. It is a fair
assumption that companies with large core earnings adjustments
(from reported earnings to core business–based earnings) are also
likely to have large core net worth adjustments. You will also dis-
cover that as a general rule, companies with relatively small core
adjustments also tend to report less volatility in stock price trading
ranges. The fundamental (financial) volatility reflected in core ad-
justments translates to a corresponding high or low volatility level
in the stock price; and this itself is a key indicator. The evaluation
of core earnings and volatility in the financial reports is discussed
in greater detail in the chapters about fundamental analysis; for
now, the point worth making is that calculating return on capital
can be quite elusive.
This raises another question: Even if you accept the reported
value of net worth as accurate, what number should you use for net
profits? Most analysts simply accept the reported net earnings on
the company’s income statement as the right number to use, but a
company-to-company comparison will be far more accurate and
reliable if instead you use the reported core earnings for the year.
(The easiest way to find this number is to refer to the S&P Stock
Reports; Standard & Poor’s invented the concept of core earnings,
and it reports this value in the reports for each company it ana-
lyzes.)
The importance of using core earnings in place of reported
earnings will also affect how return is to be calculated. The noncore
earnings may be very real in terms of profit and loss but cannot be
relied upon over the long term. By definition they will be nonrecur-
ring and are often changes in valuation reflecting an alteration in
accounting assumptions. So restricting your analysis to core earn-
ings, the following revised formulas should be kept in mind:
FORMULA: CORE RETURN ON EQUITY
C
R
E
where C core earnings (profit) for a one-year period

R core return on equity
FORMULA: CORE RETURN ON TOTAL CAPITALIZATION
CI
R
EB

R core return on total capitalization
■ Preferred Stock as Hybrid Capitalization
The complexities of computing return on capital demonstrate the

problem you face: Identifying a means for consistent and accurate
judgment of a company’s basic value is no easy matter.
Capitalization itself is an elusive concept for most nonaccoun-
tants. Even if you know the meaning of capital, distinctions be-
tween equity (stock) and debt (bonds and notes) capital are not
always clear. But if you think of equity as a means of ownership
with long-term risk/reward features (i.e., dividend income and in-
creased market value), it makes the distinction clear. Bondholders
do not stand to earn capital gains and rely on interest as well as
repayment of principal.
Another risk factor is based on priority of repayment. In the
worst-case scenario, a company going broke, who gets paid first?
Because bonds are contracted and have priority over common
stock, bondholders get repaid before stockholders. But one class of
stock gets paid before even bondholders. Preferred stock is so-
called because in the event of complete liquidation of the company,
it is paid first. So the sequence in priority is usually (a) preferred
stockholders, (b) bondholders, and (c) common stockholders.
Some types of preferred stock are described as ‘‘mandatorily
redeemable,’’ meaning the stockholder will be repaid at an identi-
fied future date, and there is no choice involved. Preferred stock is
often referred to as a hybrid investment because it has features of
both equity and debt. Mandatory redemption makes this type of
stock debt. However, preferred stockholders are paid a dividend,
which is usually fixed. Just as bondholders get a fixed rate of inter-
est, preferred stockholders’ dividends are usually identified in ad-
vance.
Preferred stock can represent a substantial portion of total cap-
italization, although it is usually only a small percentage of total

capital. Tracking this factor in total capitalization helps identify
ways that companies use hybrid investments. If the preferred stock
ratio climbs over time, that could be a sign the company is trying
to keep the debt ratio low while accumulating a form of stock (pre-
ferred) that is really more like debt than equity. The formula:
FORMULA: PREFERRED STOCK RATIO
P
R
C
where P preferred stock

R preferred stock ratio
Remember, total capitalization consists of long-term debt plus pre-

ferred and common stock; all three are included.
The actual configuration of ‘‘stock’’ can be very complex, with
multiple classes of stock involved, both preferred and common. In
addition, ‘‘total capital’’ consists not only of stock, but of retained
earnings, the accumulated profits and losses from prior years. This
is also reduced by dividends declared and paid. So ‘‘total capital’’
for the purpose of the various return calculations should exclude
current-year earnings but should include retained earnings less div-
idends.
Considering that dividends are paid quarterly, the need to find
a fair weighted average can become quite important. For the sake
of simplicity, an argument can be made that annual return should
be made based strictly on the balance of the net worth section of
the balance sheet as of the beginning of the year. This argument
reduces the complexity of computations and gets around the ques-
tion of ever-changing equity due to payment of quarterly dividends
and issuance of new classes of stock.
When a company issues a new class of preferred stock, it makes
sense to evaluate its characteristics. For example, if the class is
mandatorily redeemable, it is actually a form of debt. To accurately
calculate a debt ratio in the case where mandatorily redeemable
preferred stock has been issued during the year, it is reasonable to

change the calculation of the debt ratio to the adjusted debt ratio
calculation:
FORMULA: ADJUSTED DEBT RATIO
DS
R
C

S mandatorily redeemable preferred stock
R adjusted debt ratio
Some justification may be made for including all preferred stock in

this calculation. As long as you apply the same rules consistently
from one year to the next and between different corporations, the
adjusted ratio can be performed on either basis. If you do decide to
move any or all preferred stock over to be counted as part of debt,
this also alters your computation of return on equity. The formula
for net return on equity is:
FORMULA: NET RETURN ON EQUITY
P
R
ES

R net return on equity
Reducing ‘‘equity’’ to reflect nonhybrid forms only makes both the

debt ratio and return on equity consistent and reasonable. When
preferred stock represents a significant share of overall sharehold-
ers’ equity, the return calculation is not reliable. If the corporation
wants to use preferred stock in place of bonds (meaning a de facto

form of debt), it will distort the traditional calculations, and these
adjustments are important for tracking long-term trends.
■ The Importance of ‘‘Use of Capital’’
The return on capital calculations and tests of capitalization are

best used as part of a trend. A single entry in that trend is not as
meaningful as the long-term direction it is moving. For example,
consider the ramifications for stockholders of GM’s ever-rising
debt ratio. As shown in Figure 2.1, in 10 years debt rose from 58%
of total capitalization to 91% by the end of 2005.
The obvious problem here is growing dependence on debt,
meaning a requirement to repay borrowed money and to pay ever-
higher interest each year. This erodes profits and ruins future divi-
dend payments for stockholders.
FIG U RE 2.1 . GENERAL MOT ORS (G M).
100
Equity 9%
90
80
70
60 Debt 91%
Percentage
50
40
30
20
10
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Source: Standard & Poor’s Stock Reports.

This leads to another important financial issue: the use of capi-

tal. Whether that capital is derived from equity or debt, the corpo-
ration must be concerned with its annual cash flow. With 91% of
capitalization represented by debt, it is clear that a great burden on
the use of capital will be in the form of annual interest payments. If
the organization is not profitable, where will it find additional
money to retool plants, expand operations, or develop new prod-
ucts?
The best-known way to judge corporate management’s effec-
tiveness is through its use of capital. If management allows the debt
ratio to rise over time, it is most difficult to imagine how manage-
ment will be able to create strong and sustained growth in the
future. Just as homeowners cannot expect to be able to afford ever-
higher mortgage payments, management in a corporate environ-
ment cannot depend on endless profits to fund growing long-term
debt.
The long-term trend in maintaining a cap on debt capitalization
is one of the best signs that management is using capital wisely.
Growth of current operations (excluding acquisitions or expansion
into new markets) should be affordable from current profits. In the
most ideal situation, a company is able to pay competitive divi-
dends, fund growth and current operations, and keep long-term
debt under control. For example, one of the best-managed compa-
nies on the New York Stock Exchange is Altria (MO), which sells
the Philip Morris line of tobacco and Kraft Foods. Combined Altria
is the largest tobacco company and the largest food producer. As
of 2006, the company was paying dividends above 4%, which is
exceptional. A look at its numbers shows that net income has risen
each year while long-term debt has fallen:
(In $ millions)
Net Core Long-term Debt
Year Income Earnings Debt Ratio
2005 $10,668 $10,766 $17,868 24.8%
2004 9,420 9,348 18,683 27.6
2003 9,204 9,348 21,163 33.0
2002 11,102 8,593 21,355 37.6
2001 8,566 7,959 18,651 35.3
Source: Standard & Poor’s Stock Reports and Annual Reports at www.altria.com.
All these trends are positive, and the multiyear indicators support
this. The only item that appears unusual is the gap between net
profit and core earnings in 2002. But in that year, Altria sold its
Miller Brewing subsidiary and received $3.4 billion, which explains
the difference between the two figures.
It is clear that Altria has adequate current income to manage
long-term debt and pay an exceptionally high dividend while its
revenues and profits continue to rise. From the investor’s point of
view, the individual yield (from dividends) and the strong financial
results make Altria attractive, especially compared to more troubled
corporations, such as GM, with a 91% debt ratio.
This is not to say that borrowing money is a negative attribute.
Most corporations borrow. But if the debt is allowed to run out of
control, it foreshadows bigger problems ahead. Investors can learn
valuable lessons from the corporate world in this regard, and can
use leverage wisely to augment their investment returns. The next
chapter explains this in more detail.
C H A P T E R 3
Leverage and Risk

Analysis
Maximizing Other People’s Money
he concept of ‘‘using other people’s money’’ is an appealing
T one. Many investors like to use margin accounts or even borrow

money to build a portfolio. But an inescapable reality about lever-
age is that it comes with risk.
The correlation between potential profit and risk is a reality
every investor needs to resolve. In determining your personal risk
tolerance, a key issue is identification of the amount of risk you
consider appropriate. That is determined by your income, assets,
investing experience, family situation, and long-term goals. For ex-
ample, if you are single and earning a high salary, own your home
free and clear, and have a large cash reserve, you can afford to take
relatively high risks in exchange for potential profits. But if you are
married with children, are buying a home and paying on a large
mortgage, and have limited income and investing experience, you
need to move more slowly. Everyone has to equate their personal
situation, knowledge, and goals with the appropriate risk level.
If you decide that leverage will work for you, then you will also
be interested in some of the popular methods of leveraging your
portfolio. These include simply borrowing money (for example, re-
41
financing your home to get cash or applying for a home equity

loan); using your brokerage margin account; and using options to
control blocks of stock for relatively small cost. While there are
many other potential ways to leverage your capital, these are the
most obvious and among the most popular.
■ Calculating the Cost of Money
Are you willing to place your home at risk to increase your investing
power? For many, the answer is no. When you refinance and in-
crease your mortgage balance, you are increasing the debt on your
home. When you apply for a home equity line of credit, it is like
using a credit card. As you accumulate balances on that equity line,
you add to your debt burden and to the amount owed for your
home. The risk is that your use of funds may not be profitable. So
if you lose money in the market, you have the worst of both worlds:
You still have to repay the amount borrowed, but you have a depre-
ciated asset in your portfolio. There is little doubt that anyone who
increases the debt on their home intends to repay that debt with
their profits, but there are no guarantees that the plan will work out
that way.
This is not to say that leverage should not be used, only that
you should be aware of the risks. It is important to determine that
you can afford those risks before going into debt. The best way to
quantify risk is through comparison of the cost of leverage, both
between two or more alternative investments, and between leverage
and nonleverage as separate strategies.
The calculated interest expense is the actual cost for leverage.
The time element comes into this as well. The cost of a one-month
move into and out of a position is clearly less than a full year’s
exposure. The time factor makes a significant difference; the longer
you have to keep borrowed money outstanding, the higher the cost
and the lower your profit. To calculate interest, the basic formula
is:
FORMULA: INTEREST EXPENSE
PRI
Leverage and Risk Analysis 43
where P principal amount

R annual rate
I interest (per year)
The interest rate is always expressed as a one-year expense. Thus,

a 5% interest charge would express the amount of interest you have
to pay over one full year. In the next chapter, you will see how
different calculations of interest change the annual percentage rate
(APR) you actually pay. If interest is computed annually, you
pay the nominal or expressed amount. But if interest is calculated
quarterly, monthly, or daily, the APR will be higher due to com-
pounding.
In this chapter, the simple interest example is used. Simple in-
terest is an annual charge only, so 5% means just that. Using simple
interest, a 5% charge on $1,000 borrowed is going to be $50:
$1,000 0.05 $50
Note that to multiply by a percentage, the interest rate is converted

to decimal form. This involves adding two decimal places to the
rate. So 5% becomes 0.05 and 35 percent would become 0.35.
This makes multiplication easier to perform accurately, as long as
the decimal places are included in the operation.
To calculate net profit on an investment, you need to deduct
the interest expense from the actual proceeds. For example, if you
invest on margin, you need to account for the cost of borrowed
money in order to compare the outcome realistically. It would
make outcomes highly unreliable to base profits on the full value of
an investment when only a portion of the value had been placed;
however, the interest expense must also be part of the equation. A
formula for return on investment net of margin is:
FORMULA: RETURN ON INVESTMENT NET OF MARGIN
VBI
R
C
where V current market value

B basis (including leveraged portion)
I interest cost
C current market value at time of sale
R return on investment net of margin
For example, assume that you purchased 100 shares of stock at

$50 per share; invested $2,500 in cash; sold after a four-point rise;
and financed the balance through your brokerage firm’s margin
account. By the time you sold these shares at $54 per share, your
interest expense was $85. The net return would be:
$5,400 $5,000 $85

12.6%
$2,500
This rate of return points out the great advantages in using lever-
age. If you had invested the full $5,000, your $400 profit would
represent only an 8% return ($400 $5,000). However, it is
equally important to recognize the high risks associated with this
strategy. For example, if you sold after the investment had fallen
four points, the outcome would show a substantial loss:
$4,600 $5,000 $85

19.4%
$2,500
This loss is far different from a 12.6% return. However, it demon-

strates a four-point move, but in the opposite direction. So in as-
sessing leverage, be aware of the potential advantages and the risks.
■ Annualized Return
The associated potential for profit and risk is a feature of leverage,

but another element has to be taken into account as well. How long
do you keep a position open? The longer you have to wait before
closing the position, the higher your interest cost. To make any
comparisons truly valid, you need to consider the time element. A
5% cost over 12 months is just that, 5%. But if it takes only three
months (one-fourth of the full year) to complete and close a posi-

tion, your actual cost will be only 1.25%. It is still an annual rate of
5%, but only over one-fourth of a full year. On the other hand, if it
takes 15 months to finalize a leveraged transaction, your cost will
cover 11/4 years. So that 5% per year comes out to be 6.25% overall
(again, still 5% per year but a higher overall cost).
To make any investments comparable to one another, the net
return has to be expressed on an annualized basis. How much
would your net profit be if held for exactly one year? How much
would the interest expense be? Annualizing can be applied both to
cost and to net profit (or loss). To compute annualized rate, divide
the rate by the number of months the position was open, and then
multiply by 12 (months):
FORMULA: ANNUALIZED RATE
R
12 A
M
where R net return

M months the position was open
A annualized yield
For example, if you opened two different positions and sold both
once you had made a 10% profit, are these identical outcomes? If
you owned one stock for 7 months and the other for 14 months,
the annualized returns are quite different.
To annualize 10% over 7 months:
10%
12 17.1%
7
Over 14 months:
10%
12 8.6%
14
This example demonstrates that the longer the holding period, the
lower the annualized return. Using months as a base for calculation
is the easiest method. You can estimate partial months by assuming

a four-week period per month. So if you own a stock for three
months and a week, that would be 3.25 months; if 6 months and 3
weeks, it would be 6.75 months. As long as you are consistent in
these calculations, stock-to-stock comparisons will be accurate.
You can also perform annualization using the number of weeks and
multiplying by 52; or even the exact number of days a position is
owned, with a multiplier of 365.
You also will need to keep comparisons realistic. Everyone
knows that extremely short-term holding periods are not reliably
profitable, so it is not accurate to use a strict form of annualization
to draw conclusions. For example, let’s say you invest $5,000 in a
stock and sell one week later for $5,400. If you annualize on either
a monthly or a weekly basis, the annualized return is impressive.
The $400 represents an 8% return ($400 $5,000), but when
you annualize, it is much higher:
Monthly basis (one-quarter month)

8%
12 384%
0.25
Weekly basis (52 weeks)

8%
52 416%
1
No one would expect to consistently duplicate this outcome. It

would be unlikely that you would be able to produce similar profits
every week for the next year. It is just as likely that you could have
as many one-week 8% losses as profits. The point to be remem-
bered here is that annualization is a useful tool for expressing com-
parative returns realistically; it is of no value when the holding
period is extremely short or when the return is exceptionally high.
■ Leverage-Based Risk—the P/E Ratio as a Way to

Quantify
It is all too easy to look at the rare double-digit or triple-digit annu-
alized return, and to become convinced that these levels of profit
are typical. They are not. The difficulty in contending with higher
than average returns is factoring in the risk. That would make it
easier to compare different returns and risks realistically.
Stocks that move rapidly either upward or downward—the
more volatile issues—are by definition higher risks. Profits may be
short-term and higher than average, but so might losses. Valuation
risk—the risk that a particular stock could be overvalued at the
time you buy—is probably the most common of all risks. The ad-
vice to ‘‘buy low and sell high’’ is profound because so many people
do exactly the opposite. When stock prices rise, more people want
to get in on the action, so the tendency to buy at the very height of
the price curve can be strong. Likewise, when prices fall, investors
might panic and sell at the depth of the same price curve. So a
common pattern is to ‘‘buy high and sell low’’ instead.
To judge valuation risk, one formula that can be extremely
helpful is the price/earnings ratio, or the P/E. This is a comparison
between the price (a technical indicator that is very current) and
earnings per share (a fundamental indicator that may be dated). To
compute:
FORMULA: PRICE/EARNINGS RATIO
P
R
E
where P price per share

E earnings per share
R P/E ratio
This ratio is so significant because it can be used to judge whether

a stock’s price is ‘‘too high’’ if we assume some standards. The
P/E is also called a multiple of earnings. The result of this formula
tells you how many multiples of earnings are represented in the
current price. For example, if today’s price is $32 per share and the
most recently reported earnings per share (EPS) was $2.90, the
P/E is:
32
11
2.90
Today’s price is equal to 11 times earnings. This tells you a lot,

given the following qualifications of the P/E ratio:
1. EPS is historical and may be out of date. If you are reviewing

P/E three months after the end of a company’s fiscal year, you
are using outdated earnings information, especially in cyclical
industries. For example, in the retail sector, the fourth quarter
is usually the most profitable. So if your latest published EPS is
for December 31, but the current price is as of March 15, the
two sides of the equation are not as closely related as you might
prefer.
2. EPS counts only one form of capitalization. The EPS includes
only earnings per common share of stock. So in situations
where debt capitalization is quite high, earnings are reduced by
higher than average interest expense. When a company has is-
sued a large volume of preferred stock, it also distorts the true
EPS value.
3. Current market value could be untypical. If today’s stock price
is a spike above or below the more typical trading range, it is
not reliable for calculating P/E. It makes more sense to base
P/E calculations on an established mid-range price of the
stock. For example, if the stock has been trading between $25
and $35 per share but today’s price spiked to $39, using the
$39 value for P/E is unrealistic (especially since earnings are
historical). It would be more accurate to use a mid-range price
of $30 per share.
4. Tracking indicators by moment in time is unreliable. No single
indicator can be used reliably without also tracking how it has
evolved over time. For cyclical stocks, a review of quarter-end
P/E is more revealing than today’s single P/E outcome. In this
way, you can see how P/E has changed over time, and you can
also recognize cyclical changes. By using historical data, you
are also able to match quarter-ending price with quarter-
ending earnings, which overcomes the big problem with
moment-in-time analysis, where the two factors are mis-

matched.
Given the problems of the P/E ratio, if you ensure that your
use of P/E and earnings is accurate and well matched, you can
make valid comparisons. The higher the P/E is found to be, the
greater the chance of an inflated stock price. Returning to our pre-
vious example, the formula shown was:
32
11
2.90
If the stock price were to rise over time, the P/E would rise as well,
but the established latest EPS remains the same:
42 2.90 14.5
52 2.90 17.9
62 2.90 21.4
Note that in the latest example, the price of $62 per share is over
21 times current earnings. Over long periods of time, lower-P/E
stocks have tended to outperform higher-P/E stocks. The market
tends to overvalue stocks when those stocks are in favor; thus
prices may be driven too high. From the individual investor’s point
of view, this valuation risk can be quantified by comparing P/E
levels among several stocks, as one of several means for selection.
For example, you can make a rule for yourself that you will not buy
any stock whose P/E is greater than 15. This level is provided as
an example only. However, you will discover that a comparative
analysis of P/E shows that stocks with exceptionally low P/E may
be conservative choices, but the chances for profit will be limited as
well, and that exceptionally high P/E stocks tend to be more volatile
than average.
A reasonable conclusion is that picking mid-range P/E stocks
is a sensible way to reduce valuation risk. It is not foolproof, but it
is the closest thing to a formula that allows you to quantify the
relationship between risk and reward.
One way to make good use of the P/E is to limit your range of
comparisons between stocks. If you were to study all stocks in a

single sector, you would be likely to find variation among the P/E
levels. If you ignore these variations, you gain no insight into how
or why to pick one stock over another. However, if you further
limit your comparison to those stocks with P/E between 11 and 16,
your list narrows considerably. It eliminates stocks of little immedi-
ate interest in the market as well as those with greater price volatil-
ity. By limiting the range of P/E, you also are better able to analyze
valuation risk between stocks in different sectors. For example, you
have the means with P/E to compare valuation risk between retail,
energy, and pharmaceutical issues. While the attributes of these
sectors are vastly dissimilar, valuation risk through P/E is far more
uniform. Given the need to ensure accuracy and reliability of both
the EPS and current price levels employed, this comparative study
is useful.
When the study is used in conjunction with an analysis of debt
ratio, revenue and earnings, and other fundamental tests, valid
comparisons between stocks are more reliable and realistic. The
P/E, like all ratios, is useful when viewed over a period of time and
when the factors employed are matched in time.
When comparing stocks using P/E as one of the analytical tools
for the task, be aware of other types of risk worth considering.
These include business risk (critical analysis of a company’s sol-
vency, gained from bond ratings, profitability, and capitalization
trends) and basic market risk (the timing of your investment deci-
sion). Many tools, both fundamental and technical, can help in re-
ducing these risks. For example, technical investors use specific
chart patterns to time their decisions. While this is extremely short-
term in a strategic sense, timing a buy or sell decision can help you
to avoid poor timing. Swing traders, for example, use a limited
number of charting patterns to recognize and anticipate when
prices are about to turn.
Swing traders use candlestick charts to identify buy or sell signals. For free
educational information about candlesticks and free charts, check
www.candlestickchart.com.
Swing trading is only one of many technical methods traders

employ. A subset of day trading, swing traders generally prefer
to identify trends evolving over a two- to five-day period. Funda-
mental investors rely more on financial information and view
short-term price as chaotic and unpredictable. Both technical and
fundamental sides can offer valuable and useful information to im-
prove trading profits, which is why an indicator like the P/E (which
uses both fundamental and technical information) is so popular.
■ Using Options as a Form of Leverage
One purpose in evaluating the mathematical returns on specific

strategies is to help identify the risk involved. The P/E is useful in
some respects because it can be used to compare stocks to one
another, and to modify perceptions of profit potential. The greater
the profit potential appears to be, the greater the risk. When you
compare P/Es between stocks, you can also observe a correlation
between interest in the market (higher than average volume and
more volatile trading range, for example) and higher than average
P/E. This is a good example of matching between profit and risk of
a decision.
The options market allows you to manage risks while continu-
ing to seek profits, and to use leverage while managing the amount
of capital placed at risk. This often overlooked feature makes op-
tions one of the best vehicles for a leveraged strategy.
Since an option is a wasting asset (meaning it will expire in the
future), it cannot be compared to the purchase of stock in every
respect. As a stockholder, you can afford to keep a long position
open as long as you wish, and wait for the price to rise. You also
earn dividends as long as you own the stock. With options, there
are no dividends, and expiration is an ever-present problem.
On the other side of the analysis, you can control 100 shares of
stock for a small fraction of the cost of buying stock in the tradi-
tional manner. The price of the option varies based on proximity
between strike price and current price; time to go until expiration;
and the volatility in trading on the stock. These three elements are
intrinsic value, time value, and extrinsic value:
1. Intrinsic value is any portion of the option premium ‘‘in the

money.’’ Call options are in the money whenever the current
value of stock is higher than the strike price of the call. For
example, if the strike price is 55 and the current market value
is $57 per share, there are two points of intrinsic value in that
call. For puts, it is the opposite. For example, if the strike price
of a put is 55 and the stock is currently at $52, the put has
three points of in-the-money value.
2. Time value is the actual value of time itself. The longer the time
to go until the expiration date arrives, the higher the time value.
As expiration approaches, time value evaporates, so that on ex-
piration day, it falls to zero.
3. Extrinsic value is most often simply lumped in with time value
and explained as a variable based on stock volatility. However,
there is an element related to interest in the stock, and just as
stocks are more volatile with broader trading ranges, options
are going to follow that same tendency. So when you look at
identical options on two different stocks—expiring at the same
time, with the same strike price, and with similar or identical
proximity to current value—why is the option value different?
The answer is found in extrinsic value, that portion of premium
reflecting the risk factor.
With option valuation as elusive as it is, one way to approach

the leverage potential of options is to consider profit potential with
various strategies, but in a comparative manner. This is the only
reliable way to develop sound judgment about the potential and risk
of one option over another or between options in general versus
stock purchase.
The calculation of a simple purchase and sale of an option is
not complicated. It works the same as return on investment for
stock purchase. There are two elements: the first is the percentage
of return, and the second is the annualization of that return. In the
typical transaction, a trader buys a call or a put and closes the posi-
tion before expiration. The net difference between purchase and
sale price is profit or loss. Calculation for return on long options is:
FORMULA: RETURN ON LONG OPTIONS
SP
R
P
where S closing net sales price

P opening net purchase price
R net return
For example, if you buy a call at 6 ($600) and three months later
close the position at a net of 8 ($800), the net return is $200, or:
$800 $600
33.3%
$600
To annualize this return, divide by the number of months held, and

multiply by 12:
33.3%
12 133.2%
3
Remember, however, that when you annualize and end up with a

triple-digit return, the calculation is of limited value. It is useful for
comparisons, but it is not indicative of an outcome you should ex-
pect to duplicate consistently.
However, this annualized return does demonstrate the optimal
positive outcome of a long position. Historically, 75% of all options
expire worthless, so this exceptionally high return has a trade-off.
The great advantage to buying options is that for the period those
options are held, the buyer has the right to buy or sell 100 shares
of the underlying stock at the fixed strike price, no matter what the
market price of the stock. Additionally, risk is strictly limited. You
can lose only the amount of the option premium and no more. In
this example, the maximum risk was $600. Were you to buy stock
instead, the entire amount invested is at risk. There is no expiration
involved, but capital has to be committed, and, even employing le-
verage through a margin account, there is an ongoing interest ex-
pense to consider in the overall comparison.
Calculations for short positions in options are far more com-

plex. The potential profits are higher than for long options, but the
risks are also entirely different. Based on the specific strategy you
employ, short options can be high risk or extremely conservative. A
summary of this range of risks:
1. Uncovered calls are the highest-risk strategy possible using op-

tions. In theory, a stock’s price could rise indefinitely, so when
you have sold a call, you could face an undefined risk. If the
call is exercised, you are on the hook for the difference between
the strike price and the current market value (minus the pre-
mium you were paid). For example, you sell an uncovered call
and receive a premium of 6 ($600). The strike price is 40.
However, the stock soars to $62 per share and the call is exer-
cised. Your loss is:
Current market value $6,200

Less: strike price 4,000
Loss on stock $2,200
Less: Premium for short call
600
Net loss $1,600
The loss level depends on the movement in the stock. And be-
cause 75% of all options expire worthless, there may be only a
small chance of exercise. Even so, an uncovered short call is a
high-risk strategy.
2. Covered calls. When you own 100 shares of stock and sell a
call, it is ‘‘covered’’ because you can sell the stock to satisfy
exercise. Because of this, the covered call is a very conservative
strategy. Your only potential loss is increased value in the stock
if and when the stock rises. Upon exercise, the stock must be
given up at the strike price. For example, if you sell a covered
call with a strike price of 50 and the stock rises to 62, upon
exercise, you get only $50 per share. However, the maximum
loss is reduced by the amount you receive for selling the call.
For example, if you were paid $400 in call premium, your loss
before transaction charges is only $800:
Current market value of stock $6,200

Less: Strike price value
5,000
Loss on stock $1,200
Less: call premium
400
Net loss $ 800
Selling a covered call produces immediate income, but the

transaction is not taxed until one of three events occurs: your
closing the position with a closing purchase transaction, exer-
cise of the call, or expiration. So it is entirely possible to receive
proceeds in one year and not be taxed until the following year.
The covered call can also be looked at as a discount in your
basis, and thus, a reduction of market risk. If you purchase 100
shares at $50 per share and sell a call for 4 ($400), your basis
in the stock is reduced to $4,600. So describing covered calls
as conservative is intended as a comparative analysis. On the
one hand, owning shares exposes you to market risk as well as
offering the potential for gain. But owning shares and selling a
covered call reduces your basis in the stock and provides an
income stream; the major risk is lost opportunity if and when
the stock’s price rises.
3. Ratio write. A variation on call writing involves partial coverage.
The ratio write involves covering a portion of your total hold-
ings while including a portion of uncovered options as well. For
example, if you own 300 shares of stock and sell four calls, you
create a ratio write. You can think of this as 75% cover or as
two separate components with three covered calls and one un-
covered call. The ratio write can be built to eliminate the uncov-
ered risk by purchasing one call above the strike price of the
short calls. This works if and when the income from the short
calls exceeds the cost of the one long call. Thus, if all four calls
were exercised, the entire ratio write is covered by (a) 300
shares of stock and (b) one long call.
4. Uncovered put. A put cannot be covered in the same manner as
a call. In theory, an investor who has gone short on 100 shares
of stock could ‘‘cover’’ the position with a short put, but the
outcome would not be favorable. Costs would offset any miti-

gating features. Additionally, with so many potential option po-
sitions available for leverage, it is not necessary to short stock
and incur interest expense as well as short stock risks.
An uncovered short put occurs when you sell a put. The
risk is not the same as that for an uncovered call. With a call,
demand can in theory drive a stock’s price to unknown levels.
But price can only fall so far. This risk is usually thought of as
zero; so if you sell a put with a strike price of 25, your maxi-
mum exposure is $2,500 minus the premium you receive for
selling the put. On a practical level, however, your real short
risk is limited to the company’s tangible book value per share.
It is unlikely that a stock will fall below that level. So if the
company’s book value is $22 per share and you sell a short put
with a strike price of 25, your exposure is three points, or $300.
If you receive that much or more for the short put, you elimi-
nate the risk. That does not mean you will always avoid exer-
cise; it does mean that if the put is exercised and you are
required to acquire 100 shares at the strike price, it will be a
reasonable price to pay for that stock (even though the price
will be lower at the time the put is exercised).
The calculation of return for options is complex whenever

stock transactions are involved as well. However, these are impor-
tant considerations because options are the most practical method
of stock market leverage. Compared to the use of margin accounts,
options are also lower-risk strategies if used properly.
The calculation of return on long options, as previously ex-
plained, is simple. It requires a calculation of the return based on
purchase price; and because options tend to expire in less than one
year, it is also necessary to annualize that return (not to create a
realistic expectation but to be able to compare transactions). Some
options may extend beyond one year, in which case annualizing
in equally important. These long-term options, called Long-Term
Equity AnticiPation Securities (LEAPS), are written out as far as
three years and expire each January.
Returns on covered calls can be calculated without including
gains or losses on stock, or combined with stock to view overall
return. The selection of a strike price should always be based on

your original cost and on tax considerations. You will want to pick
a strike price that will produce a net profit in the stock if the call is
exercised. You also want to ensure that you will maintain long-term
capital gain status when your profit will be substantial, and federal
tax rules may remove the long-term status of stock if you write
deep in-the-money calls.
The first method for calculating gain on short calls is isolated
to calls by themselves. The call may expire worthless, in which case
your net profit is 100%; it may be closed before expiration, in which
case the net difference between opening sale and closing purchase
is a gain or loss; or the short call may be exercised.
Upon exercise, tax rules require that you net the call against
the stock basis. For example, you buy 100 shares at $35 and later
write a covered call for 40 and receive 4 ($400). The stock rises to
$46 per share, and your call is exercised. The combined gain is:
Strike price $ 4,000

Less: original basis
3,500
Gain on stock $ 500
Plus option premium 400
Total return $ 900
The return is reported in this manner for federal tax purposes. For
your own analysis, it can be treated separately as two different
transactions:
1. stock gain ($500 $3,500 14.3%)

2. option gain is 100%
Unfortunately, this method does not provide you with a compara-

tive analysis between two or more different covered call transac-
tions. Furthermore, it excludes dividend income and does not allow
for annualized return. To properly create a comparison, you need
to calculate the annualized total return if exercised. This includes
all sources of income and also provides for annualization. The for-
mula:
FORMULA: ANNUALIZED TOTAL RETURN IF EXERCISED
冉COD
B
( H) 12 R 冊
where C capital gain
O option premium
D dividend income
B original basis in stock
H holding period in months
R annualized total return
For example, if you invest in two different stocks and write

covered calls on both, calculating an overall return on the two is
the only way to create a realistic comparison. They also need to be
annualized in order to make the comparison accurate:
Stock 1 was purchased at $35 per share 16 months ago. A
call with a strike price of 40 was written, and you received $400 in
premium. Over the past 16 months, you have also received $64 in
dividend income.
Stock 2 was purchased 42 months ago at $42 per share.
When the price rose above $50 per share, you sold a call with a
strike price of 50 and received $600. Initial evaluation concluded
that your stock capital gain upon exercise would be $800 (strike
price of $50 less original cost of $42) plus $600 for the call. The
company pays no dividend.
To review both of these transactions in total and on an annual-
ized basis:
Stock 1
Capital gain on stock $500
Option premium 400
Dividend income 64
Total income $964
Holding period 16 months

Basis in stock $3,500
Calculation:
冉 $964
$3,500
冊
16 12 20.7%
Stock 2
Capital gain on stock $800
Option premium 600
Dividend income 0
Total income $1,400
Holding period 42 months

Basis in stock $4,200
Calculation:
冉$1,400
$4,200
冊
42 12 9.5%
The amount of income from stock 1 was lower that that from
stock 2, but the holding period was shorter, so the annualized
return was more than twice as much. This exercise demonstrates
two important points. First, the best way to critically compare out-
comes for covered calls is through combined return. Second, annu-
alized return is the only way to accurately compare outcomes for
stocks with dissimilar holding periods.
Because the stock and option outcomes are really two separate
transactions, combining them may be viewed as a distortion of the
covered call risk. But realistically, that risk is controlled by you. By
selecting a specific strike price, you decide the level of capital gain
if and when the call is exercised. For example, if your strike price
is lower than your basis in the stock, you program in a loss. By
choosing to write covered calls only when exercise will create a
gain, you eliminate the loss risk. The remaining risk is limited to
what would occur if the stock were to rise far above the strike price.
Covered call writers accept that risk in recognition of the poten-
tially high returns in covered call writing. Double-digit returns
based on overall stock, option, and dividend income are not diffi-
cult to achieve.
The first three chapters focused on calculations of returns
using various methods. These essential calculations form a base for
determining profit or loss; but as the examples of annualized return
calculations have shown, time affects your profits as well as
changes in the dollar value of investments. The following chapter
delves into long-term trends and shows how time works for you or
against you.
C H A P T E R 4
Long-Term Trends
Patience Rewarded
he methods by which returns are calculated can be deceiving.
T When you look at the long-term outcome of an investment, how

can you decide whether a particular investment has been better
than average or worse? To get the answer, you need to look at
compound return on investment over many years.
For example, everyone has heard promotions by mutual funds
claiming incredible returns if you had invested $10,000 on a spe-
cific date 20 years earlier. You may read that ‘‘if you had invested
$10,000 exactly 20 years ago, it would be worth more than
$26,500 today.’’ As good as this may sound, there are several prob-
lems with the claim:
1. The fund picked a specific date. If your timing is poor and you
invest your $10,000 at a moment when the market is high, it
could take many years to recover from a subsequent correction.
For example, following the 1929 market crash, it took the mar-
ket 25 years to recover its losses in a single month. When a
mutual fund or other company makes claims about what would
have happened to your money, it is able to select a specific date
when the market was at a low level.
61
2. The outcome is equal to only 5% per year. The change from

$10,000 to more than $26,500 only represents income of 5%
per year. This is not an exceptional return at all over a 20-year
period. When you consider inflation and taxes in the mix, a 5%
return is a net loss after reduced purchasing power is consid-
ered.
3. No consideration is provided for the effect of taxes. The claims
invariably leave out the likely effect of federal and state income
taxes. For higher-earning investors, the tax bite is considerable
and is likely to affect a decision about where and how to invest.
4. The fund does not explain its level of fees or charges in the claim.
The claimed outcome might have been a lot higher before the
fund deducted its fees. In picking any investment, one of the
many comparisons worth making is how much you will be
charged per year out of your earnings.
In this chapter, you are provided with methods for calculating

a realistic return on your money over many years, whether you
invest in stocks, bonds, or mutual funds. The annual return you can
get next year might or might not be representative, so evaluation of
any investment strategy has to consider the potential for consistent
returns year after year. One poor year can wipe out gains for many
previous years; so diversifying is wise and reviewing risk levels con-
tinually is necessary to prevent losses you cannot afford.
■ A Realistic View: Long-Term Returns and Annual

Rates
There are no definitive or universally agreed upon methods for de-

scribing the success of an investment. A friend tells you, ‘‘I made a
35% profit on that stock,’’ and this can have several different mean-
ings, including:
• The stock was owned for exactly one year and produced a 35%
return.
• The stock was held for 10 years and produced an average an-
nual return of 3.5%.
Long-Term Trends 63
• The stock was bought on margin, meaning the actual return

was greater if based on actual cash invested, but lower because
interest expenses were paid as well.
• The transaction was the result of buying a call option, so it was
highly leveraged but also probably difficult to repeat.
• Most important of all: This was the one success story in a
friend’s portfolio, versus a series of disastrous outcomes.
The point to be made about the lack of a definitive way to ex-

press outcomes is that you cannot know the whole story from a
single statement. It is far more important to know how the entire
portfolio performs per year than to know the history of investing in
a single stock. You should be dubious about such isolated claims
because they are part of a larger outcome; you don’t know how long
the stock was held or how it was purchased; and even if it was a
spectacular success, it would not make sense for you to buy shares
today . . . the stock apparently has already produced a 35% return,
so the opportunity—if it is accurately portrayed—has passed.
Putting aside the possibility that there is more to the story, you
also need to appreciate the difference between a one-time outcome
and annual performance. The tendency to focus on the exceptional
successes is very human, but it distorts the more important picture
of how portfolio performance ends up. The real question should
be: How does your portfolio perform from year to year?
If you profit by 35% in a single stock but otherwise lose money,
it is not a positive outcome. If your average portfolio return is only
3% (or a loss of 5%), this is more revealing than what a single
stock’s price did. The average annual return is the real bottom line
of the portfolio. Because annual average returns are going to vary,
it is important to calculate outcomes using an average. To calculate
an average, add together the number of entries (in this case, rates
of return) and then divide the total by the number of periods in-
volved. The formula for average is:
FORMULA: AVERAGE
O1 O2 ... On
A
E
where O outcomes
E number of entries (n)
A average
For example, your portfolio has been in place for six years. Your
return on investment (annual profit divided by the year’s beginning
balance) has been 4.5, 7.0,
1.6, 8.4, 9.3, and
0.7. To compute
average for these six years:
4.5 7.0 1.6 8.4 9.3 0.7

4.5%
6
These rates of return are not atypical; there is no clear pattern or

trend; instead, they vary widely from one year to the next. In most
individual portfolios, this kind of outcome occurs because of mar-
ket cycles as well as due to individual decisions concerning invest-
ment decisions. Even the timing of a decision may impact overall
return dramatically without considering the long-term benefits of a
particular investment.
It would not be accurate to tell someone, ‘‘I make between 8
and 10 percent return on my portfolio.’’ While that describes two
years out of the six, it is far from typical and does not reflect the
true average. Another approach, one that reflects the most recent
information more than older information, is to use a moving aver-
age. For example, you might decide to track your portfolio using
the three latest years:
Year Values in the moving average Average

3 4.5 7.0
1.6 (1, 2, and 3) 3.3%
4 7.0
1.6 8.4 (2, 3, and 4) 4.6
5
1.6 8.4 9.3 (3, 4, and 5) 5.4
6 8.4 9.3
0.7 (4, 5, and 6) 5.7
A comparison between simple average and moving average based

on this example is summarized in Figure 4.1.
The moving average may be a more accurate indicator of the
portfolio performance in this case. The gradually rising line reflects
the most recent three years rather than an ever-larger field of years,
Long-Term Trends 65
FIGURE 4.1. AVERAGE A ND MOVING AVERAGE.
7
Moving
Average
6 Average
5
Percentage
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Year
and because the information is perpetually more recent, it has

greater reliability.
Using averages to track your portfolio will provide you with an
evolving trend over time. It would be inaccurate to focus only on
the successful outcomes and to ignore the losses. For example, in
any of the six years in the example, you might have had one invest-
ment that earned you 12% in only three months. That is a 48%
return when annualized. But the obvious fact that you did not make
48% overall that year or in any other year demonstrates that it was
not typical. Investors—chronically optimistic about the future, but
also about parts of the past—do tend to focus on their successes,
and that is a positive trait. At the same time, you want to develop
and employ a practical and reliable method for judging your portfo-
lio performance.
In the example provided, the moving average grew each year.
This trend line should not be expected to move upward relentlessly,
but it may indicate that over time, your ability to choose and time
investments is improving. That is the kind of conclusion that is
valuable in your self-assessment and in any study of your portfolio.
You may apply this logic to your own portfolio management or to
that provided by a mutual fund, to determine whether your portfo-
lio is succeeding, and to what degree.
■ Total Net Annualized Return
In previous chapters, some versions of annualized returns have

been explained in context. A simple annualized return involved only
the basic return on a single transaction; a more complex one in-
volved option premium and dividend payments received. In prac-
tice, though, the most accurate study of return on investment
should not only be annualized; it should also be expressed net of
your tax liability.
This is important for a number of reasons, including:
1. Tax rates at the state level vary considerably. It is not realistic to

assume a universal return on investment. Every state’s tax rules
are unique, and there is no uniformity. A few states apply zero
income taxes; others tax only investment returns but not ordi-
nary income. So your net annualized return will depend on
your state tax rules.
2. Some investment accounts are not taxable, so results in an IRA
account cannot be accurately compared on a pretax level to
those in your taxable portfolio. The calculation of net return will
also vary based on the environment where you invest. Thus, if
you compare your individual (fully taxable) account to invest-
Long-Term Trends 67
ment return in your IRA (where taxes are deferred until with-
drawal or retirement), you will find a completely different
result. An assumed ‘‘equal’’ tax rate won’t apply to the IRA ei-
ther, based on the theory that after retirement your effective tax
rate will be lower than today’s rate, when you are working full
time.
3. Some investments, such as municipal bonds, are either partially
or wholly exempt from income taxes. To compare taxable to non-
taxable investments, the tax rate has to be taken into account.
The nature of the investment itself also has to be considered.
Certain investments are completely tax-free, others only par-
tially taxable. The comparison between municipal bonds and
fully taxable investments has to be made on a net after-tax
basis. Many investors discover that they come out slightly
ahead with fully taxable investments because (a) the interest
rates are higher and (b) the costs are lower. This is especially
true if you purchase tax-free bonds through a mutual fund,
where costs can be extremely high.
4. Your individual tax rate changes as income grows and is not
identical to after-tax returns earned by other investors. Even
within a single state, your after-tax net return will not be identi-
cal to your neighbor’s return. As your income increases, so
does your tax rate. Deductions and exemptions also affect
everyone’s tax liability. A family with a mortgage deduction and
several children will get more tax breaks than a higher-income
working couple with no children and no home mortgage de-
duction, for example.
The calculation of net after-tax annualized return should in-

clude both federal and state tax liabilities. For example, if your
state’s tax rate is 9% and your effective federal rate is 25%, then
you will need to use a rate of 34% to figure out your tax. Even
though you may be allowed deductions and exemptions that reduce
your taxable income, any returns you gain from investment activity
should apply the effective tax rate involving both federal and state
taxes together. The formula:
FORMULA: NET AFTER-TAX ANNUALIZED RETURN
冉I
100 R
100
冊
M 12 A
where I income from investments

R effective tax rate (federal and state)
M months held
A net after-tax annualized return
This calculation is complicated by the lower federal rate for

long-term capital gains; the exclusion from tax of some types of
investments, such as dividends; and great variation in individual
state rules. For example, some states tax only interest and dividends
but not other forms of income.
Assuming that all investment income is subject to the same
rules, this formula can be applied as stated. If other forms of in-
come are taxed at lower rates (such as long-term capital gains),
those should be excluded from this calculation and calculated sepa-
rately, and the two separate calculations added together to find the
overall return.
When investments are held for different numbers of months,
the calculation has to be performed separately for each. This calcu-
lation cannot be used for an overall return on your portfolio be-
cause annualizing affects the true rate. It has to be applied to each
investment, and the purpose of the calculation is to be able to make
valid comparisons of outcomes between two or more investments
in your portfolio.
You have a lot of control over the net outcome. The tax liability
is not going to apply until you close a position, so if your overall
income and tax rate were high this year, you can defer selling a
stock until the following year, as one example of tax avoidance. You
can also time sales of profitable portfolio positions to offset losses
in other investments. This helps avoid carrying over losses greater
than $3,000 (the annual limitation in capital gains). You can also
time the sale of stock or mutual funds to report current-year capital
gains when you already have a large carry-over loss to absorb.
Long-Term Trends 69
■ Carry-Over Losses and Net Return
When you do apply current-year gains against carry-over losses, it

affects your after-tax calculation as well. Because the carry-over
loss may in fact reduce your tax liability to zero, the comparison is
complex. You will report a zero tax liability on a particular transac-
tion due to the carry-over loss, but next year an identical sale (when
no carry-over loss will be available) may well be taxed at a substan-
tial rate.
These variations should always be remembered so that your
comparisons will remain valid. Even when you do use a carry-over
loss to reduce or eliminate a tax liability, it makes sense to calculate
an after-tax return as if you had to pay the tax. In reality, the carry-
over loss does not change the effective tax rate; it simply eliminates
the tax for the current year. So in order to ensure that your com-
parisons are valid, your calculation will remain consistent when you
apply your effective combined (federal and state) tax rate whether
you have to pay it or not.
Because state taxes are computed using different methods and
allowing dissimilar deductions than federal, you often end up with
a different carry-over number. The federal carry-over may be more
or less than the state carry-over. The annual allowance for deduc-
tion may be different as well. The carry-over application will distort
the actual tax liability, perhaps significantly. But because it applies
overall, it is going to be extremely difficult to apply it to any one
investment. For example, if your current-year carry-over loss is
$4,000 but current-year investment income is $9,000, which spe-
cific investments should be assumed to benefit from zero tax? Or
should the benefit of the carry-over loss be applied equally to all
your investment profits?
Because this carry-over provision applies to your entire invest-
ment portfolio and to all your profits in the current year, there is
no equitable way to apply the loss. So there is only one possible
method to use: Estimate your after-tax profit assuming that there
is no carry-over loss. Compare all your profits on the same
basis—as they would be taxed without a carry-over—and separate
the calculation from the actual outcome.
Some carry-over losses may be significant. Those investors

who lost a lot of money in the market of 2001 and 2002 (Enron
investors, for example) may never fully absorb their carry-over
losses. It is possible that these investors will not have an actual tax
liability for many years to come, and perhaps never. But it remains
important to compare outcomes between two or more investments
on a taxable basis as though no carry-over losses were available,
even when none of your investment gains will be taxed this year.
Only by using this assumption can you realistically compare invest-
ment outcome in your taxable portfolio, your tax-deferred portfolio
(an IRA or pension plan, for example), and tax-exempt investments
like municipal bonds. If you were to use a zero tax in your compu-
tations, it would distort the outcome even when you owe no tax.
This argument also applies when your overall income is lower
than your investment profits. For example, if you operate your own
business and report a profit each year, your effective tax rate re-
flects the dollar level of those annual profits. But what happens if
your business income is exceptionally low one year? For example,
assume your annual return on investments is $15,000 in capital
gains, interest, and dividends; and your taxable business income
averages $85,000. Your gross income before deductions and ex-
emptions is $100,000. But if your business income next year is only
$10,000, your overall gross would be only $25,000. It does not
take much in the way of itemized deductions and exemptions to
bring your taxable income down to zero.
In this situation, should you use a zero tax rate to compare
investments? A valid and realistic comparison of portfolio perfor-
mance in this situation would not result if you expect the overall
gross income level to return to more typical levels the following
year. So when you calculate your after-tax returns, it makes the
most sense to use a typical tax rate rather than the actual rate you
will pay this year. The specific circumstances distorting the actual
tax liability (carry-over loss or business loss) distort these outcomes
and should not be compared to net return in other, more typical
years.
The same rationale should be applied in years when your tax
rate is exceptionally high. A large profit in your business or in the
Long-Term Trends 71
market can take your federal and state effective tax rates up to the
highest brackets, but if those rates are unusual and atypical, it
doesn’t make sense to compare after-tax returns in those years to
after-tax returns in more typical years.
Because of the complexity of tax calculations, attempt to iden-
tify a realistic and typical tax rate and apply that to all investment
returns, whether you will pay much less or much more in any one
year. The comparison should not be distorted by one-time changes
in your taxable income. The tax effect cannot be ignored, especially
when the overall rate is high, but in years when that rate spikes up
or down and away from the average, that typical rate should still be
used.
■ Realistic Expectations: Inﬂation and Taxes
Taxes alone are not the only factor reducing your net return from
investments. Inflation also has to be considered in the mix. One
consequence of inflation is reduced purchasing power of your
money. In other words, $1.00 today will buy only $0.97 worth of
goods after a 3% inflation year.
One of the most important calculations every investor needs to
perform is the breakeven return they need to earn net of inflation
and taxes. In the interest of avoiding risk, if you select investments
with returns lower than your breakeven point, you end up losing
money on a post-tax, post-inflation basis.
The calculation of breakeven return is:
FORMULA: BREAKEVEN RETURN
I
B
100 R
where I rate of inflation

B breakeven return
For example, if the current rate of inflation is 3% per year and

your effective tax rate (federal and state combined) is 34%, your
breakeven return is:
3
4.5%
100 34
VA L U A B L E R E S O U R C E S :
Current inflation rates are provided free of charge at http://
inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/CurrentInflation.asp and also
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics at www.bls.gov/cpi.
In other words, you need to earn 4.5% on your money just to

break even, considering both taxes and inflation:
Basis invested $100.00

Assumed gross return, 4.5% $4.50
Less: 34% tax 1.53

Less: Inflation, 3% 3.00
Total reductions $4.53
This example shows that on a ‘‘net, net’’ basis—reducing the 4.5%

return for both taxes and inflation—the investment yielded nothing
(except
$0.03 due to rounding). To calculate your own break-
even point, use the chart in Table 4.1.
A stark reality is that when both taxes and inflation are taken
into account, simply keeping pace with the purchasing power of
your capital is a challenge. It makes no sense to select investments
that are extremely safe but yield a return below your breakeven; to
do so means to lose. At the same time, as the breakeven rises due
to the double effect of taxes and inflation, it becomes ever more
difficult to consistently achieve a breakeven. To do so requires
greater market risks.
These realities about taxes and inflation demonstrate the im-
portance of tax deferral and reinvesting earnings. When you rein-
Long-Term Trends 73
TAB L E 4. 1 . BR E A K E V E N R AT E S .
Effective I n f l a t i o n R a t e
tax rate 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%
14% 1.2% 2.3% 3.5% 4.7% 5.8% 7.0%

16% 1.2 2.4 3.6 4.8 6.0 7.1
18% 1.2 2.4 3.7 4.9 6.1 7.3
20% 1.3 2.5 3.8 5.0 6.3 7.5
22% 1.3 2.6 3.8 5.1 6.4 7.7
24% 1.3% 2.6% 3.9% 5.3% 6.6% 7.9%

26% 1.4 2.7 4.1 5.4 6.8 8.1
28% 1.4 2.8 4.2 5.6 6.9 8.3
30% 1.4 2.9 4.3 5.7 7.1 8.6
32% 1.5 2.9 4.4 5.9 7.4 8.8
34% 1.5% 3.0% 4.5% 6.1% 7.6% 9.1%

36% 1.6 3.1 4.7 6.3 7.8 9.4
38% 1.6 3.2 4.8 6.5 8.1 9.7
40% 1.7 3.3 5.0 6.7 8.3 10.0
42% 1.7 3.4 5.2 6.9 8.6 10.3
vest capital gains, interest and dividends, you achieve a compound

return on your money.
The effect of inflation and taxes on a single year’s return may be
a serious reduction in actual profitability. But because compound
returns accelerate over time, reinvestment makes sense. Mutual
funds allow reinvestment of all forms of income, as an automatic
occurrence; other than electing to receive dividends in additional
partial shares, you need to take steps on your own to create com-
pound returns. When you create a capital gain by selling stock, for
example, you need to figure out how to reinvest those funds as
quickly as possible to continue keeping your capital at work. If you
time your decisions based on market movements and trends, this
may be quite difficult. For example, if you believe you should be
out of the market right now, where do you invest your funds?
At the very least, available funds should be kept in a money
market account and allowed to earn interest until you select an-
other investment. The importance of compound returns is best un-
derstood when you see how the time value of money works. In fact,
time is the essential element in creating powerful long-term returns
by keeping money at work.
■ Compound Return Calculations

Investors need to track their investments in terms of how their capi-
tal is put to work. As a stockholder, you can afford to wait out a
slow period in the market. However, if it takes five years for you to
realize a 20% return, that is only 4% per year. The time element is
an essential ingredient in comparative judgment about the success
of an investment program and the effectiveness of your decisions.
This argument applies not only to capital gains and dividends,
but also to interest on money market accounts or bond funds. If
your bond fund invests in long-term but low-yielding high-grade
bonds, it is possible that these ‘‘safe’’ decisions will lag behind your
required breakeven return.
Whether applied to interest, dividends, or capital gains, figur-
ing out your annual returns is the most reliable method for compar-
ison. The annualization formula is easily applied to any simple
return; but in fact, the stated interest rate can also vary depending
on compound methods. When interest is compounded, it means
the calculation is performed more than once per year, or that year-
to-year interest is added to the principal balance and carried for-
ward. With a compounding effect, you gain an accelerating return
over many years. This is why the claim that $10,000 turns into
$26,500 over 20 years sounds good, but is dismal. It is only a 5%
return, but this is compounded year after year, so an investment
earns interest not only on the amount invested, but on accumulated
interest as well. This interest on interest (compounding) is what
makes the time element so critical.
Compounding methods describe the number of times per year
that interest is calculated. For example, when you are told that an
investment earns 6%, is this an annual rate without adjustment?
Or is the calculation of interest performed semiannually, quarterly,
monthly, or daily? These distinctions make a difference in the an-
nual percentage rate (APR) of the investment.
The basic interest computation involves three elements: princi-
pal, interest, and time. The formula for interest is:
FORMULA: INTEREST
PRTI
Long-Term Trends 75
where P principal
R interest rate
T time
I interest
For example, assuming that interest is calculated only once per

year, a 6% rate applied to $100 would be:
$100 6% 1 $6.00
In calculating interest, the stated rate is actually expressed in deci-

mal form; so 6% becomes 0.06. The annual interest is $111
0.06, or $6.00 per year.
This process becomes more involved when interest is calculated
on a compounded method. For example, if 6% is to apply on a
semiannual basis (twice per year), the annual rate is divided by
the number of periods and then multiplied twice. The formula for
semiannual compounding is:
FORMULA: SEMIANNUAL COMPOUNDING
(1 (R 2))2 I
where R stated interest rate

I annual percentage rate (APR)
For example, if the $100 deposit is to be compounded semiannu-

ally, it should be multiplied by the APR as calculated above:
(1 (0.06 2))2 I
(1 0.03)2 I
1.03 1.03 1.0609
The $100 deposit will grow annually at a rate of 6.09% using semi-
annual compounding:
$100.00 1.0609 $106.09

The calculation, performed twice per year, provides a simplified

version of how compounding works:
1st six months: $100.00 1.03 $103.00

2nd six months: $103.00 1.03 $106.09
The same process is used for calculation of quarterly compound-

ing. However, there are four periods per year instead of two. The
formula for quarterly compounding is:
FORMULA: QUARTERLY COMPOUNDING
(1 (R 4))4 I

For example, if the $100 deposit is to be compounded quarterly, it

should be multiplied by the APR as calculated above:
(1 (0.06 4))4 I
(1 0.015)4 I
1.015 1.015 1.015 1.015 1.0614
The $100 deposit will grow annually at a rate of 6.14% using quar-
terly compounding:
$100.00 1.0614 $106.14
The calculation is performed four times per year:
1st quarter: $100.00 1.015 $101.50

2nd quarter: $101.50 1.015 $103.02
3rd quarter: $103.02 1.015 $104.57
4th quarter: $104.57 1.015 $106.14
The process is identical no matter which compounding method is

used; only the number of periods varies. So with monthly com-
Long-Term Trends 77
pounding, there are 12 periods involved. The formula for monthly

compounding is:
FORMULA: MONTHLY COMPOUNDING
(1 (R 12))12 I

For example, if the $100 deposit is to be compounded monthly, it

should be multiplied by the APR as calculated above:
(1 (0.06 12))12 I
(1 0.005)12 I
1.005 1.005 1.005 1.005 1.005 1.005 1.005
1.005 1.005 1.005 1.005 1.005 1.0617
The $100 deposit will grow annually at a rate of 6.17% using

monthly compounding:
$100.00 1.0617 $106.17
The calculation is performed four per year:
1st month: $100.00 1.005 $100.50

2nd month: $100.50 1.005 $101.00
3rd month: $101.00 1.005 $101.50
4th month: $101.50 1.005 $102.01
5th month: $102.01 1.005 $102.52
6th month: $102.52 1.005 $103.03
7th month: $103.03 1.005 $103.55
8th month: $103.55 1.005 $104.07
9th month: $104.07 1.005 $104.59
10th month: $104.59 1.005 $105.11
11th month: $105.11 1.005 $105.64
12th month: $105.64 1.005 $106.17
Finally, interest can also be compounded daily using one of two

methods. The actual number of days in the year, or 365, is the first
method; or a method often used in banking assumes twelve 30-day
months and a 360-day year. The formula for daily compounding
(actual days) is:
FORMULA: DAILY COMPOUNDING (ACTUAL DAYS)
(1 (R 365))365 I

The formula for daily compounding (banking method) is:
FORMULA: DAILY COMPOUNDING (BANKING METHOD)
(1 (R 360))360 I

The applications of various rates of compounding depend on the

circumstances. If you are paid a quarterly dividend, for example,
you would compute your annual return using the quarterly method.
For example, if your current yield is 5.5%, the annual compounded
interest will be:
(1 (0.055 4))4 I
(1 0.01375)4 I
1.01375 1.01375 1.01375 1.01375 1.0561
Compound interest also works against you. When you owe money,
compounding more frequently translates into greater interest. For
example, home mortgage debt is usually subject to monthly com-
pounding. Your monthly interest consists of one-twelfth of the an-
nual rate, multiplied by the loan’s balance forward. This explains
Long-Term Trends 79
why interest is quite high during the early years of the loan and
much smaller in the later years. If your mortgage rate is 6% and
you are paying over 30 years, the loan is only one-half paid off
during the twenty-first year.
■ The Time Value of Money—Present Value and

Accumulated Value
The calculation of interest over many months or years involves

many steps. In comparison, a single annual return is not as com-
plex. For most tasks involving portfolio management, your concern
will be a one-year return. Tracked over a period of years, the aver-
age annual return is the best indicator of how effectively you man-
age your capital.
In some circumstances, it is necessary to calculate returns over
many years, for tasks beyond the year-to-year analysis of specific
investments. For example, if you were to place a specific sum of
capital into a fixed-income investment (such as a bond), and if in-
terest were compounded for that entire period, what would the in-
vestment be worth after a number of years?
This calculation, called accumulated value, reveals how a fixed-
interest investment will grow over many periods. The formula:
FORMULA: ACCUMULATED VALUE
P (1 R)n A

R interest rate
n number of periods
A accumulated value
For example, if you assume a 5% per year return on a lump sum

investment of $1,000.00 for six years, the formula is:
$1,000.00 (1 0.05)6 A
$1,000.00 (1.05)6 A
$1,000.00 (1.3401) $1,340.10
This can be proven by performing the calculations for each year:
Year Interest Balance

$1,000.00
1 $50.00 1,050.00
2 52.50 1,102.50
3 55.13 1,157.63
4 57.88 1,215.51
5 60.78 1,276.29
6 63.81 1,340.10
If the assumption involves compounding and not an annual rate,

the formula has to be modified. For example, if the above calcula-
tion involved quarterly compounding, the formula would need to
be adjusted for 24 periods, each one-quarter of one year. The for-
mula for accumulated value with compounding is:
FORMULA: ACCUMULATED VALUE WITH COMPOUNDING
R
P (1 (R D))n A

R interest rate
D division based on compounding method
n number of periods
A accumulated value
In the example of quarterly compounding, the previous formula is

revised to:
$1,000.00 (1 (0.05 4)24 A

$1,000.00 (1.0125)24 A
$1,000.00 (1.3474) $1,347.40
The calculation of a single amount is easily made, but when you

plan on depositing an amount periodically, it becomes more com-
Long-Term Trends 81
plex. For example, you plan to deposit $1,000.00 per year into a
mutual fund account, and you assume your average return will be
5%. In this case, you need to calculate the accumulated value per
period. The formula is:
FORMULA: ACCUMULATED VALUE PER PERIOD
P冉 ((1 R)n 1)
R
A冊
R interest rate
n number of periods
A accumulated value
Returning to the previous example, assume 5% per year for six

years. However, in this case, $1,000.00 is deposited each year:
(1 0.05)6 1
$1,000.00 A
0.05
(1.3401) 1
$1,000.00 A
0.05
0.3401
$1,000.00 A
0.05
$1,000.00 6.802 $6,802.00
This can be proven by going through the six-year period and show-
ing how the value grows. The result in the balance column shows
the balance at the beginning of each year before interest is calcu-
lated:
Balance Before
Year Deposit Interest Interest Balance
1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $ 50.00 $1,050.00
2 1,000.00 2,050.00 102.50 2,152.50
3 1,000.00 3,152.50 157.62 3,310.12

4 1,000.00 4,310.12 215.51 4,525.63
5 1,000.00 5,525.63 276.28 5,801.91
6 1,000.00 6,801.91 (rounded $6,802.00)
As with the previous calculation, if compounding methods other

than the annual rate are assumed, the calculation has to be ex-
panded. With quarterly compounding, for example, you would re-
calculate on one of two bases: First, you would assume a $1,000.00
deposit at the beginning of the year, subject to four interest calcula-
tions. Second, you would use the fractional quarterly interest value
and assume quarterly deposits at the beginning of each quarter.
Another calculation answers an entirely different question.
While accumulated value calculates compound growth of a single
deposit or a series of deposits, present value is a calculation of what
you need to place on deposit to reach a target amount in the future.
How much cash do you need to put on deposit today to reach that
amount, assuming a number of periods and an annual interest
rate? The formula for present value is:
FORMULA: PRESENT VALUE
F冉 1
(1 R)n
冊P
where F fund value

R interest rate
n number of periods
P present value
For example, if you want to accumulate $1,000 in six years, assum-

ing 5% per year, you can calculate how much you need to put on
deposit today:
$1,000.00 (1 (1.05)6) P
$1,000.00 (1 1.3401) P
$1,000.00 0.74621 $746.21
Long-Term Trends 83
To prove that this works:
Year Interest Balance

$ 746.21
1 $37.31 783.52
2 39.18 822.70
3 41.14 863.84
4 43.19 907.03
5 45.35 952.38
6 47.62 1,000.00
If you compound interest more than once per year, it will be neces-
sary to calculate fractional interest and use more periods. For ex-
ample, if the above were formulated with quarterly interest, you
would need to go out 24 periods and use 1.25% interest per
quarter.
Present value reveals how much you need to deposit to reach a
desired outcome in the future. A variation involves making a series
of periodic deposits to achieve the same end result. This is called
sinking fund payments. To calculate, assume the deposit is made at
the end of the period, and interest is computed on each period’s
ending balance. The formula for sinking fund payments is:
FORMULA: SINKING FUND PAYMENTS
F冉 1
(((1 R)n 1) R)
S 冊
where F fund value
R interest rate
n number of periods
S sinking fund payments
For example, if you need to accumulate $1,000.00 at the end of six

years, assuming 5% interest per year, how much do you need to
deposit at the end of each year? The answer based on the above
formula:
$1,000.00 (1 ((1 0.05)6) 1) 0.05 S

$1,000.00 (1 (0.3401 0.05) S
$1,000.00 (1 6.802) S
$1,000.00 0.14702 $147.02
To prove that this works:
Balance Before
Year Deposit Interest Interest Balance
1 $147.02 $ 147.02 $ 7.35 $154.37
2 147.02 301.39 15.07 316.44
3 147.02 463.48 23.17 486.65
4 147.02 633.67 31.68 665.35
5 147.02 812.37 40.61 852.98
6 147.02 1,000.00
The sinking fund calculation is complex, but the summary above

demonstrates that it produces the desired result. As with all these
formulas, interest compounded more than once per year involves
fractional rates and more periods. If the above were to be calculated
quarterly, you would need 24 periods and a quarterly rate of
1.25%.
Present value and sinking fund calculations identify how much
you need to attain a desired deposit amount in the future. Another
situation arises when you need to know the amount of deposit re-
quired today to fund a future series of withdrawals. For example,
you may want to place an amount into a mutual fund account now,
with the idea of withdrawing an annual amount later to pay for
college expenses, retirement, or other specific goals. This present
value per period calculation is:
FORMULA: PRESENT VALUE PER PERIOD
W 冋冉 1
1
(1 R)n
R冊册 P
where W withdrawals in the future

R interest rate
n number of periods
P present value per period
Long-Term Trends 85
In order to be able to take future withdrawals (W), you need to

know how much to deposit today (P). For example, if you want to
be able to withdraw $1,000.00 per year for six years, assuming 5%
per year, how much do you need to deposit today? Applying this
question to the formula:
$1,000.00 [ (1 (1 (1 0.05)6)) 0.05 ] P

$1,000.00 [ (1 (1 1.3401)) 0.05 ] P
$1,000.00 [ (1 (0.74621)) 0.05 ] P
$1,000.00 [ 0.25379 0.05 ] P
$1,000.00 5.0758 $5,075.80
To prove this calculation:
Plus: Less:
Year Interest Withdrawals Balance
$5,075.80
1 $253.79 $1,000.00 4,329.59
2 216.48 1,000.00 3,546.07
3 177.30 1,000.00 2,723.37
4 136.17 1,000.00 1,859.54
5 92.98 1,000.00 952.52
6 47.63 1,000.00 0.15 (rounding)
The deposit made today funds six years’ worth of equal withdraw-
als based on the assumed 5% interest rate. Using compounding
methods more frequent than one year requires using the appro-
priate fractional rate and expanded number of periods.
A final calculation is amortization of a loan. Every homeowner
knows that payments consist primarily of interest in the earlier
years of a loan and less so as time passes. To calculate the required
monthly payment, given the known loan amount, interest rate, and
number of years, the formula for amortization payments is:
FORMULA: AMORTIZATION PAYMENTS
B 冉冊
1
Vn
P
where B balance due on a loan

V present value per period
n number of periods
P payment required
In this formula, the calculated present value per period is based on

a known rate. Because the rate is part of another calculation, this
abbreviated formula does not include the rate again. To actually
calculate the required monthly payment, it is far easier to use one
of the many free mortgage calculators online.
Search ‘‘mortgage calculator’’ to find numerous free sites. Easy-to-use
examples include Web sites for many real estate companies and
www.mortgage-calc.com/mortgage/simple.php or http://
mortgages.interest.com/content/calculators/monthly-payment.asp.
To figure out an ongoing breakdown between principal and inter-

est, the balance forward is multiplied by the annual rate and divided
by 12. This produces the interest portion; the principal is the
monthly payment minus interest. The formula for principal and in-
terest on a monthly payment is:
FORMULA: PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON A MONTHLY PAYMENT
Interest
B冉冊R
12
I
Principal
TIP
New Balance Forward

BPN
Long-Term Trends 87
where B balance forward

R annual interest rate
I interest amount
T total monthly payment
P principal
N new balance forward
For example, your monthly mortgage payment is $599.55. Your

loan balance is $100,000.00, and you are paying a fixed rate of 6%.
Applying these formulas:
Interest
$100,000.00 冉冊
6%
12
$500.00
Principal
$599.55 $500.00 $99.55
New balance forward

$100,000 $99.55 $99,900.45
Understanding the time value of money is essential to any compar-

ative analysis of a stock portfolio. But even when you are able to
track returns over time, you also have to ensure that your raw num-
bers are accurate. In the next chapter, you will see why it is neces-
sary to adjust the numbers reported by corporations to arrive at the
core earnings and net worth.
C H A P T E R 5
Core Earnings and Net

Worth Adjustments
Making the Numbers Real
efore embarking on a discussion of fundamental analysis (the
B two chapters that follow), it is important to make a few distinctions

between what is reported on financial statements and what is real.
If fundamental analysis is to be reliable and accurate, making core
earnings adjustments is a necessary first step.
When Standard & Poor’s (S&P) Corporation developed its
concept of ‘‘core earnings,’’ the estimate was that the S&P 500
corporations had earnings overstated by about 30% during the first
year the adjustment was calculated.1 The core earnings (or ‘‘true
economic profit’’) of a company may be significantly different from
the earnings a company reports under the present system. But what
is allowed and what is accurate are not the same, and this is where
the problem arises. A 30% downward adjustment obviously not
only affects the profitability and equity of a company, but also
makes most forms of financially based analysis useless. For this
1
‘‘2002 S&P Core Earnings,’’ Business Week Online, October 2002; through June 2002,
reported profits for the 500 corporations totaled $26.74 per share versus a core net
profit of only $18.48, a reduction of 30%.
89
reason, using the core net profit and core net worth is a reliable
means for applying financial formulas and ratios.
Where do you find these data? Fortunately, S&P calculates the
often complex adjustments between reported and core earnings on
its Stock Reports service. The reports for each company, including
a 10-year financial summary, are provided by some online broker-
age services free of charge. Charles Schwab, for example, contains
a link for each listed company to the Stock Reports and other anal-
ysis services.
■ The Problem with Today’s Accounting Rules
The accounting industry is assumed to be the watchdog of publicly

listed companies. Every company trading stock is required to un-
dergo periodic independent audits and produce certified financial
statements. For decades, the investing public has viewed this proc-
ess as its line of defense against fraud and inaccuracy.
The confidence placed in the independent audit is misplaced.
The audit process is not proactive. Many investors assume that
the audit is designed to discover and fix problems, but in fact it is a
very passive activity. The audit is actually designed to ensure that
the accounting decisions conform to GAAP. These standards are
complex and at times contradictory, so in practice the audit team
will insist on changes only when accounting decisions are glaringly
wrong. Even then, there have been numerous instances in which
incorrect or even dishonest accounting decisions have not been re-
versed during an audit. The extreme case of Enron is only one of
many instances where corporations have deceived investors and the
independent audit has not fixed the problem.
The reasons are many, including:
1. Basic conflict of interest. The audit firm doesn’t restrict its ac-
tivities to an annual audit. Most firms also perform numerous
consulting tasks for their audit clients, including design of in-
ternal systems, legal and personnel work, and accounting func-
tions themselves. This involvement creates two problems. First,
the auditing firm often ends up auditing its own work. Second,
Core Earnings and Net Worth Adjustments 91
revenues from consultation are approximately equal to reve-

nues from auditing. So consulting has become a major source
of revenue for the auditing firms. The conflict of interest is glar-
ing. And the legislation passed in 2002 (Sarbanes-Oxley Act)
was designed to fix this problem, but it has had little effect.
2. Close relationships between executives and auditors. Histori-
cally, the audit team worked closely with the CEO and CFO,
often negotiating and compromising on proposed changes in
accounting policies. If an audit team was too inflexible in its
insistence that certain decisions had to be changed, the com-
pany might decide to change to another auditing firm. Because
auditors are judged within their firm by revenue production,
losing a big client could be disastrous for a person’s career.
In addition, many auditors have always been recruited from
client ranks, so an accounting executive may easily end up
working for the auditing firm. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX)
places restrictions on audit work by anyone working for a client
in the recent past, but this situation only limits the degree of
the problem. The failure by the accounting industry to maintain
distance between itself and its clients is disturbing.
3. Failure to take the auditing role as a public responsibility. In
theory, the audit is independent and is performed on behalf
of the company’s shareholders. In practice, executives and the
board’s audit committee decide which firm to hire (or fire), and
the auditing industry has not taken its role seriously. The very
idea that the independent audit is designed to protect share-
holders from unethical executives has simply not worked. And
SOX has not fixed that problem. Several years after the Enron
scandal, the financial news consistently reveals corporate fi-
nancial problems.
4. A cultural desire to keep stock prices high. Auditors understand
all too well that corporations want their stock price to remain
high. A CEO and CFO depend on ever-higher prices to earn
their incentive-based compensation. These bonus and option
packages often exceed their base pay and represent millions of
dollars per year. This creates an obvious conflict for the execu-
tives. If earnings fall below expectations this year, the stock
price is likely to fall as well. If a drop of several points in the

stock’s value represents several million dollars in compensa-
tion, it is important. The auditor may not direct or conspire
with an executive to artificially inflate earnings, but this cultural
aspect of accounting is widely understood. When earnings
meet expectations, everyone is happy.
The problems of how the numbers get reported are significant.

For anyone depending on audited financial statements to perform
an analysis of a corporation, this is a disturbing reality. But the
numbers do reveal the truth in many ways. The following guidelines
help to get around the deception and inaccuracy of audited finan-
cial statements:
1. Long-term trends reveal the truth. Studying one year’s financial

statements does not tell you much at all. You need to (a) iden-
tify the ratios you find most useful and (b) look for long-term
trends in those ratios. The next two chapters help to reduce the
number of possible ratios to a few of the most valuable financial
tests to perform over many years.
2. Using specific formulas in combination reveals hidden facts.
The use of any one ratio reveals part of the picture. But to truly
understand what is going on, you need to have all of the pieces.
For example, testing working capital by tracking current assets
and liabilities (through the current ratio) is instructive, but to
see the entire picture, you also need to track long-term debt.
Watching revenues over time is also useful, and most investors
like to see revenues rise each year. But if profits are flat or fall-
ing, the rise in revenues is not useful; so you also need to track
expense levels and profits each year.
3. Inconsistent results are a danger signal. Investors naturally like
predictability in the financial results of companies. When reve-
nues and earnings gyrate wildly from one year to the next, it is
impossible to estimate a direction. You often see a correspond-
ing level of volatility in stock prices, so big changes from year
to year may indicate that the company is not in control of its
markets and sales; or, even worse, it may indicate that some
accounting shenanigans are in practice.
4. Big changes between reported earnings and core earnings may
serve as the most important red flag of all. When S&P devel-
oped its core earnings concept, it provided a valuable service to
investors. Core earnings—earnings from a primary product or
service and excluding nonrecurring items—are the true picture
of corporate performance. This number is easily found in the
S&P Stock Reports, which include a 10-year history of key
financial results. You will discover that well-managed compa-
nies tend to have relatively low core earnings adjustments in
most years. (When a company sells off an operating unit, for
example, that creates a large core earnings adjustment, but
generally speaking, core earnings adjustments should be
minor.) You will also discover that companies with low core
earnings adjustments tend to report lower than average stock
price volatility, and companies with exceptionally high core
earnings adjustments tend to reveal higher than average price
volatility.
■ Flaws in the GAAP System—a Passive Approach to

Reporting
There is no single, central control of the GAAP system. In fact, it is

a loosely organized set of rules, guidelines, and opinions. The two
major organizations involved in development of these rules are the
Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), an independent
organization; and the American Institute of Certified Public Ac-
countants (AICPA), the organization overseeing the accounting in-
dustry.
To find out how the major GAAP organizations function, check their Web
sites: www.fasb.org and www.aicpa.org.
The entire GAAP structure is managed by these two organizations,

but GAAP includes much more. Publications include high-level in-
terpretations, opinions, and research bulletins; guidelines and
statements of position; task force publications and practice bulle-
tins; implementation guides; and issue papers, technical practice
aids, pronouncements, and accounting textbooks and articles.
It is fair to say that GAAP consists of all current opinions, ob-
servations, and interpretations of how the industry is supposed to
work. Change within this complex structure takes time because any
proposed new approach is subject to a lengthy review process on
several levels. As you might expect, within such a highly technical
but loosely organized structure, many different opinions exist and
justification for a particular interpretation may easily be found. So
in spite of its public image, the accounting and auditing industry is
far from specific in its determinations. When a senior auditor con-
fronts a decision that seems to not conform to GAAP, discussions
with the company’s financial employees may result in (a) a change
in the financial outcome, (b) modification of the transaction, or (c)
no change whatsoever. It all depends on how aggressively the audi-
tor wants to take a stand and whether or not some justification can
be found in the vast publication arena of GAAP.
Because auditors have a well-known conflict of interest in
working on both audits and consultation projects for the same
companies, SOX attempted to inhibit some of the more egregious
problems in five ways:
1. It set up a Public Company Accounting Oversight Board

(PCAOB) to supervise firm practices and, if necessary, to
impose sanctions. The board is a private sector, nonprofit orga-
nization, but it reports to the Securities and Exchange Com-
mission (SEC). However, the effectiveness of this oversight
board is difficult to judge. In its first five years of existence, no
major sanctions have been imposed against any of the large
national accounting firms. The PCAOB did issue 2003 reports
on its examinations of the four major accounting firms, which
provide some general guidelines for accounting interpretations.
Check the work of the SEC and PCAOB by visiting their Web sites:
www.sec.gov and www.pcaobus.org.
2. Non-audit services were restricted. SOX named many services

that auditing firms were no longer allowed to provide for those
companies for which auditing work is also performed. How-
ever, this provision has not affected accounting firms’ ability
to generate non-audit revenues. In fact, there is no apparent
reduction in revenues among any of the large accounting firms
since SOX was enacted. Within the first year following SOX,
the Big Four firms continued reporting between $3 and $5 bil-
lion per year in non-audit revenues.2
3. Auditors have to rotate off accounts. In the past, senior audi-
tors were fixtures in the offices of larger clients. Maintaining
objectivity is impossible when people become so familiar with
those being audited. SOX requires partners to rotate off ac-
counts within a five-year period.
4. Auditors report to the audit committee, not to financial execu-
tives. Before SOX, auditors met regularly with the CEO or
CFO and negotiated changes to accounting decisions. This led
to many problems, not the least of which was loss of objectivity
for auditors themselves. Executives made decisions to hire or
fire firms, giving them tremendous control. Now, though, the
board’s audit committee makes those decisions and meets with
auditors directly.
5. Auditors cannot move into positions with a client’s company.
In the past, companies hired financial executives from the audit
team directly, so that the current year’s audit was conducted
with a recent employee of the accounting firm itself. Under
SOX, the auditing firm cannot conduct an audit for any com-
pany that has hired a member of senior management from that
firm within the past year.
2
Cassell Bryan-Low, ‘‘Accounting Firms Are Still Consulting,’’ Wall Street Journal, Sep-
tember 23, 2002.
Have these provisions fixed the problems? They have not.

There remains a widespread cultural attitude in the accounting in-
dustry that views past compliance problems as matters of public
relations rather than as serious internal flaws. This means that in
order to be able to rely on financial statements, you cannot simply
accept a certification from an ‘‘independent’’ auditing firm as the
last word. Real independence remains elusive. So in calculating the
valuation and profitability of a company, you need to be able to
isolate noncore earnings and make adjustments on your own. S&P’s
Stock Reports summarize the core earnings numbers, which helps
considerably by providing reliable numbers. But going beyond the
one-line identification of core earnings, it is also necessary to look
critically at (a) the level of adjustments a company needs each year
and the trend in that adjustment, (b) the degree of disclosure and
explanation the company provides, and (c) efforts to achieve real
transparency.
It is clear that the accounting industry has no interest in true
reform of its practices. It is up to corporations to make meaningful
change. For example, it would be simple for corporations to rule
that they will not use their auditing firm for any non-audit work.
This may cause a few short-term problems, but it would certainly
send the message to the investing public that corporate manage-
ment is serious about fixing its own problems.
■ Examples of Material Expenses
A core earnings adjustment is necessary when any material expense

is improperly excluded from the list of expenses; or when any mate-
rial revenue is included, but it is a one-time event. ‘‘Material’’
simply means that the dollar value of the transaction makes a differ-
ence in the outcome of the financial report (the valuation of the
company as reported on its balance sheet or the earnings as re-
ported on its operating statement).
Typically, material expenses that may be left off the GAAP-
approved operating statement include:
Stock options granted to executive or employees. The stock op-

tion is a form of compensation, but under traditional account-
ing rules, the value of these options was never reported as an

expense—even though their value could be huge. So the ex-
pense simply vanished and investors had no idea how much
compensation executives earned if and when they cashed in
their options. Because stockholders have to pay for those op-
tions out of the company’s assets, the effect is very real even
though it did not show up anywhere. The large dollar value of
stock options has led some companies to voluntarily report the
expense, and others to do away with options altogether. Gradu-
ally, the system is reforming, and stock option expense is show-
ing up in some instances.
Contingent liabilities. Many companies might owe a great deal
of money to others, but the contingent expense is not shown on
the operating statement. For example, two very large compa-
nies—Merck and Altria—face thousands of lawsuits and may
owe great sums of money in the future to settle those suits.
Merck’s Vioxx-related problems and the ongoing problems for
Altria relating to tobacco lawsuits could come out to very large
expenses in future years. But contingent liabilities are summa-
rized in footnotes and not on the operating statement. Under
the GAAP rules, expenses are supposed to be shown in the year
incurred, so realistically the expense of losing a lawsuit cannot
be recorded until the loss occurs. However, it would make
sense for companies to set up loss reserves as liabilities and
record an annual expense in anticipation of future litigation
losses—especially when those potential losses will be large. A
formula similar to that used to set up bad debt reserves would
mitigate this problem.
Core earnings can also go the other way. Companies may in-
clude revenue that will not recur; as a result, these items should be
removed from the operating statement:
Capital gains from the sale of assets. When companies sell off
assets, they book the revenue; however, this is a nonrecurring
form of revenue and will not recur in the future in the same
way that core revenue would be expected to recur. Capital gains
are usually listed below the operating net earnings as a form of
‘‘other income,’’ but the question should be raised as to

whether the earnings per share (EPS) includes capital gains. If
it does, then the EPS is inaccurate.
Revenue from selling operating segments. Companies also may
sell off operating segments. For example, a few years ago Altria
sold its Miller Brewing segment and booked $2.6 billion reve-
nue from the sale. But this was noncore revenue because it was
not profit derived from recurring sales of product. In any study
of revenue and earnings for Altria, you would need to restate
earnings to (a) remove the nonrecurring earnings and (b) also
remove Miller Brewing revenues from previous years to accu-
rately track remaining revenues into the future.
Revenue from nonrecurring accounting changes. Companies
make technical changes in the way they value some of their
assets. For example, calculating bad debt reserves or setting
valuation of inventory may be changed, affecting earnings dur-
ing the year the change goes into effect. This is a noncore ad-
justment and should be removed from the core earnings.
Altering the reported outcome on the operating statement does

not negate the transactions. For example, when a company is paid
for selling an operating unit, the money is very real. But under core
earnings adjustments, these items have to be excluded in order to
estimate any trends and to judge how growth is likely to occur in
the future. Noncore items distort this analysis; so before embarking
on development of any fundamental trends, these core earnings ad-
justments have to be made.
■ Balance Sheet Problems—Inaccurate Valuation
Adjusting core earnings is only half of the picture. When revenues

and earnings are distorted by noncore transactions, the balance
sheet—where assets, liabilities, and net worth are reported—is also
altered as a consequence.
It is often shocking for investors to learn that some very large
liabilities are routinely excluded from the balance sheet. In fact,
the balance sheet does not provide an accurate summary of assets,

liabilities, or net worth. The accounting standards applied to how
these items are valued fall short of what investors should expect.
Some examples:
Pension liabilities. The ever-growing pension liabilities of many

large corporations are not reported anywhere. GM owes bil-
lions in its pension liability, and rumors have begun that the
company (or at least its pension plan) may be bankrupt. Similar
problems have been disclosed by many airlines and other com-
panies in recent years.
Long-term lease obligations. Many corporations enter into
long-term leases for their plant or equipment, often going out
30 years or more. These obligations show up from year to year
as current expenses, but the contractual obligations—very tan-
gible liabilities—are not shown in the list of corporate liabilities,
and this reporting is not required under GAAP rules.
Contingent liabilities. Just as expenses may be understated due
to contingent liabilities, the liabilities themselves are not re-
ported anywhere except in a footnote of the annual report. In
those cases where the contingent liability could be significant,
companies should set up a reserve in the liability section and
add to it each year, but under GAAP this is not required.
Stock option liability. Stock options granted to executives and
employees in past years remain as obligations of the corpora-
tion. If those options are exercised, the employee is able to pur-
chase stock below current market value. This dilutes the value
of stock for the remaining stockholders, especially since many
such transactions involve purchases of stock at the option price
and an immediate sale at market price. That difference is an
expense to the company, and the liability does not show up
anywhere on the balance sheet.
Asset valuation. Just as liabilities are understated, assets may be
as well. Under GAAP rules, depreciable assets are always
booked at purchase price and depreciated over a number of
years. So while land values on the balance sheet remain the
same as the original purchase price, the value of buildings and

other improvements declines each year until their book value is
zero. It is commonplace for corporations to own vast holdings
of real estate with little or no book value. As a result, GAAP
requires these assets to be treated like equipment and vehicles,
which do truly lose value. Real estate usually appreciates, so
under GAAP rules, the asset section of the balance sheet is
often far below true market value, and the real estimated value
is reported only in a footnote.
The solution to these material problems in GAAP is to reform

the system, but that would take many years. In order for investors
to gain a true picture of the companies whose stock they own, true
transparency would require a recalculation of asset, liability, and
net worth values; and operating statement revenue and earnings.
Companies could easily summarize their results in two columns.
First would be the GAAP-based outcome you see currently; second
would be the core valuation (balance sheet) and core earnings (op-
erating statement).
A true and sincere reform within the accounting industry could
(and should) require this disclosure by all publicly listed corpora-
tions. But it is not likely that the accounting industry will take any
such stand. The reaction of the industry to the revelations of its
own complicity in misleading audits throughout the 1990s and into
2001 have made it clear that any real reform in audit standards will
have to be imposed and enforced from outside of the accounting
industry.
■ Recalculating the Key Ratios
The importance of core earnings and core valuation adjustments

cannot be emphasized too much. In many instances, these adjust-
ments radically change the outlook for corporations. For example,
why would anyone invest in GM stock if a true report revealed that
the company had no net worth? The answer is obvious: In spite of
what the true numbers reveal, the Wall Street culture does not want
to face the facts. The auditing industry, Wall Street analysts, bro-
kerage firms, institutional investor management, and corporate ex-

ecutives themselves do not want to reform the system; they do not
want people to realize how poorly the numbers are reported, and
they fear that the entire investment structure would collapse if obvi-
ous flaws were corrected all at once. S&P’s revelation in 2002 that
the S&P 500 was overvalued by 30% (based on initial core earnings
adjustments) is disastrous. But in fact, investors would make better
decisions with better information.
Until reform occurs, investors need to continue performing
their own fundamental analysis, but with accurately adjusted valua-
tion. When you determine a number of important ratios, both core
earnings and core valuation questions have to be addressed, espe-
cially when those adjustments are large. For example, earnings per
share (EPS) is considered a key ratio and is widely used as a means
for judging the value of a stock. The formula for this is:
FORMULA: EARNINGS PER SHARE
N
E
S
where N net earnings

S shares outstanding
The shares outstanding are computed as an average throughout the

year (compared to earnings for the entire year). For example, if a
company reports 5.218 million shares and its latest year’s earnings
were $1.185 million, then EPS would be:
$1.185
$0.23
5.218
However, the EPS calculation is based on reported earnings per

share. If the core earnings are considerably lower, then the EPS is
distorted. For example, consider the effect on this calculation if
core earnings were $0.202 million:
$0.202
$0.04
5.218
The difference between $0.23 per share EPS and $0.04 is consid-
erable. This is not an exaggerated example. It is based on the 2005
results for Lucent Technologies (LU). The calculation of core earn-
ings per share (CEPS) is:
FORMULA: CORE EARNINGS PER SHARE
N () A
C
S

A core earnings adjustments
C core earnings per share
The adjustments may increase or decrease the reported net earn-

ings. A summary of the reported and core earnings for three com-
panies is shown for four years in Table 5.1.
These comparisons make the point that the difference between
EPS and CEPS can be substantial. For example, someone consid-
ering a purchase of Lucent Technologies shares might review EPS
and conclude that the company has consistently produced profit-
able results. But when the core numbers are studied, the picture is
far more dismal. GM reported higher core earnings for three out of
the four years shown; in this example, the adjustment for CEPS
moves in the opposite direction. IBM was more consistent in the
latest three years, with a one-time large core earnings adjustment
in 2002. In all cases, the changes between reported and core earn-
ings were important enough to change the analysis.
Two additional ratios should also be adjusted to ensure the ac-
curacy of fundamental analysis. The debt ratio is among the most
important tests of a company’s ability to maintain a balance be-
tween equity and debt. But what about unreported liabilities? For
example, GM’s reported common equity at the end of 2005 was
TAB L E 5 . 1 . R E P O R T E D A N D CO R E E A R N I N G S .
I n M i l l i o n s
Net Earnings
Reported Core Shares EPS CEPS
Lucent Technologies
2005 $ 1,185 $ 202 5,218 $ 0.23 $ 0.04
2004 2,002 754 5,313 0.38 0.14
2003 770 (1,980) 3,950 0.19 (0.50)
2002 1,826 (16,627) 3,426 0.53 (4.85)
General Motors
2005 $(10,458) $(6,741) 565 $(18.50) $(11.93)
2004 2,805 4,040 567 4.95 7.13
2003 2,862 4,510 569 5.03 7.93
2002 1,736 (838) 562 3.09 (1.49)
IBM
2005 $ 7,994 $ 6,395 1,628 $ 4.91 $ 3.93
2004 8,448 6,923 1,709 4.94 4.05
2003 7,613 5,270 1,756 4.34 3.00
2002 5,334 111 1,731 3.08 0.
$14.597 billion; but its unrecorded pension liabilities were about

$37 billion. If you compute the effect of this, GM’s negative net
worth was over $22 billion.3 This certainly affects the debt ratio, in
fact throwing the calculation into complete disarray. GM’s re-
ported debt ratio at the end of 2005 was 91%, the latest entry in a
growing negative trend. (The years 2001 through 2005 showed the
ratio growing from 79% to 91%, increasing every year.) The ‘‘core
net worth’’ of GM is obviously negative if those pension liabilities
are to be counted. In recalculating the debt ratio, you need to recal-
culate net worth for net valuation adjustments. In the case of GM,
the ratio cannot be calculated because net worth is negative. To
recalculate the debt ratio to the core debt ratio, make adjustments
to total capitalization (which consists of net worth and long-term
debt):
3
GM reported in 2005 a total of $9 billion in pension liabilities plus an additional $28
billion for ‘‘other postretirement pensions.’’ Source: General Motors 10-K filings.
FORMULA: CORE DEBT RATIO
L
C
T () A
where L long-term debt

T total capitalization
A core valuation adjustments
C core debt ratio
The extreme case of GM demonstrates that even the reported 91%

debt ratio is far from accurate. It is actually well over 100%. Calcu-
lations to reflect debt ratio accurately are especially important in
those instances where large unreported liabilities will dramatically
change the picture.
The same is true for the P/E ratio. This is calculated by dividing
the current price per share of stock by the EPS. But recall the dra-
matic difference between EPS and CEPS in many instances. The
fact, for example, that GM has not shown its ever-growing pension
liabilities on its balance sheet is a huge problem for the company
and for its shareholders. The estimated $37 billion GM reported
to the SEC in 2005 may even be understated. According to some
calculations, the real post-retirement obligation at the end of 2005
was about $57 billion rather than the $28 billion GM reported.
This is based on a reported $20 billion in assets versus $77 billion
in obligations in the pension plan.4
These off-balance sheet liabilities affect virtually all ratios you
would perform in trying to place any kind of value on the stock of
GM or any other company with such large adjustments. It brings
into question the calculation of earnings as well. Since pension lia-
bilities represent rather large annual expenses to the company—
which also remain unreported on the company’s operating state-
ment—the P/E ratio is inaccurate as well. Numerous adjustments
in earnings (see previously discussed table for three well-known
4
GM’s reported numbers, summarized in Allen Sloan, ‘‘General Motors Getting Eaten
Alive by a Free Lunch,’’ Washington Post, April 19, 2005.
stocks) further affect the earnings used in the P/E. To calculate the
core P/E ratio:
FORMULA: CORE P/E RATIO
P
C
E () A

E earnings per share as reported
C core P/E ratio
In the case of companies like Lucent Technologies and GM, the

changes in P/E due to recalculated earnings can be disastrous. Any
ratio—including the P/E—is only as valuable as the information
used. If P/E is to be used to estimate future trends in stock and
corporate value, the core P/E should be the ratio of choice.
■ Finding Core Earnings—Comparative Analysis
The detailed calculation of core earnings becomes quite technical

when all of its aspects are explored. An online search on the subject
of core earnings is not especially helpful, and there are no services
or shortcuts in making the calculations.
S&P originally developed this system of adjustments as part of
its effort to accurately rate bonds issued by listed companies. It
continues to emphasize credit ratings on its own Web site. How-
ever, the S&P Stock Reports provide a one-line annual summary
of net earnings and core net earnings, and this is the most valuable
source for finding the number. They are also free with some online
brokerage services.
Hopefully, as the mood for accounting reform moves forward,
corporations will take the lead in disclosure along with transpar-
ency, voluntarily showing core-adjusted earnings as part of their
report to investors. S&P would provide a valuable service to inves-
tors by expanding its core reporting to include estimates of core
valuation. That would include adjustments for off-balance sheet lia-

bilities like pension obligations; employee stock option debt; the
current and long-term liability for lease commitments; and a re-
serve-calculated expense and approximation of the value of contin-
gent liabilities. On its Stock Reports, further breakdowns of key
ratios (like the debt ratio, current ratio, EPS, and P/E) could also
be provided on two levels: GAAP and core.
All these changes would be valuable to any investor who wants
to track the fundamentals accurately. Without core earnings ad-
justments, it is virtually impossible to make reliable comparisons
between companies, even when they are in the same industry. For
example, within the retail sector, a review of three leading compa-
nies shows how difficult it is to make comparisons without core
earnings adjustments. Table 5.2 shows these results for Wal-Mart,
Federated Department Stores, and Sears Holding Corporation.
These differences between three companies in the same market
sector explain why core earnings adjustments are essential. Wal-
TA BLE 5.2. RETAIL CORE EARNINGS ADJUSTMENTS.
I n M i l l i o n s
Net Earnings
Reported Core Difference %
Wal-Mart
2006 $ 11,231 $ 11,134 $ (97)
0.9%
2005 10,267 10,267 0 0
2004 8,861 8,861 0 0
2003 8,039 7,955 (84)
1.0
Federated Department Stores
2006 $ 1,373 $ 967 (406)
29.6%
2005 689 655 (34)
4.9
2004 693 628 (65)
9.4
2003 638 490 (148)
22.8
Sears Holding Corporation
2006 $ 948 $ 696 $(252)
26.6%
2005 1,106 448 (658)
59.5
2004 248 (405) (653)
263.3
2003 (3,262) (3,439) (177)
5.4
Mart has a consistent record of virtually no core earnings adjust-

ments; Federated has reported differences that are significant; and
Sears has reported net earnings substantially different from its core
earnings.
You will not always find such glaring discrepancies within a
single industry. But the chances are that the numbers you rely
upon—the same numbers certified by an independent audit—may,
in fact, be highly inaccurate. With this information as a premise
for beginning your program of fundamental analysis, the next two
chapters provide explanations for the major tests worth using on
the balance sheet and on the operating statement of a company.
C H A P T E R 6
Fundamentals
Balance Sheet Tests You Need to Know
he ‘‘fundamentals’’ simply means the financial information a
T company reports. In the last chapter, the discussion of core earn-

ings demonstrated that the official GAAP version of accounting is
unreliable and often distorts the picture completely.
In this chapter, the balance sheet ratios and formulas are exam-
ined, and, in the next chapter, you will find the same information
for the fundamentals on the company’s operating statement.
■ The Nature of Fundamental Analysis
The fundamentals, everyone should remember, are nothing more

than a financial history of a company. It is not necessarily the whole
truth, or even a complete picture; financial statements at their very
best only conform to the standards of GAAP. This means that they
may be quite unreliable as a means for judging a company’s value.
Keep in mind a few essential points concerning fundamental anal-
ysis:
1. All analysis is meant only to improve your estimation; nothing

ensures success. The purpose in studying the numbers is that
109
they reveal trends. They show clearly what has occurred in the
past, which gives you some fairly reliable ideas about how the
future might shape up. But there are no guarantees. A ‘‘best
estimate’’ is worthwhile, however. Consider a comparison of 10
years’ revenue between Wal-Mart and J.C. Penney:1
Revenues (in $millions)

Year Wal-Mart J.C. Penney
2006 $312,427 $18,781
2005 285,222 18,424
2004 256,329 17,786
2003 244,524 32,347
2002 217,799 32,004
This historical summary of revenues demonstrates that while

Wal-Mart’s growth is consistent and predictable, J.C. Penney’s
revenues show an inconsistent trend. So if you were to use past
information to estimate future revenues and earnings, it would
be far easier based on Wal-Mart’s fundamentals than on J.C.
Penney’s.
2. The fundamentals are always historical, so be aware of the po-
tential for change between the latest report and today’s situation.
Whenever you study a financial statement, you have a time
problem. It takes quite a while to audit a company’s books and
to produce a final version of the statements. So from the cut-
off date of the statements, it is quite likely that a final report
will not be available for at least two months. A lot can happen
in that time. For example, if the company closes its books at
the end of its highest-volume quarter and you are reviewing
results two to three months later, the quarterly results you are
looking at are (a) out of date and (b) not accurate for judging
the current level of revenue and earnings.
3. No single indicator should be used alone; the best analysis gath-
ers data from many sources. Virtually every fundamental indica-
tor has to be reviewed in conjunction with other indicators. For
example, tracking revenues alone is not enough; you also need
1
Wal-Mart and J.C. Penney annual reports.
Fundamentals: Balance Sheet Tests 111
to track earnings. Returning to the example of comparisons be-

tween Wal-Mart and J.C. Penney, a five-year summary of earn-
ings and core earnings is useful along with the revenue trend:2
Earnings (in $millions)

Wal-Mart J.C. Penney
Year Reported Core Reported Core
2006 $11,231 $11,134 $977 $960
2005 10,267 10,267 667 662
2004 8,861 8,861 345 345
2003 8,039 7,955 371 171
2002 6,671 6,692 114 41
By the same argument, watching working capital also requires

that the capitalization tests be followed closely. Well-informed
investors never depend on any single ratio or formula; they re-
view a series of valuable tests together. This does not mean you
need to perform dozens of tests, but a few important indicators
can reveal a lot.
4. Before drawing conclusions from a published financial state-
ment, check the difference between reported earnings and core
earnings. As the example above shows, there may be important
differences between reported earnings and core earnings.
These differences will affect all ratios. In the retail sector, these
adjustments have not been historically significant. But in many
other sectors, they have been enormous. For example, when
S&P first began publishing its core earnings adjustments, many
corporations had adjustments in the billions of dollars. These
were:3
2002 Earnings (in $millions)

Company Reported Core Difference
Boeing $ 2,107.0 $
315.5 $
2,422.5
Citicorp 15,930.0 13,708.8
2,221.2
Du Pont de Nemours 5,069.0
346.6
5,415.6
ExxonMobil 10,590.0 9,527.0
1,063.0
2
Wal-Mart and J.C. Penney annual reports; and Standard & Poor’s Stock Reports.
3
Business Week Online, 2002 index as reported by Standard & Poor’s Corporation.
Ford Motor Co.

5,297.0
8,412.7
3,115.7
General Electric 15,158.0 11,225.4
3,932.6
General Motors 1,829.0
2,363.5
4,192.5
IBM 5,657.0 287.3
5,369.7
Lockheed Martin 378.0
682.8
1,060.8
Procter & Gamble 4,228.0 2,870.2
1,357.8
SBC Communications 6,872.0 4,107.6
2,764.4
These adjustments, all more than a billion dollars, show that virtu-
ally no fundamental analysis can be accurate based on the GAAP-
approved methods of reporting. Adjustments for both Du Pont de
Nemours and IBM were over $5 billion in that first year that core
earnings calculations were performed. Without those adjustments,
investors were expected to simply accept the numbers as reported
(and still are expected to do so today). So any earnings values used
in calculating ratios based on financial reports should be based on
core earnings and not on reported earnings.
■ Basics of the Balance Sheet
The balance sheet is the proper starting point in fundamental analy-

sis. This financial report is so-called because it reports the balances
of all asset, liability, and net worth accounts on a specific date.
(This date is the same date as the end of the quarter or year re-
ported on the operating statement.) In addition, the sum of all
assets must equal the sum of liabilities plus net worth. This is ac-
complished by the fact that in the double-entry system, every trans-
action contains a debit and a credit, so that the sum of all entries is
always zero. At the end of a reporting period, the profit or loss is
‘‘closed’’ and the value transferred to net worth. This account, re-
tained earnings, becomes a part of the shareholders’ equity. Figure
6.1 summarizes the features of the balance sheet.
The figure demonstrates how the balance sheet appears in sum-
marized form. Each account’s balance is listed as a single value as
of the date of the financial report.
Current assets are those assets in the form of cash or readily

convertible to cash within 12 months (cash, accounts receiv-
able, notes receivable, marketable securities, inventory).
FIGURE 6.1. BALANCE S HEET.
Assets
Current Assets xxx
Long-Term Assets xxx
Other Assets xxx
Total Assets xxx
Liabilities
Current Liabilities xxx
Long-Term Liabilities xxx
same dollar value

Total Liabilities
Net Worth
Capital Stock xxx
Retained Earnings xxx
Total Net Worth xxx
Total Liabilities and

Net Worth xxx
Long-term assets are the capital assets of the company, net of

accumulated depreciation (real estate, vehicles, machinery, and
equipment).
Other assets include any tangible or intangible assets not in-
cluded in the other categories (prepaid or deferred assets and
intangibles, such as goodwill).
Current liabilities are all debts payable within 12 months, in-
cluding 12 months’ payments on notes and contracts.
Long-term liabilities are all liabilities payable beyond the next
12 months (notes and bonds).
Capital stock is the issued value of all outstanding shares of
stock (common and preferred stock).
Retained earnings are the accumulated net earnings or losses
during each year.
The balance sheet is the source for many important ratios.

Working capital is tested from balance sheet accounts. By defini-
tion, working capital is the net difference between current assets
and current liabilities. The trend in working capital is among the
most important fundamental tests; a company that cannot maintain
healthy working capital cannot pay its bills or finance its own
growth.
Another important area to test on the balance sheet is trends in
capitalization. A corporation funds its operations through equity
(capital stock) and debt (notes and long-term bonds). The higher
the debt, the greater the future burden on operations. Not only do
these debts have to be repaid, but interest has to be paid to debtors
as well. The greater the percentage of debt as part of total capital-
ization, the more profits have to be paid out in interest. This means
that as debt rises, less profit remains for future growth or to pay
dividends. An exceptionally high debt ratio is a sign of trouble. And
if the debt ratio is rising each year, that means the problems are
getting worse.
There is often a direct correlation between ever-growing debt
levels and core earnings adjustments. A study of the S&P Reports
for corporations like GM, Ford, and Lucent makes this point. All
have substantial volatility in reported earnings and large annual

core earnings adjustments; and all three reported large debt as a
percentage of total capitalization:4
Percentage of Debt to Total Capitalization

General
Year Motors Ford Lucent
2005 91% 83% 93%
2004 86 82 130
2003 85 88 252
2002 89 88 258
2001 79 87 20
The trend in all these instances is the key. GM reports a steadily

rising debt level and 91% of total capitalization in the form of debt.
Ford’s debt is declining but remains at 83% as of 2005. Lucent’s
case is problematical for any analyst. How (and why) did the debt
level go from 20% to 258% of total capitalization in one year? Any
year in which debt is more than 100% reveals that equity is, in fact,
negative. The decline to 93% by 2005 is a positive trend, but 93%
is exceptionally high. Only 7% of capitalization is held by share-
holders. In addition, the wild swings in the debt ratio raise suspi-
cions about the accounting practices and reporting at Lucent. A
review of other trends in the company confirms the suspicion be-
cause most important ratios have been erratic. And the trend over-
all for Lucent is negative.
■ Working Capital Tests
A few important working capital tests help you to identify growth

potential (or emerging problems) on the balance sheet. As with all
ratio analysis, it is the trend that counts and not only the latest
ratio itself. You want to find companies that consistently maintain
working capital at an acceptable level.
The first of these is the current ratio, a comparison between the
balances of current assets and current liabilities. To calculate cur-
rent ratio, divide current assets by current liabilities:
4
General Motors, Ford, and Lucent Technologies annual reports.
FORMULA: CURRENT RATIO
A
R
L
where A current assets

L current liabilities
R current ratio
The ratio is expressed as a single digit. For example, if assets

are $20 million and liabilities are $10 million, the current ratio is
2:
$20
2
$10
A popular standard for current ratio is ‘‘2 or better.’’ You would

expect to see a consistent ratio at or above 2 based on this standard.
But the current ratio is a limited indicator. In many very well-
capitalized and well-managed companies, a current ratio of 1 is
acceptable as long as the dollar values of current assets are strong
and earnings are consistent. For example, a five-year summary of
the current ratio for Altria and Merck demonstrates that well-
managed companies can do well with a current ratio lower than 2:5
Current Ratio
Year Altria Merck
2005 1.0 1.6
2004 1.1 1.1
2003 1.0 1.2
2002 0.9 1.2
2001 0.9 1.1
There may be a trend in both of these cases, but any change is very
subtle. A more important trend when it comes to working capital is
consistency. In both of these corporations, the relationship between
5
Altria and Merck annual reports.
current assets and current liabilities has remained consistent. You

do not see wide disparity from one year to the next. This controlled
fundamental volatility is a positive sign.
A closely related ratio is the quick assets ratio (also called the
acid test). This is a variation on the current ratio that excludes in-
ventory values. To compute the quick assets ratio:
FORMULA: QUICK ASSETS RATIO
AI
R
L

I inventory
R quick assets ratio
The acceptable standard for the quick assets ratio is 1. You expect
to see consistent ratios reporting equality between current assets
and current liabilities. The distinction between current ratio and
quick assets ratio becomes significant in industries with large or
widely fluctuating inventory levels, especially those where inventory
levels change frequently through the year due to sales cycles. This
makes quarterly review of the current ratio difficult and year-end
review unreliable in some instances. When this is the case, the
quick assets ratio may provide a better tracking history.
The most conservative test of working capital is the cash ratio.
This tests the highly liquid asset relationship to current obligations.
The formula:
FORMULA: CASH RATIO
CM
R
L
where C cash
M marketable securities
R cash ratio
This ratio demonstrates the highest level of liquidity. Cash and

marketable securities are immediately available to pay off debts.
As the ratio declines or approaches the ‘‘1’’ level, working capital
becomes a growing concern. A company should be able to manage
its current debts easily from its liquid assets.
The last in this group of ratios is working capital turnover. This
is an average of the number of times per year working capital is
replaced. In accounting, this concept is often used. However, it
does not mean that the actual assets and liabilities are eliminated
and replaced; it is an estimate based on comparisons between bal-
ances. The formula is:
FORMULA: WORKING CAPITAL TURNOVER
R
T
AL
where R one year’s revenue

A current assets
T working capital turnover
The result is expressed as a number representing the number of

‘‘turns.’’ For example, at the end of the year, a company reported
$27.5 billion in revenue; current assets of $4.4 billion; and current
liabilities of $2.6 billion. The working capital turnover is:
$27.5
15.3 turns
$4.4 $2.6
This reveals that working capital generated 15.3 times its net value
in annual revenues. By itself, this is not especially revealing. But as
part of a longer-term trend, as the turnover declines or grows, you
gain some idea of how effectively management plans and controls
its funds.
■ Accounts Receivable Tests
The current asset account ‘‘accounts receivable’’ represents the bal-

ance of money owed to the company by its customers. Since some
portion of receivables will eventually be written off as bad debts,
the asset is reduced by a reserve for bad debts. Periodic entries are
made into this reserve, offset by an annual bad debt expense. When
accounts receivable are identified as bad debts, they are removed
from the asset and from the reserve. The net asset consists of the
asset account, minus the bad debt reserve. For example, accounts
receivable are current $423,660 and the bad debt reserve is $7,215:
Accounts receivable 423,660

Reserve for bad debts (7,215)
Net accounts receivable 416,445
The entry to increase bad debt reserve involves a credit to the re-
serve, offset by a debt to the expense account. For example, this
year a company determines that its bad debt reserve should be in-
creased by $900:
Debit Credit
Bad debt expense 900.00
Reserve for bad debts 900.00
In the following year, if you decided that $450 is bad debt, it would
look like this:
Debit Credit
Reserve for bad debts 450.00
Accounts receivable 450.00
How much to place into the reserve is an accounting issue. Gener-

ally, a company will base its reserve decisions on its recent history
of bad debts and current and anticipated changes in activity. The
reserve is only an estimate, so actual levels are constantly adjusted.
The corporate policy regarding its reserve requirements can be
tested with the bad debts to accounts receivable ratio. This formula,
expressed as a percentage, should remain fairly level even when
receivable levels grow. So if a company’s revenues expand rapidly
(meaning accounts receivable balances are likely to grow as well),
you would not expect to see an increased percentage of bad debt
reserves. No matter what dollar value of accounts receivable is on
the books, the bad debt reserve should remain approximately the
same on a percentage basis. The formula:
FORMULA: BAD DEBTS TO ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE RATIO
B
R
A
where B bad debts reserve

A accounts receivable
R bad debts to accounts receivable ratio
Another way to track this asset is by comparing receivable levels to

credit-based sales. You expect to see a consistent relationship be-
tween the two accounts. In other words, if accounts receivable is
increasing at a greater rate than credit sales, that can spell trouble
for working capital. The accounts receivable turnover is a calcula-
tion of this relationship. The formula:
FORMULA: ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE TURNOVER
S
T
A
where S credit sales

T accounts receivable turnover
This formula may change drastically when the mix of business

changes. So a company that either acquires a new subsidiary or
spins off an operating unit might experience a change in this ratio
(and many others). As with all ratio analysis, you develop reliable
trends only when the values you use are consistent and accurate.
Another important test of how well a company is managing its

accounts receivable is the average collection period, which tests the
time required to collect debts. During times when revenues are ex-
panding rapidly, there is a tendency to relax collection efforts and
internal controls. As a consequence, you often see rapid growth
accompanied by lower net profits. The collection period ratio is:
FORMULA: AVERAGE COLLECTION PERIOD
R
D
S 365
where R accounts receivable

S annual credit sales
D average collection period (days)
For example, if the historical collection period is 48 days, but

this suddenly increases to 74 days, there is a problem in collection
procedures. Even with growth, you expect a corporation to exercise
its controls, which include diligent collection enforcement.
■ Inventory Tests
In addition to cash, marketable securities, and accounts receivable,
current assets include inventory. This is the value of goods the
company holds for sale. Inventory is most often valued at actual
cost, but numerous inventory valuation methods are in use and may
affect profits. This becomes an issue in those organizations de-
pending on significant inventory levels, notably manufacturing con-
cerns. In manufacturing, inventory may be subdivided into several
subcategories, including raw material, work in progress, and fin-
ished goods. In retail organizations, inventory tends to be turned
over rapidly, as it is stored in warehouses for fast turnaround to
retail outlets.
While inventory levels have to be expected to vary by industry,
they may also vary by season. For example, you would expect to
see higher inventory levels in the retail sector in the high-volume
holiday season, and relatively low inventory levels in the first quar-
ter. Identifying sectors can be elusive as well. For example, both
Microsoft and IBM are classified in the information technology

sector, but their typical inventory levels are quite different. This is
due to the subsector difference. Microsoft primarily sells software,
whereas IBM primarily sells hardware. As a result, IBM carries at
least twice the inventory level of Microsoft. Differences in revenue
levels also affect this comparison. In the fiscal years 2006 and
2005, the two corporations reported:6
Inventory (in $millions)

2006 2005
Microsoft $1,478 $ 491
IBM 2,841 3,316
The complexity and variation of inventory levels makes it important

that an accurate average inventory level be used in tracking inven-
tory trends. The average inventory is determined in one of several
ways. If inventory levels remain fairly consistent throughout the
year, the beginning and ending balances may be added together
and divided by 2. If quarterly levels change significantly, add quar-
ter-end values together and divide by 4. In cases where inventory
levels are quite volatile, monthly totals may be used. However,
whereas quarterly and annual inventory values are readily found on
corporate Web sites and on SEC filings, monthly totals are not as
accessible. In the majority of instances, quarterly or annual aver-
ages will be sufficient. To compute average inventory, apply this
formula:
FORMULA: AVERAGE INVENTORY
Ia Ib ... In
A
n
where I inventory value

a, b period used in calculation
n total number of periods
A average inventory
6
Microsoft and IBM annual reports.
This average is used in calculation of inventory turnover, which is

an estimate of the number of times inventory is sold and replaced.
In actual practice, the goods in inventory are not completely dis-
posed of and replaced; this is only an average. The turnover reflects
management’s efficiency at keeping inventory at the best possible
level. If inventory levels go too high, this ties up cash and adds
to storage costs and insurance. If levels go too low, it becomes
increasingly difficult to fulfill orders and revenue is lost. To calcu-
late inventory turnover:
FORMULA: INVENTORY TURNOVER
C
T
A
where C cost of goods sold (annual)

A average inventory
T turnover
Some formulas involve the use of sales in calculating inventory

turnover. This is an unreliable alternative. Sales (or revenues) are
recorded on a marked-up basis, whereas inventory is reported at
actual cost. Using the cost of goods sold is much more accurate.
So if a company reports annual cost of goods sold of $4.72 billion
and average inventory of $1.09 billion, turnover is:
$4.72
4.3 turns
$1.09
This reveals that turnover occurred 4.3 times during the year. If
the average has been in the range of 4.0 to 4.5, this is a typical year.
However, if the turnover begins to decline in future years, that may
be a sign that the company is investing too much in its inventory
and better inventory controls are required.
■ Long-Term Asset Tests

While current assets define working capital trends, long-term
assets (capital assets) may define the company’s long-term com-
mitment to growth and to creation of its own infrastructure.
By definition, a capital asset is any asset with a ‘‘useful life’’

greater than one to two years. When an asset is capitalized, it is set
up as an asset (rather than as an expense) and written off over
several years. The write-off is made in the form of annual deprecia-
tion.
To get information on depreciation rules and calculations, go to the Web
site of the Internal Revenue Service, at www.irs.ustreas.gov and order form
4562 (depreciation instructions).
The IRS publishes charts with precalculated depreciation in

many recovery classes. This includes depreciation for vehicles, ma-
chinery and equipment, and real estate. The basic formulas for cal-
culating the best-known and most often used forms of depreciation
are summarized below.
The easiest calculation is for straight-line depreciation, in which
the same amount is deducted each year. The asset is divided by the
number of years in the recovery period, and the result is the dollar
amount of straight-line depreciation deducted each year. The for-
mula:
FORMULA: STRAIGHT-LINE DEPRECIATION
A
D
R
where A basis of asset

R recovery period
D annual depreciation
For example, a company purchases an asset worth $189,000. Its

recovery period is seven years. Straight-line depreciation is:
$189,000
$27,000
7
A variation on this is declining-balance depreciation, which is cal-

culated using either 150% or 200% of the straight-line method.
For example, under the 200% method (200DB), the first year’s
depreciation is doubled; the basis for depreciation in the following
year is the original basis minus the depreciation previously written
off. The formula for declining-balance depreciation is:
FORMULA: DECLINING-BALANCE DEPRECIATION
冉 BP
R
冊
AD
where B basis of asset

P prior depreciation deducted
R recovery period
A acceleration percentage
For example, a company purchases an asset for $189,000 and its

recovery period is seven years. The annual depreciation for the first
year using 200DB is:
$189,000 $0
200% $54,000
7
For the second year:
$189,000 $54,000
200% $38,571
7
The rules for deducting depreciation in the first year reduce the
claimed amount, based on when the asset was purchased during
the year. The same calculations using 150DB would be:
year 1: (($189,000 $ 0) 7 ) 150% $40,500

year 2: (($189,000 $40,500) 7 ) 150% $31,821
■ Capitalization
A lot of confusion arises about the concept of ‘‘capitalization,’’

which often is confused with the vastly different ‘‘capital.’’ A com-
pany’s capital (or capital stock) is the value of shares sold to inves-
tors and outstanding. But capitalization includes capital as well as
long-term debt. A company funds its operation through a combina-
tion of two sources: equity (capital) and debt (bonds and notes).
This is important because the makeup of capitalization varies
considerably among companies within a single sector and between
stocks that otherwise might look the same. You previously saw how
the debt ratio (the percentage of debt to total capitalization) can
and does vary widely. A high debt ratio demands a higher level of
interest payments. In analysis of a company’s balance sheet, the
trend in the debt ratio is equally important. When you see a debt
ratio emerge over a period of years in a very negative manner, it
should provide you with a serious warning. For example, the trend
shown for GM, Ford, and Lucent earlier in this chapter makes the
point: When debt increases over time as a percentage of total capi-
talization, it is a highly negative indicator for equity investors.
A related indicator is the dividend payout ratio (also called divi-
dend cover). This ratio compares dividends actually paid to earn-
ings per share. As an investor, you hope to see a steady growth
in both earnings and dividends over several years. This does not
necessarily mean the dividend payout ratio has to increase each
year, but as earnings grow, the percentage of dividend payout per
share should remain the same. When you see this slipping over
several years, it is a negative sign. The formula for dividend payout
ratio is:
FORMULA: DIVIDEND PAYOUT RATIO
D
R
E

R dividend payout ratio
Both sides of the formula should be based on annual totals. And

the same result is also found dividing actual dollar amounts of divi-
dends and earnings. The per-share formula is more easily available
and provides the more popular method for computation.
The dividend payout ratio provides you with a snapshot of a
company’s growth (positive or negative) over time. It is particularly
revealing to compare payout ratio with debt ratio side by side. The
most negative trend is in effect when you see debt ratio rising while
dividend payout ratio declines each year.
A summary of dividend payout ratio for two tobacco companies
reveals different trends in each:
Dividend Payout Ratio
Reynolds
Year Altria American
2005 60% 63%
2004 62 34
2003 58 —
2002 47 80
2001 57 74
The interesting thing to observe in this side-by-side summary of

the payout ratio is how the two companies differ. Altria’s ratio has
been fairly consistent, while Reynolds American’s has been quite
erratic. During the same period, Altria’s debt ratio declined from
35% in 2001 to 24% at the end of 2005. Reynolds American’s
grew, but not by much. It went from 14% up to 18%.
Another comparison worth making is between two drug com-
panies:
Dividend Payout Ratio
Abbott
Year Merck Labs
2005 72% 50%
2004 57 51
2003 50 55
2002 45 51
2001 44 83
Important differences can be observed here as well. Merck’s

dividend payout ratio has been steady and, in 2005, jumped far
ahead of the trend. Abbott Labs, in comparison, has a much smaller

percentage payout over the same period. During this five-year pe-
riod, Merck’s debt ratio changed very little, remaining at or near
20% the entire time. Abbott Labs’ debt ratio declined from 32%
down to 23%, a very positive indicator.
The dividend payout ratio is an important test, not only of capi-
talization and cash flow, but also of very real growth. Even when a
company’s earnings per share grows over many years, if the divi-
dend payout ratio slips and fails to keep pace, that is a very negative
indicator. It is revealing to make comparisons within a market sec-
tor in order to make sound judgments about companies.
A final capitalization ratio worth checking is market capitaliza-
tion, which is the overall value of stock on the market. It summa-
rizes the actual market value based on what investors are willing to
pay for stock. It has nothing to do with market value per share. For
example, a company with one million shares selling for $40 per
share is worth exactly the same as another company with two mil-
lion shares selling for $20 per share. So you cannot rely on the
share price to compare one company to another. When you per-
form side-by-side comparisons of companies, you need to look at
market capitalization to make a valid analysis. The formula:
FORMULA: MARKET CAPITALIZATION
SPC
where S shares issued and outstanding

P price per share
C market capitalization
The distinctions in the market regarding market capitalization

are important because they define risk levels, price volatility, and
investment desirability. Some investors diversify their portfolios
based on market capitalization, for example. The largest corpora-
tions (mega cap) report market capitalization of $200 billion or
more; while the exact size of different levels is not precise, large
cap generally covers a range between $10 to $200 billion; mid cap
$2 to $10 billion; and small cap any company with market capital-
ization under $2 billion.
The study of capitalization and ‘‘size’’ of the company is easily
misunderstood. Many investors make quick decisions based on
stock price alone, believing that an $80 stock is more valuable than
a $70 stock, without regard to market capitalization. A test worth
making to further quantify the value of a company is the common
stock ratio, or the percentage of total capitalization represented by
common stock. This is the offset of the debt ratio if there is no
preferred stock or other components to total capitalization. You
can track the stock value of a company over time, which essentially
reflects not only the book value of common equity, but also the
market success of the stock. If a company’s stock has risen in value
over time, its common stock ratio will rise as well. The formula:
FORMULA: COMMON STOCK RATIO
S
R
C
where S common stock issued and outstanding

R common stock ratio
The comparison between common stock and debt will be re-

vealing over a period of years. When the common stock ratio de-
clines over time, it is just as negative as seeing the debt ratio climb.
When you see a consistent record over time, that indicates capital
strength. For example, Wal-Mart’s common stock ratio has re-
mained between 63% and 67% for the five fiscal years of 2002
through 2006, a period of great market change and price volatility,
especially in the retail sector. The consistency of the ratio is reas-
suring to investors.
■ Tangible and Total Book Value
A final area worth testing—and often overlooked entirely—is the

test of actual book value of a company. Three tests are important.
First is the basic book value per share. This is a calculation of the
per-share value of what the company reports. The net worth of a
company is supposed to represent real value, although important
adjustments often need to be made. The formula for book value per
share is:
FORMULA: BOOK VALUE PER SHARE
NP
B
S
where N net worth

P preferred stock
S average shares issued and outstanding
B book value per share
The preferred stock value is removed from total equity because the
usual calculation of book value is understood on a ‘‘per common
share’’ basis. When preferred stock value is substantial, it would
distort the calculation. Calculating ‘‘average’’ shares outstanding
requires an averaging between the beginning and end of the year
and weighting that average to reflect a true average. For example,
if a new issue occurred near the beginning of the fiscal year, it
would have to be weighted to reflect a true overall average for the
entire year.
A variation on this formula is tangible book value per share,
which is isolated to only the tangible assets. Many corporations
assign substantial value to goodwill and other intangible assets, dis-
torting the value of the company’s real book value. In comparing
one company to another, variations in the value of intangible assets
will make comparisons invalid. For this reason, tangible book value
is more popularly used. The formula:
FORMULA: TANGIBLE BOOK VALUE PER SHARE
NPI
B
S
where N net worth

P preferred stock
I intangible assets
B tangible book value per share
This formula includes one additional adjustment to the previous

one, which is the removal of intangible assets from the net worth
side of the equation. While book value often has little to do with the
current market value of the stock, it is an important element worth
tracking. For example, GM reported $18.12 tangible book value
per share at the end of 2005, but a year earlier it had been $40.35.
Shareholders suffered a decline of over half the company’s book
value in a single year.
Finally, the core tangible book value per share tells the real
story. But information is not easy to find because core net worth is
not reported in research reports or in company annual reports. The
formula:
FORMULA: CORE TANGIBLE BOOK VALUE PER SHARE
N P I () C
B
S
where N net worth

P preferred stock
I intangible assets
C core net worth adjustments
B core tangible book value per share
The only way to calculate this is based on news stories concern-

ing unlisted liabilities. For example, it has been widely reported that
as of 2005, GM owed $37 billion in pension liabilities. Its own
annual report footnoted this amount, but it does not show up as a
liability. Based on what is shown by GM, core tangible net worth
would be negative if the $37 billion is assumed to have remained
unchanged between 2004 and 2005:
General Motors, Net Worth (in $millions)
Year Reported Adjustment Core Net Worth
2004 $14,597 $
37,000 $
22,403
2005 27,726
37,000
9,274
Based on this simplified analysis of reported versus core tangible

earnings, GM has a negative core earnings per share. This is an
extreme case, but it points out the glaring flaws in the accepted
reporting standards and rules. The reality of a situation, as reflected
by the core tangible net worth, is that a company may have a nega-
tive value, but the accounting rules allow it to report positive value.
There are many valuable tests you can perform based on the
balance sheet, and these have been summarized in this chapter. The
next chapter looks at the most valuable ratios to perform on the
operating statement. This is where you judge and compare reve-
nues and earnings.
C H A P T E R 7
Fundamentals
Operating Statement Tests You Need
to Know
T he previous chapter explained analysis of balance sheet ac-

counts. That statement reports on the balances of asset, liability,
and capital accounts as of a fixed date, usually the end of a quarter
or year. The operating statement is a summary of a series of trans-
actions over a period of time, ending on a specific date. The period
covered by the operating statement normally ends on the same date
on which the balance sheet is prepared.
These two statements represent what most people are familiar
with in terms of financial reporting. The balance sheet (ending date
balances) and the operating statement (summary of transactions
for a period of time) are supposed to reveal to you all that you
need to know in order to make an informed opinion and to develop
comparative value judgments about companies. For this, funda-
mental analysis is based on a series of ratios and formulas intended
to produce a shorthand version of the transactions (by way of per-
centages, ratio index values, and numbers of turns). These repre-
sentations are best reviewed under the following guidelines:
1. Every ratio you use is best viewed as part of a long-term trend.

The ratio by itself can be compared to a universally accepted
133
standard, compared to your own goals, or looked at as the lat-

est entry in a long-term trend. The longer the trend, the easier
it is to understand the significance of the ratio. Even a two-year
comparison has limited value compared to a five-year or a ten-
year historical record.
2. You need to take steps to ensure that comparisons are valid and
accurate. The problem with the fundamentals is their very com-
plexity and variation. Validity is not as easily found as every
investor would like. If one company has significant core earn-
ings adjustments and another does not, it makes little sense to
compare the reported numbers without adjusting them to the
same basis (core earnings).
3. Your ratios and formulas should reveal meaningful facts about
risk and potential. Any number of ratios can be used, but you
should be sure you know how to interpret the results. What
does a ratio reveal about the company? How can you equate a
specific ratio in terms of income potential and risk? These are
the key questions to ask about every ratio and every trend.
4. Your program of fundamental analysis should employ a range of
ratios and never a single indicator by itself. Analysis becomes
valuable when you review an entire series of trends, each devel-
oped from ratio tests. This does not mean you need to get an
accounting education. In fact, using a handful of well-selected
ratios is easy, and much of the work may be done for you al-
ready. Using a well-structured analytical service like the S&P
Stock Reports provides a 10-year summary and includes most
of the ratios you are likely to want in your program.
5. Remember, a set of conclusions for one industry may not be
comparable to the same conclusions in another industry. One of
the most common errors is to develop a series of assumptions
about what outcomes should be, and then apply those assump-
tions to all companies. The truth is that every sector and sub-
sector involves companies in particular industry groups, and
these are, by definition, different from the companies in other
sectors. Once you have decided which set of ratios to use, it
makes sense to go through a review of an entire industry, de-
Fundamentals: Operating Statement Tests 135
velop a working idea of the standards, and adjust your expecta-

tions based on those standards. Even the most basic ratios,
such as the percentage of earnings, gross profit, expense levels,
and other well-known tests, are going to be different between
industries.
6. The value judgments you develop should be employed as part of
a specific goal. When you begin to invest, you need to set goals
for yourself. Most people understand this in terms of price ap-
preciation, and they set goals based on that: ‘‘If the stock dou-
bles in value, I will sell’’ or ‘‘If I lose 25%, I will cut my losses’’
are common price-based goal statements. The same strategic
approach works with the fundamentals as well, and may be
based on the ratios themselves, involving tests of working capi-
tal, capitalization ratios, revenue and earnings growth, or—in
the best approach of all—a combination of all these critical
areas of analysis.
■ The Basics of the Operating Statement
The operating statement summarizes revenues, costs and expenses,

and earnings for a specified period of time. That time is usually a
fiscal quarter or year, and the report normally includes the current
period and the previous period so that comparisons are readily
made. In corporate financial statements, the major expenses are
summarized in a single line, so detailed analysis requires further
investigation (this often means contacting the company’s share-
holder relations department and requesting breakdowns beyond
what is shown on the published financial statement).
The components of the operating statement are summarized in
Figure 7.1.
Because there are so many divisions to the operating statement,
it is imperative to understand which line is being discussed and
compared. ‘‘Earnings’’ should mean the same thing when compar-
ing one company to another. The operating profit is normally used
to report earnings per share, but important distinctions have to be
made between the various kinds of margins found on the operating
FIG U RE 7.1 . OP ERAT ING STATEMENT.
Company Name
Operating Statement
For the period January 1, 20xx
through December 31, 20xx
Revenues xxx
Less: Cost of Goods Sold –xxx
Gross Profit xxx

Less: Expenses –xxx
Operating Profit xxx

Plus (minus) Other
Income and Expenses xxx
Pretax Profit xxx

Less: Provision for
Income Taxes –xxx
After-Tax Profit xxx
statement. These distinctions are shown later in this chapter. Below

is a brief summary of operating statement divisions and terms:
Revenue. The top line is revenue (sales), and it is perhaps the

best-known line and most often watched indicator on the op-
erating statement. As a general observation, many people be-
lieve that as long as revenues are rising each year, all is well.
But in reality, you are also likely to see rising revenue accompa-
nied by falling earnings (net profits). That indicates that growth

in terms of rising revenues is not always a positive attribute; it
is always better when revenues and earnings both rise.
Cost of goods sold. This segment of the operating statement is
the sum of several accounts. These include merchandise pur-
chased for sale (or manufacture), freight, direct labor (salaries
and wages paid to employees directly generating revenues),
and a change in inventory levels from the beginning to the end
of the period. A distinction is made between costs and ex-
penses. Costs are expected to track revenues closely, and the
percentage of costs should remain about the same even when
revenue levels change. In comparison, expenses are assumed
to be unresponsive to revenues. In situations where companies
expand into new markets or product areas merge with other
companies, expense levels will naturally change as well. But ex-
penses can and should be controlled so that ever-greater profits
can be achieved in periods of revenue growth.
Gross profit. This subtotal is the dollar amount of revenues
minus costs. The percentage of gross profit is called gross mar-
gin. Just as direct costs should track sales closely, the gross
profit should do the same. When you see a widely fluctuating
gross margin from one period to the next, further analysis is
required. Possible reasons include seasonal change, merger or
acquisition, development of a new product line, sale of an op-
erating unit, changes in inventory valuation method, or lack of
internal controls.
Expenses. This category is the most varied and complex. It in-
cludes all money going out of the company as well as debts
owed at the end of the period that are not direct in relation to
revenue production. The distinction between direct costs and
expenses is quite important in financial statement analysis be-
cause you expect, as a general rule, to see actual internal con-
trols having the greatest impact in this portion of the operating
statement. This relationship is demonstrated in Figure 7.2.
Note how the changes occur as revenue and costs increase or
decrease. First, revenue and costs track on the same trend, as
you would expect. Skip to the bottom and you see the area of
FIGURE 7.2. OPERATING S TATEMENT RELATIONSHIPS—WITH CONTROLLED

EX PENS ES .
Revenue
Cost
Profit Margin
Expenses
expenses, which is flat as you would expect. If this trend contin-

ues, the profit margin grows when revenues grow, and shrinks
when revenues shrink.
Now consider what happens when expenses are not con-
trolled. In that situation, the level of expenses tends to rise over
time and does not retreat if and when revenues decline. As a
consequence, the profit margin shrinks even when revenues
rise and shrinks severely when revenues fall. This relationship
is summarized in Figure 7.3. Note how much difference gradu-
ally increasing expenses makes. Expenses rise regardless of rev-
enue and cost trends. At the end of the chart, revenues decline
so that the profit margin shrinks considerably. Finally, it ends
up in the territory of net losses. When a company experiences
a net loss, it is usually due to a combination of events, including
reduced revenues, nonrecurring adjustments or noncore
losses, and—most severe of all—uncontrolled expenses.
The level of expenses can also be further subdivided, al-
though the published annual reports and financial statements
do not always provide these details. For example, two major
subdivisions are selling expenses (those expenses related to
FIGURE 7.3. OPERATING STATEMENT RELATIONSHIPS—WITH UNCONTROLLED

EXPENSES.
Revenue
Costs
Profit Margin
Net Loss
Expenses
generation of sales, but not as directly as direct costs) and gen-

eral and administrative expenses, also called overhead. These
expenses recur each year regardless of revenue levels, and in-
clude administrative salaries and wages, rent, office telephone,
and office supplies, for example.
Operating profit. This is the profit from operations, which, in
most instances, will be the same as (or close to) S&P-defined
core earnings. If the company has done a good job of isolating
nonoperating expenses below this line, then this is a reliable
number, but companies do not always make these matters
clear. In fact, they may be obscured by an application of incon-
sistent standards, even with the blessing of the GAAP system.
Another problem arises from the fact that published earnings
per share are usually computed on the bottom line (after-tax
profit), which is likely to include an array of nonoperational
items. To gauge the significance of this distortion, compare the
EPS on a reported basis with the EPS on a core earnings basis.
For example, compare reported EPS and CEPS for three cor-
porations over five years:1
1
Annual statements and Standard & Poor’s Stock Reports.
Earnings per Share

Lucent IBM Motorola
Year Reported Core Reported Core Reported Core
2005 $ 0.24 $ 0.06 $4.91 $3.93 $ 1.82 $ 1.18
2004 0.42 0.19 4.94 4.06 0.90 0.78
2003
0.29 0.50 4.34 3.00 0.38 0.08
2002
3.51
4.86 3.07 0.08
1.09
0.93
2001
4.18
3.87 4.35 1.33
1.78
2.23
These comparisons between reported EPS and CEPS demon-

strate that the changes are all over the board. So while operat-
ing profit is assumed to be the most reliable core earnings
number (assuming it is truly an operating profit not affected by
core earnings adjustments), the actual EPS reported by corpo-
rations and used by analysts is highly unreliable in many in-
stances.
Other income and expenses. Following the operating profit are
a series of additional adjustments, all part of the noncore or
nonoperational section. In an ideal world, all core earnings ad-
justments would show up here, so that the operating profit
could be a universally understood, consistent number. But be-
cause so many core earnings adjustments involve expenses not
listed on the operating statement, this is not likely to occur any
time in the near future. Other income includes profits from the
sale of capital assets, currency exchange adjustments, interest
income, and the sale of operating units. Other expenses in-
cludes losses from the sale of capital assets, currency exchange
losses, interest expenses, and other noncore forms of income.
Pretax profit. When you add or subtract the net difference be-
tween other income and other expenses from operating profit,
you find the pretax net profit. This is the value often used in
analysis to report net earnings, but because it includes the ef-
fect of other income and expenses, this is less than accurate;
and when comparing return on sales among different compa-
nies, there will be a lot of variation in the pretax profit.
Provision for income taxes. Companies set up reserves to pay
income taxes, and this provision appears here as the second-
to-last line of the operating statement. This value can change
considerably and for a number of reasons. First, a company

may be reducing its tax liability with carryover losses. Second,
tax reporting is not always the same as GAAP reporting, so
differences in the taxable net income or loss will affect the pro-
vision. Third, companies operating in foreign countries may
pay a higher or lower overall tax rate depending on their mix
of profits. Fourth, companies based in states that do not tax
corporate profits will pay lower taxes than those in states with
state-level income tax laws on the books.
After-tax profit. This is the ‘‘net net’’ profit or loss, the bottom
line most often used to calculate EPS. The problem with this is
that, as the previous explanations demonstrated, the after-tax
profit is subject to many accounting interpretations, nonrecur-
ring and noncore adjustments, and other factors, making a true
comparison between companies less than reliable. Only the op-
erating profit provides an approximation of outcome that can
be treated as comparable, but EPS is usually reported on the
basis of the bottom line, so investors get a distorted view of a
company and its value and profitability.
■ Revenue Trends
Beginning at the top line of the operating statement, analysis begins

by tracking revenue trends. Just about every analyst wants to see
revenues grow each year. However, each sector involves competing
companies and finite markets, so it is not realistic to expect every
well-managed company to increase its revenue every year without
fail.
Even when corporate revenues do grow, investors and analysts
may have unrealistic expectations about the rate of growth. In other
words, if a company increased revenues by 5% the first year, 10%
percent the second year, and 15% the last year, should you expect
a 20% growth rate this year? All statistics tend to level off over
time, but that does not mean a slowdown in the rate of growth is
bad news; it is simply reality.
The most popular method for tracking revenue is by year-to-
year percentage change (up or down) in revenues. This is a reason-
able method for tracking revenues because it ignores the dollar

amount and reduces growth to a simple percentage. If a company’s
annual growth rate remains consistent or shows little change, that
is far more positive in the long term than the less realistic demand
for ever-higher rates of growth. To calculate the rate of growth in
revenue, the formula is:
FORMULA: RATE OF GROWTH IN REVENUE
CP
R
P
where C current year revenue

P past year revenue
R rate of growth in revenue
It is more revealing to compare rate of growth (plus or minus)

than to review the dollar values of revenue from year to year. To
demonstrate this, consider the case of three companies in the infor-
mation technology sector (communications equipment subsector).
First, the dollar value of revenue over a five-year period:2
Revenue (in $millions)

Lucent Harris
Year Technologies Avaya Corp.
2005 $9,441 $4,902 $3,001
2004 9,045 4,069 2,519
2003 8,470 4,338 2,093
2002 12,321 4,956 1,876
2001 21,294 6,793 1,955
At first glace, it appears that Lucent, as the largest volume producer

among these competing companies, may be the best capitalized and
offer the greatest growth potential. But in any revenue analysis, you
also need to closely review profitability, and, as you will see later in
this chapter, Lucent’s high revenue volume is not sufficient to draw
any conclusions. In terms of overall growth in revenue, the analysis
2
Lucent Technologies, Avaya, and Harris Corporation annual reports.
takes on a clearer significance when reviewed in terms of year-to-

year change:
Change in Revenue
Lucent Harris
2005 4.4% 20.5% 19.1%
2004 6.8
6.2 20.4
2003
31.3
12.5 11.6
2002
42.1
27.0
4.0
2001
37.0
11.5 8.2
An analyst looking at the dollar values of revenue might conclude

that both Avaya and Harris are relatively small companies com-
pared to Lucent, and not worthy candidates for long-term growth.
If you were to base your analysis solely on revenue trends, it is
possible to isolate only bigger-volume corporations in this manner.
However, both Lucent and Avaya reported rates of revenue growth
in negative double digits for three of the five years. Only Harris,
the smallest of the three companies in this comparison, showed
positive results, with plus-side double digit growth in three of the
five years. While this conclusion is possible with a review of dollar
values, it is more readily apparent when you review the rates rather
than the dollars.
■ Earnings Trends
The trends in actual growth should not be restricted to revenue but

should include earnings as well. Only in this way can you under-
stand the importance of revenue growth. If a company reports in-
creases in revenue but losses in the same years, that is far from a
positive outcome.
The study of earnings can be done on a percentage basis just
as revenues can be, and you will gain greater insight into the trend
by performing an analysis on this basis. Using net profits to con-
form to the common practice among analysts is not acceptable,
because of the potential for large core earnings adjustments. Ac-
cordingly, there are two formulas involved in the analysis of earn-
ings. The traditional rate of growth in earnings is calculated with

this formula:
FORMULA: RATE OF GROWTH IN NET EARNINGS
CP
E
P
where C current year net earnings

P past year net earnings
E rate of growth in net earnings
Using the same companies as used in the revenue example, the

dollar value of traditional earnings was:
Net Earnings (in $millions)

Lucent Harris
2005 $ 1,185 $ 923 $202
2004 2,002 291 126
2003
770
88 60
2002
11,826
666 83
2001
14,170
352 21
When the same results are expressed by rate of change, the picture
becomes clearer:
Change in Net Earnings

Lucent Harris
2005
40.8% 217.2% 60.3%
2004 360.0 355.7 110.0
2003 93.5 86.8 27.7
2002 20.4
47.1 295.2
2001
943.0 6.1
16.0
A more accurate rendition of earnings requires analysis of core

earnings rather than reported net earnings. The formula for rate of
growth in core earnings is:
FORMULA: RATE OF GROWTH IN CORE EARNINGS
CC PC
E
PC
where CC current year core earnings

PC past year core earnings
E rate of growth in core earnings
For these companies, the dollar-value outcomes were:
Core Earnings (in $millions)

Lucent Harris
2005 $ 202 $ 876 $188
2004 754 252 120
2003
1,980
125 41
2002
16,627
997 37
2001
13,160
257
61
There are substantial differences between reported earnings and

core earnings for Lucent; in fact, the overall adjustment for five
years exceeded $7.2 billion. This means that under the GAAP
method, profits were overstated (or, more precisely, losses were
understated) by $7.2 billion. In comparison, the same adjustments
for Avaya and Harris were negligible. On a rate of growth basis, the
core outcomes were:
Change in Core Earnings

Lucent Harris
2005
73.2% 247.6% 65.8%
2004 138.1 301.6 192.7
2003 880.9 87.5 10.8
2002
26.3
287.9 160.7
2001 NA NA NA
The 2001 changes were not available, since core earnings calcula-
tions date back only to 2001. Note in this comparison that only
minor percentage changes applied to Avaya and Harris, whereas

Lucent’s core earnings changes were highly volatile. In addition,
Harris—the smallest of the three—reported positive core earnings
growth through the entire five-year period.
These types of analysis—using percentage changes and com-
paring revenues to core earnings—provide the most meaningful
conclusions on top-line and bottom-line change over time. This is
the most reliable operating statement trend analysis, especially
when you understand the flaws in GAAP reporting and how those
flaws distort the fundamental analysis itself.
■ Revenue Compared to Direct Costs and Expenses
Within the operating statement, you will find additional valuable

information for selecting companies. To better understand the
causes of trends in revenue and earnings, begin with an analysis of
the relationship between revenue and gross profit. If the gross
profit is inconsistent from year to year, you can expect to see a
corresponding inconsistency in reported profits or losses.
Direct costs—expenditures that are related specifically to gen-
eration of revenues—should remain constant from year to year.
The costs—including merchandise as the primary element—will
change in percentage terms only due to changes in valuation meth-
ods for inventory, catastrophic inventory losses, or changes in the
mix of business. A change can be brought about through mergers
or as a consequence of selling off an operating segment. But as-
suming that none of those unusual events occur, you should be able
to track direct costs and gross profit and see consistency from year
to year.
When you deduct direct costs from revenue, you find the gross
profit. The percentage of gross profit to revenue is called gross mar-
gin. The formula for checking the gross margin is:
FORMULA: GROSS MARGIN
G
M
R
where G gross profit

R revenue
M gross margin
For example, IBM reported revenues, direct costs, and gross profit
for three years as:3
In $millions
2005 2004 2003
Revenue $91,134 $96,293 $89,131
Direct costs 54,602 60,724 56,584
Gross profit $36,532 $35,569 $32,547
Gross margin 40.1% 36.9% 36.5%
The consistency of gross margin in this example makes the

point that direct costs as a percentage of revenue should not vary
greatly from year to year. So from 2003 to 2004, gross margin
changed by only 0.4%; and from 2004 to 2005, it changed only
3.2%.
The analysis becomes even more revealing when expenses are
studied in relation to revenue, and when changes in expenses are
reviewed on a percentage basis. The formula for rate of growth in
expenses is:
FORMULA: RATE OF GROWTH IN EXPENSES
CP
E
P
where C current year expenses

P past year expenses
E rate of growth in expenses
IBM’s summary showed the following for expenses:

In $millions
2005 2004 2003
Expenses $27,156 $25,953 $23,915
Rate of growth 5.0% 8.5%
3
IBM annual reports.
While a short-term analysis such as this provides only limited infor-

mation, it allows you to view the trend and to better understand
how the top and bottom lines have evolved. To a degree, changes
in expense levels are also going to be a factor of changes in revenue.
While expense levels are not directly related to revenue, they have
to be expected to change to some degree as revenue moves. In the
example, IBM’s revenue grew more than $7 billion from 2003 to
2004, and then fell more than $5 billion in 2005. Some effect has
to be expected in expense levels. For this reason, expenses also need
to be reviewed through the formula for ratio of expenses to revenue,
which is:
FORMULA: RATIO OF EXPENSES TO REVENUE
E
P
R
where E expenses
R revenue
P ratio (percentage)
In the case of IBM, this ratio for the three years shown was:
In $millions
2005 2004 2003
Revenue $91,134 $96,293 $89,131
Expenses 27,156 25,953 23,915
Ratio 29.8% 27.0% 26.8%
The change from year to year is insignificant in this case, indicating

that internal controls are being well enforced. Recalling the volatil-
ity in revenue levels for the three years, the consistency in the ex-
pense ratio is a very positive sign.
A final level of analysis is based on the operating profit. The
previous formulas show how the items between the top and bottom
lines are studied, and how they affect the overall results. The opera-
ting profit—assumed to be the profit from all core activities or,
as most companies refer to it, from continuing operations—is the
number to watch when trying to quantify growth potential. The

first of two formulas to study is the rate of growth in operating
profit, which is not the same as the previously introduced rate of
growth in net earnings. That formula includes all other income and
expenses and is normally based on the after-tax profit. Operating
profit is limited to earnings from operations and is computed by
the following formula:
FORMULA: RATE OF GROWTH IN OPERATING PROFIT
CP
R
P
where C current year operating profit

P past year operating profit
R rate of growth in operating profit
IBM’s operating profit is computed by subtracting expenses from

gross profit. The company reported the following operating profit
for three years:
In $millions
2005 2004 2003
Operating profit $9,376 $9,616 $8,632
Rate of growth
2.5% 11.4%
An additional formula is equally important for long-term trend

watching. This is the operating profit margin, which is:
FORMULA: OPERATING PROFIT MARGIN
E
M
R
where E expenses
R revenue
M operating profit margin
For example, IBM reports its three-year outcome as:
In $millions
2005 2004 2003
Revenue $91,134 $96,293 $89,131
Direct costs 54,602 60,724 56,584
Gross profit $36,532 $35,569 $32,547
Expenses 27,156 25,953 23,915
Operating profit $9,376 $9,616 $8,632
Margin 10.3% 10.0% 9.7%
Even with the volatility in revenue, the company produced very

consistent operating profits during these three years. It should be
clear from an evaluation of these many versions of ‘‘income,’’
‘‘profits,’’ and ‘‘earnings’’ that the many terms only confuse the
issue. The accounting industry is a passive and reactive culture; it
is not in its interests to improve the terminology used in financial
reporting, although it should be. Ultimately, it will be up to corpo-
rate leaders to achieve true transparency.
As an investor, you ensure that your comparisons are truly valid
by following these guidelines:
1. Study the terminology to ensure that you’re using comparable

values. Not every company uses the same phrasing for the vari-
ous levels on the operating statement. One may refer to net
income, another to income from continuing operations. But are
these truly comparable? The value used affects not only return
on sales, but also P/E ratio and EPS, among the important
ratios popularly followed.
2. Remove noncore income and add excluded expenses to reported
earnings, to ensure accuracy. The inclusion of noncore income
and exclusion of core expenses is a significant problem in the
accounting/auditing culture and in the corporate reporting cul-
ture as well. Unfortunately, the reporting formats considered
official and correct are unreliable and misleading. You need to
seek out the true core earnings from operations to develop reli-
able long-term trends.
3. Pay close attention to the differences between reported and core

earnings. You will discover in reviewing the long-term trends
for many companies that there is a close relationship between
core earnings adjustments and volatility (both in revenues and
in stock prices). As a general rule, companies with relatively
high core earnings adjustments are also going to experience
higher than average stock price volatility. And those with low
core earnings adjustments will be far less volatile. Rather than
simply accepting reported net earnings, use the core earnings
value as the most reliable indicator of where earnings are lead-
ing into the future.
The relationship between the fundamentals and a stock’s price

volatility is direct. The two camps (fundamental and technical)
complement one another, and should not be thought of as different
or separate. The next chapter provides you with valuable technical
formulas that can be used, along with fundamental tests, to evaluate
risks and to pick stocks.
C H A P T E R 8
Technicals
Price and Volume Calculations
he fundamentals involve financial statements, earnings re-
T ports, dividend declarations and payments, and other financially

based information. As such, fundamental analysis involves looking
backward to the historical facts in order to develop a sense of the
trends and estimate where the future is heading. In comparison,
technical analysis is based on today’s price and volume facts and is
focused on how trading trends affect price.
In using technical factors, it is wise to keep a few guidelines in
mind:
1. Technical and fundamental analysis can be used together for

cross-confirmation. The various indicators you track in a fun-
damental program often work well when augmented with spe-
cific technical indicators and ratios. Neither point of view has
an exclusive on being right more than the other; all analysis
involves estimates. The more valid information you employ, the
better. Looking to historical information exclusively and ignor-
ing current price trends is a mistake, and restricting your analy-
sis to price without also checking profitability and capital
strength is equally misguided.
153
2. Technical trends are valuable for identifying risk levels. Even

when a company has adequate capitalization and a strong and
consistent record of managing debt, creating higher revenue
and earnings, and paying dividends, this does not tell the whole
story. If you check price volatility, you discover that many com-
panies that are equal in terms of fundamental strength often
have far different volatility levels. This defines market risk and
is a factor you cannot afford to ignore. Based on your individ-
ual risk profile, you might prefer low-volatility stocks, or be
willing to accept greater volatility in order to also expose your-
self to greater profit potential.
3. Many technical trends signal changes in fundamental trends.
Many investors believe that the fundamentals and technicals
operate distinctly and differently from each other. But you can-
not ignore either side because they work interchangeably. A
change in stock price volatility often foreshadows surprises in
earnings reports, for example. The tendency is to think that
earnings news creates reaction in price, which may be true, but
the action-reaction cycle works in the other direction as well.
■ The Basics of Technical Analysis
Technical analysis is premised on one feature: the stock’s price and

trends in price movement. A related feature, volume, is also consid-
ered in interpreting stock price movement. A primary feature of
technical analysis is the attempt to anticipate the next direction a
stock’s price is likely to move, and to invest either long or short
accordingly; to time not only purchase decisions, but sale or hold
decisions as well; and to improve the percentage of correct timing
estimates based on techniques such as chart watching, price and
volume formulas, and observation of price trading ranges.
The underlying premise of technical analysis is found in the
Dow Theory. Although this theory is most often applied to market-
wide indices like the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA), its pre-
cepts can also be used to technically analyze individual stocks.
Charles Dow, cofounder of Dow Jones & Company, developed
the initial theory in the 1880s and 1890s. Originally, Dow intended
Technicals 155
his theories to be applied to business models in predicting revenue

and other financial trends. Dow was also interested in tracking his
theories to predict market movements, and he developed the con-
cept of using an index of typical stocks to track and develop trends.
Dow himself did not develop what is today known as the Dow The-
ory. After his death in 1902, Samuel Nelson, an associate, pub-
lished a book called The ABCs of Stock Speculation. In this book,
Nelson referred to many of Charles Dow’s essays as a premise for
predicting market change.
The basic premise of the Dow Theory is that stock prices tend
to act in concert; when the trend is upward, the overall market
trends in that direction, and vice versa. So a limited number of
market leaders can be identified and most other stocks will follow
the lead established by those influential companies. This led to the
identification of 30 stocks that today make up the best-known aver-
age, the DJIA. Taken together, these 30 companies represent about
25% of the total value of all companies listed on the New York
Stock Exchange (NYSE).1
Under the Dow Theory, some very specific concepts mandate
how trend analysis takes place. There are three recognized trends
that technicians track. First is the daily trend, also called the mar-
ket’s tertiary movement, which is not reliable for the purposes of
developing actual longer-term trends. Second is a 20-to-60-day
trend, also called a secondary movement and reflecting current
sentiment. Finally, a primary movement represents the overall
long-term market sentiment and may last between several months
and several years. The primary trend underway at any moment is
usually described as a bull market (upward moving) or a bear mar-
ket (downward moving).
In addition to distinguishing the types of trends from one an-
other, the Dow Theory requires that any indicated change in a
trend be confirmed. Under the beliefs of the Dow Theory, the Dow
Jones Transportation Average has to change in the same way as the
DJIA, in order to establish as fact that a change in direction has
occurred. So if and when one of the two averages falls below previ-
1
Dow Jones & Company Web site, http://djindexes.com/mdsidx/index.cfm?event
showAvgStatscmc.
ous lows in successive declines, or above previously established

highs in successive rallies, it does not signal a change in the primary
trend until the second, confirming indicator follows suit.
These rules are important because they form the basic beliefs
among technicians, or at least among those technicians who swear
by the Dow Theory. Without a precise requirement in place to set
a new direction, there would be no certainty as to whether a current
trend had ended or merely paused. The DJIA serves an important
function in the market by enabling investors to make judgments
about the overall market at any time, based on the recent point
changes, volume, and volatility of the market. But even the most
faithful technicians should remember a few additional points:
1. The index does not affect individual stocks. The DJIA is a ba-
rometer of the entire market, but it should not be assumed to
be an indicator of when to buy or sell individual stocks. Every
stock changes in price due to numerous causes, including sec-
tor-wide trends, cyclical business changes, overall economic
influences, activity among large institutional investors, compet-
itive changes, and earnings reports. So any one of these or a
combination of all of them will affect a stock’s price from day
to day, apart from what the index of 30 industrial stocks is
doing at the same time.
2. Every index is an average of several stocks, some advancing and
some declining. A strong point movement in the DJIA does not
represent the entire market. In fact, every day’s point change is
the net difference between advancing and declining issues
within the index. With this in mind, only market-wide compos-
ite indices can be expected to represent the real activity in the
market. The DJIA is a valuable tool for gauging market senti-
ment but not for making decisions within a portfolio.
3. The DJIA, like all indices, is a useful tool but not the final word.
All indicators add something to a body of knowledge about the
market, whether in the moment or with a broader view. It is
always a mistake to rely on any one indicator, however. The
DJIA sets a tone and tells you what investment professionals,
institutions, and other individuals are thinking. It summarizes
Technicals 157
degrees of optimism or pessimism. But in evaluating how to act

for your own portfolio, you need to use the DJIA as one of
several useful indicators, and not as the last word.
■ The Random Walk Hypothesis and the Efﬁcient

Market Theory
The Dow Theory forms the basis for technical analysis of the stock
market. There are additional theories about how and why prices
change and what influences are at work in the market. The random
walk hypothesis, for example, is a belief that all price change is
arbitrary. This is based on the idea that current prices result from
agreement among buyers and sellers in a complex understanding
of stock share value. The random walk hypothesis is troubling to an
army of well-paid insiders. If the hypothesis is correct, then those
thousands of experts—analysts, managers, stockbrokers, and
researchers—are of no real value. Cynically speaking, all price
change is random.
If the random walk hypothesis is applicable, it also means that
any stock you buy is going to be a 50-50 proposition. It will have
an equal chance of rising or falling, according to the hypothesis.
But like most theories, this one is flawed, and it can be demonstra-
bly disproved. An analysis of long-term price trends reveals that
well-managed companies produce profits, and that consistent
growth in profits directly causes long-term increases in value.
Many well-managed companies can be studied to make this point,
just as poorly managed companies’ stock falls on hard times. But it
is not just poor management that causes these problems. For exam-
ple, economic changes have affected the airline and auto industries.
These same industries have competed over many years by creating
attractive employee and retirement benefit programs, and these
same programs have bankrupted many of the companies in those
industries. Technology also affects corporate profitability and com-
petitiveness. A few decades ago, Polaroid introduced the instant
camera and revolutionized that industry; but with the emergence
of the digital camera technology, the relatively expensive Land
Camera was no longer appealing, and Polaroid filed for bank-

ruptcy.2
A similar trend can be seen even in large, well-capitalized cor-
porations. Eastman Kodak has experienced several years of declin-
ing stock price levels and key fundamental indicators. In 1996,
Kodak’s stock ranged between $65 and $85 per share; in 2005, the
range was between $21 and $35. The slide in prices reflects not
only the problems of Kodak’s continued dependence on old-style
film products and a late entry into the digital camera market; it also
reflects declining earnings along with increased debt levels:3
Earnings (in $millions) Debt

Year Reported Core Ratio
2005 $
1,455 $
1,419 58%
2004 81
119 33
2003 238 149 41
2002 793 127 30
2001 76
541 37
The volatility in earnings and the large disparities between reported

and core earnings are danger signals that are also reflected in the
deteriorating stock price over time. The point to this is that changes
in key fundamental indicators (i.e., reported and core earnings and
the debt ratio) are directly linked to stock prices and affect those
prices over time. This challenges the random walk hypothesis
directly. It would be difficult to find a company with declining fun-
damentals (revenue and earnings, debt ratio, etc.) that also experi-
enced rising stock prices. It would be equally difficult to find a
company with declining fundamentals whose stock price randomly
changed from one year to another. The trend will invariably be to
follow the bad news in the financial reports.
By the same argument, it would be unusual to see long-term
good news in the financial statement accompanied by a declining
stock price (or one moving randomly). In those cases where reve-
nue and earnings rise consistently over time, when debt levels are
2
Polaroid filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2001 after years of ever-higher
long-term debt on its books. The company could not meet its nearly $1 billion in bond
and note liabilities.
3
Eastman Kodak annual reports.
Technicals 159
kept low, and where other fundamental indicators remain strong,

you also see rising stock values. These realities disprove the ran-
dom walk hypothesis in the long term. However, most market
theories, including the Dow Theory, discount the value of any
short-term trends, so the random walk hypothesis may be applica-
ble to price movement from one day to the next, regardless of long-
term fundamental and technical trends.
A second market theory worth study is the efficient market the-
ory. This theory simply states that the current prices of all stocks
reflect all known information about a company. Bad news is already
discounted in the price, and good news is already factored in. The
efficient market theory is tidy and reassuring, but, like the random
walk hypothesis, it is flawed. Short-term price movement is caused
by an unknown variety of factors and tends to be overreactive to
virtually all news and information. When a company’s earnings are
reported at $.02 per share lower than an analyst’s estimates, the
stock’s price tumbles in overreaction, only to recover one or two
days later. When a company’s management announces that the
coming year’s earnings will be lower than the previous year’s, the
market overreacts yet again, even if the long-term fundamentals
remain strong. For example, in November 2006, Wal-Mart an-
nounced that its October revenue levels were disappointing and a
flat November was expected. The stock moved from $49.23 per
share down to $47.24—a two-point drop—in two days, and then
gradually recovered. The company has reported long-term growth
in both revenue and earnings and is one of the market’s success
stories, but the short-term price overreacted to news about a single
month’s sales. This inefficiency is often witnessed in short-term
pricing, even if the longer-term trend is more logical and efficient.
While the random walk hypothesis is more likely to apply in the
short-term price trend, the efficient market theory is the opposite:
It is more likely to apply in intermediate and long-term price
trends, but not at all in the day-to-day price movement.
■ Basic Price Calculations

Because technical analysis focuses on price, it is also the most com-
mon form of information available today. To the extent that the
stock market news is covered in the television and radio media,

there are usually only three types of reports. First is specific com-
pany news, usually only local in nature (for example, if a major
employer lands a new long-term contract, issues earnings reports,
or lays off a large number of employees). Second is the daily
change in the indices, especially the DJIA, which for most observers
is ‘‘the market.’’ Third and most popular is the day’s change in a
stock’s price.
The changing stock price is almost always reported by the
number of points. You will hear, for example, that a particular stock
‘‘lost two points in active trading’’ or that another stock rose ‘‘five
points on positive earnings news.’’ But what does this really mean?
When you consider that the stock’s price varies, a point change
does not always mean the same thing. For example, what happens
when two stocks both rise three points in a single day? One stock
opened the day at $27 per share, and the other opened at $81:
Stock Open Close Change %

A $27 $29 2 7.4%
B 81 83 2 2.5%
To compute the relevant percentage price change, the formula is:
FORMULA: PERCENTAGE PRICE CHANGE
C
P
O
where C change
O opening price
P percentage price change
This is an important distinction. The percentage of change rather

than points is what really counts. Consider the outcome when one
stock opens at $27 and rises two points, and another stock opens
at $81 and rises five points. On a percentage basis:
Technicals 161
Stock Open Close Change %

A $27 $29 2 7.4%
B 81 86 5 6.2%
If you had the same amount of money invested in both of these

issues, the $27 stock would have outperformed the higher-priced
$81 stock:
300 shares @ $27 $8,100

2 points 600
increased value $8,700 7.4%
100 shares @ $81 $8,100
5 points 500
increased value $8,600 6.2%
Because the lower-priced stock rose at a greater percentage, the

increase in dollar value and percentage is greater as well. The dif-
ference in points—two versus five—is actually meaningless when
you consider that the percentage change is more relevant.
Another way to look at price change is in the entire market.
Rather than focusing on a single stock, the ‘‘mood of the market’’
can be judged based on several criteria. The most popular is
through tracking one of several indices. The best-known are the
DJIA, the S&P 500, and the NASDAQ Composite. The market can
also be tracked by comparing stocks that have reached new high
prices versus those reaching new low prices. The new levels are
based on 52 weeks, and this ratio indicates whether the market
trend is positive or negative. The more new highs, the more opti-
mistic; and the more new lows, the more pessimistic.
The formula for new high/new low ratio is:
FORMULA: NEW HIGH/NEW LOW RATIO
H
R
L
where H number of issues with new high prices

L number of issues with new low prices
R new high/new low ratio
Technical analysts also consider comparisons between advancing

and declining issues to be important. In indices, the daily change
represents the net difference when advances and declines are offset.
But a test of the overall number of issues advancing and declining
over the entire market provides a clearer view of the market’s direc-
tion.
To compute the advance/decline ratio, the formula is:
FORMULA: ADVANCE/DECLINE RATIO
A
R
D
where A number of advancing issues

D number of declining issues
R advance/decline ratio
■ Chart Patterns and Interpretations
Even when focusing on the formulas and ratios of technical analy-

sis, you cannot avoid the price trends that show up in specific char-
ting patterns. The whole premise of technical analysis is the study
of price and price patterns. A limited number of classic technical
patterns and concepts form the basis for a rudimentary apprecia-
tion of technical analysis.
The purpose in computing market mood and directions of
trends is not only to time purchase and sale decisions but also to
judge risk. Viewing price trends and patterns demonstrates the un-
avoidable risk/reward relationship. When price movement is highly
volatile, opportunity is greater, but so is risk. Conservative inves-
tors prefer low-volatility stocks and in exchange accept the proba-
bility that prices will not move upward (or downward) rapidly.
The definition of volatility relies upon a basic technical tool, the
trading range. Stocks tend to establish a limited number of points
in which they trade. If and when price breaks through above or
below this established range, it is a significant event, signaling a
new rally or decline in the stock’s price level. Technicians also ob-
Technicals 163
serve that when price approaches the upper or lower limits on two
or more consecutive attempts to break through, it often signals a
price movement in the opposite direction.
The upper trading limit is also called resistance level. It is the
highest price in the current trading range that buyers are willing to
pay. The lower price limit is called support level, which is the lowest
price that sellers are willing to accept upon sale of their stock. Once
these well-defined lines are crossed, the trading range is likely to
become more volatile, at least in the short term, until a new trading
range has been set.
The trading range, resistance, and support are summarized in
Figure 8.1.
Technicians are continually looking for revealing patterns in
price trends. For example, a classic charting pattern is called head
and shoulders, so named because it involves three high prices with
the middle price (the head) being higher than the first and third
price peaks (the shoulders). The head and shoulders pattern is seen
as an attempt to break out above resistance. Upon retreat without
successfully breaking through, the pattern indicates a pending price
retreat. An inverse head and shoulders pattern (one in which low
FIGURE 8.1. TRADING R ANGE, R ESISTA NCE, AND SUPPORT.
Trading
Range
Resistance
Price
Support
Time
price levels are seen in place of high levels) indicates the opposite:
After three unsuccessful attempts to move price below support
level, the inverse head and shoulders is a signal that prices are about
to move upward. Both of these patterns are summarized in Figure
8.2
When price moves above resistance or below support, it is
called a breakout. A similar aberration in price patterns occurs
through gaps. A gap occurs whenever the price closes on one day
and opens above or below the trading range of the previous day
(creating a visible price gap between the high and low range of each
day).
The gap is important because it implies significant changes in
trading range and interest among buyers (or the loss of interest
among sellers). Four kinds of gaps are worth comparing: The com-
mon gap occurs as part of routine trading and does not signify big
changes by itself. A breakaway gap moves price into new territory
and does not retreat to fill in the gap in subsequent trading. A run-
away gap is actually a series of gaps over several days, with price
moving in the same direction. Finally, an exhaustion gap is likely to
be quite large and signals the end of the runaway pattern, followed
by price movement in the opposite direction.
The various types of gaps are summarized in Figure 8.3.
Many additional technical patterns are used by technicians, but
these represent the major and most important signals. Tracking a
stock’s trading range reveals the degree of price volatility and, thus,
market risk in a particular stock. The trading range—and its stabil-
ity—is the best measure of this risk.
■ Technical Tests of Market Sentiment
Many additional technical indicators have been used by traders and

analysts over many years to judge market sentiment and anticipate
the direction of price movement. A word of caution: In the quickly
changing market environment, many historical indicators may be
less significant today than in the past. In addition, the actual mean-
ing of some indicators could be different today due to widespread
use of the Internet and improved information resources.
Technicals 165
FIGURE 8.2. HEAD AND SHOULDERS AND INVERSE H EAD AND SHOULDERS
PATTERNS.
(a) head and shoulders
Shoulder
Head
Shoulder
Price
Time
(b) inverse head and shoulders

Price
Shoulder
Head
Shoulder
Time
FIGURE 8.3. GAPS.
Common Gaps
Breakaway Gap
Runaway Gaps
Price
Exhaustion Gap
Time
To find current market and trading statistics, check the New York Stock
Exchange (NYSE) historical records site, at www.cftech.com/BrainBank/
FINANCE/NewYorkStockExch.html.
Technicals 167
One of these traditional indicators is the short interest ratio.

This is a contrarian indicator measuring the number of shares sold
short. Most technicians who track short interest believe that as
short sales increase, it is a sign that values are going to rise; and
that when the numbers fall, it indicates that prices are going to fall.
In other words, the contrarian viewpoint, that the majority is usu-
ally wrong, is the guiding theme behind this ratio. The formula:
FORMULA: SHORT INTEREST RATIO
S
R
V
where S number of shares sold short

V total trading volume
R short interest ratio
One reason that short interest is difficult to track today is that short
selling is not an investor’s only bearish choice. In the past, an inves-
tor would sell short in the belief that share value was going to drop;
then shares could be bought to close at a profit. But the short sale
requires borrowing shares from the broker and then selling them,
so there is an interest expense involved, not to mention significant
risk. If share value rises, the short seller has to eventually close the
position at a loss and pay interest. An alternative today is to buy
put options. This achieves the same market position, one in which
the trader profits if the stock’s share price falls. But going long on
puts is substantially less risky than selling stock short. It requires
no payment of interest on borrowed shares. And potential losses
are limited to the cost of the put.
With all of this in mind, short interest is a less definite measure
of market sentiment and mood. Because of ever-growing involve-
ment with options, improved access to the entire market, and rapid
availability of information, the short interest ratio continues to pro-
vide an interesting insight to the market mood, but not as reliably
as in the past.
Sentiment indicators are not as precise as many other formulas
and ratios. A lot of time may be spent checking economic indicators
and other trends outside of the immediate market issues. The ques-
tion on everyone’s mind is: What are price levels today, and what
will they be tomorrow? To answer this question, sentiment indica-
tors, economic trends, and other indirect influences on the market
are less reliable than the tried and true technical signs: Emerging
changes in trading range, price volatility, and volume.
Checking degrees of insider trading, tracking cyclical changes,
and equating fundamental trends with technical reaction are all
valid and useful indicators. But in the venue of technical analysis,
focus is going to be more likely to remain on price and price trends.
■ Volatility
The trend in price volatility is a central issue to the technician. A

trading range that remains within a few points is a sign of low vola-
tility. So even as price levels evolve, the trading range may remain
relatively narrow. In other words, price levels may be inching up-
ward or downward over time, but the breadth of the trading range
remains small. If and when a broadening formation emerges, that
is a sign of coming change. Greater price volatility is best under-
stood in terms of emerging changes in trading range.
A traditional method for measuring volatility involves compari-
sons of 52-week price levels. This formula for volatility is:
FORMULA: VOLATILITY
HL
V
L
where H 52-week high price

L 52-week low price
V volatility
This is expressed as a percentage. For example, consider the 52-

week price history for three stocks:
Technicals 169
Stock A 22–28
Stock B 42–48
Stock C 62–68
Each of these stocks experienced a six-point spread through a 52-

week period. But volatility is different for each based on the for-
mula:
Stock A (28 22) 22 27%

Stock B (48 42) 42 14%
Stock C (68 62) 62 10%
You might be inclined to think of a six-point trading range as low

volatility, especially over an entire 52-week period. And that is true,
but the traditional method of calculating volatility is flawed in one
sense. All these stocks experienced a six-point trading range for the
year. For this reason, a more reliable method for judging volatility
could involve a rather simple comparison of the point spread itself.
With this alternative method, all these stocks would have a volatility
of ‘‘6’’—six points over a 52-week period.
Another flaw in the traditional method of calculating volatility
is that it does not allow for spikes in price. In most statistical analy-
ses, a spike is considered out of the range, so it would be excluded.
By definition, a spike in a stock’s price occurs when the following
conditions are met:
1. The price spike is substantially above or below the established

trading range.
2. The price trading immediately returns to previously established
levels.
3. The spike trading range is not repeated.
For example, consider the trading history of a stock trading

between $22 and $28 per share for the entire year, with one excep-
tion. Based on a rumor that the company was about to be taken
over by a competitor, the price jumped in a single day to $37 per
share. The rumor proved to be unfounded, and the price retreated
over the next two days to the established $22 to $28 range. Under
the traditional measurement of volatility, the outcome would be:
(37 22) 22 68%
Removing the spike returns the volatility to a more realistic level:
(28 22) 22 27%
If you use the proposed point-based alternative, the 52-week range

extends over 15 points, but the removal of the spike in price returns
it to the more realistic level of 6 points.
The problem with the traditional method of calculating price
volatility comes from two issues. First, the analysis is based on a
percentage of variation, so that higher-priced stocks appear to have
lower volatility (even when point spread, or trading-range breadth,
is identical to that of lower-priced stocks). Second, the method
ignores the ramifications of atypical price spikes outside of an es-
tablished trading range. These may be caused by rumors, earnings
surprises, and institutional investor activity, but as long as the spike
is not permanent, it should be taken out of the equation.
If the traditional method is to be used, an adjusted volatility
formula makes sense. The formula for this is:
FORMULA: ADJUSTED VOLATILITY
(H L) S
V
L

L 52-week low price
S price spikes
V adjusted volatility
Application of this formula would be to adjust the 52-week

range to a realistic range without spikes, and then employ the stan-
dard volatility formula based on the adjusted levels. However, this
Technicals 171
method still provides only a percentage comparison, distorting the

issue. A comparison at various price levels makes this point clearly.
The higher the trading range, the lower the volatility.
■ Volume
Technicians study not only price, but trading volume as well. While
price is easily comprehended, volume is not. You can see a price
change and immediately grasp its implications. Stock value rises
and it falls. But volume is a combination of activity by buyers and
sellers. Exceptionally high volume may occur in a single day, but
what does it mean?
A basic volume analysis may involve percentage-based change
in volume, which tracks shares traded from day to day or from
week to week. The formula:
FORMULA: CHANGE IN VOLUME
(C P)
V
P
where C current period volume

P past period volume
V change in volume
This formula is useful in tracking change, especially if calculated

using a moving average. Many Web sites providing charting service
include price or volume moving average totals as part of the calcu-
lation. However, this does not tell you much about the underlying
causes of volume changes. A more revealing formula is the mutual
funds cash/assets ratio. This formula tracks not the volume itself,
but the sentiment among institutional investors. Mutual funds and
other institutions account for a majority of trading activity, while
individuals (‘‘retail’’ investors) are in the minority. So trading senti-
ment among mutual funds anticipates trading in the future; as the
amount of total assets left in the form of cash increases, the indica-
tors turn optimistic (because, as a contrarian indicator, the as-
sumption is also built in that mutual fund management is usually

wrong). This test is included as a test of volume trends specifically
because it predicts those trends in a contrary sense. The formula:
FORMULA: MUTUAL FUNDS CASH/ASSETS RATIO
C
R
A
where C cash held by mutual funds

A total assets held by mutual funds
R cash/assets ratio
If fund management is exceedingly optimistic and the ratio falls,

the contrarian takes that as a sign that market values are going to
fall (based on the belief that fund managers are usually wrong).
And when the amount of cash rises and the ratio percentage in-
creases, the contrarian begins to think that prices may rise. When
this contrarian indicator is combined with a study of new highs and
new lows, advance/decline, and observations of volume increasing
or decreasing, it works as a technical indicator about the market
trend.
Another useful test involving institutional trading is the large
block ratio. This is a reliable ratio for tracking institutional market
activity. A large block (10,000 shares or more) summarizes institu-
tional activity. Financial publications such as the Wall Street Jour-
nal publish daily summaries of large block trading and total
volume. The level of large block trading indicates the level of vol-
ume attributed to institutional traders. The formula:
FORMULA: LARGE BLOCK RATIO
B
R
V
where B large block volume in shares

V total volume in shares
R large block ratio
Technicals 173
Like the cash/assets ratio, the large block ratio is popular among
contrarian investors. This is based on the belief that mutual funds
and other institutional investors are more often wrong about their
opinion of market direction. So when the large block ratio begins to
increase—meaning more activity among institutions—that implies
that the market is more likely to move in the opposite direction.
A deceptive aspect to this assumption is that large block trading
may occur when institutions buy as well as when they sell. The
volume itself is a net total of all large block activity. A more reveal-
ing trend is a study of advance/decline and new high/new low ac-
companied by a large block ratio analysis. In this way, you can
judge mutual fund volume along with the trend toward issues rising
or falling in market value.
The next chapter expands on this discussion by examining and
explaining ratios that combine fundamental and technical indica-
tors, and how each side can be used to confirm trends revealed
in the other. Ultimately, the best analysis includes a gathering of
fundamental and technical indicators.
C H A P T E R 9
Combined Testing
Merging Price and Financial Tests
he debate about whether fundamental or technical analysis is
T better or more reliable often polarizes opinions. But you do not

have to choose one over the other. The best strategy is to employ
both types of tests, for several reasons:
1. Both approaches offer something of value. It is not fair to as-

sume that one approach is ‘‘correct’’ and the other is ‘‘wrong.’’
Both offer useful information that you need to make good deci-
sions and to time your buy, hold, or sell actions. It is impossible
to ignore price trends, even if you are a dedicated, fundamental
‘‘true believer.’’ And even the most focused technician under-
stands that financial trends and reports directly affect price.
The two cannot be separated, and this indicates that you need
to employ both fundamental and technical indicators in manag-
ing your portfolio.
2. Each side is valuable for confirming trends seen in the other.
One valuable use of indicators often ignored in the debate be-
tween fundamental and technical proponents is the importance
of confirmation. Each side can be used to confirm trends seen
emerging in the other. For example, when you see a lot of varia-
175
tion between reported earnings and core earnings, it implies

that you cannot rely on the numbers as much as you’d like.
When you see price volatility occurring, it confirms your suspi-
cion. As a trading range broadens and stock price trends begin
to look more volatile, you are likely to see a confirming change
in reported revenue and earnings.
3. The two approaches are really different aspects of the same
grouping of trends. Fundamental and technical really come
down to degrees of value in a company and its stock. A long-
term investor is more likely to ignore short-term price trends
and focus primarily on financial information, and a speculator
is just as likely to focus only on chart patterns and price-based
trends. Realistically, however, these are simply different time
frames for the same pricing and valuation issues. Short-term
trends are known to be unreliable for long-term forecasting,
and speculators accept this as a risk. But those same trends, as
chaotic as they are, represent segments of the longer-term
trend, and you can begin to understand how those trends
evolve by tracking both fundamental and technical indicators.
4. Some of the most valuable indicators combine fundamental and
technical information. Finally, you cannot avoid using both
fundamental and technical indicators. Two of the most popular
and valuable indicators already combine both sides. Earnings
per share (EPS) compares the fundamental earnings to the
technical price per share; and the price/earnings ratio (P/E)
represents price as a multiple of earnings. In fact, there are
several additional indicators combining price per share with
fundamental indicators, and these are explained later in this
chapter.
■ Effective Use of Combined Analysis
The process of confirmation is a crucial process for every investor,

no matter whether you lean toward speculative or conservative
thinking. To effectively time your decisions, you can make good
use of combined analysis. You can confirm any apparent trend by
Combined Testing 177
checking relevant information on the other side (fundamental ver-

sus technical and vice versa).
The technical side will invariably involve comparisons of price;
so you may find valuable information comparing prices to the fol-
lowing fundamental indicators:
1. Changes in revenue and earnings. The levels of revenue and

earnings are reported quarterly. The great ‘‘game’’ on Wall
Street is prediction. Analysts consult with corporate manage-
ment and examine the financial trends and then publish their
estimates of earnings, usually expressed in EPS. Remembering
that the analyst’s opinion is only an estimate, it is disturbing
that so much weight is given to it. For example, if a corpora-
tion’s quarterly earnings exceed its own internal expectations,
you would expect the stock value to rise. But if actual reported
results are a penny or two per share less than an analyst pre-
dicted, that causes the stock to fall.
Ignoring the game of prediction and reaction, how can you
use revenue and earnings information to confirm (or contra-
dict) what you see in the stock’s price? As revenue grows, you
have every reason to expect net earnings to improve as well.
But this does not always occur. So if earnings remain flat or
even decline in a period of higher revenue, it is a negative sig-
nal. It may explain why a stock’s price performance has been
weak as well.
Changes in trading range may also foreshadow disappoint-
ments in earnings or, in many cases, positive earnings sur-
prises. For example, if reported earnings are higher than the
analysts predicted (or, more importantly, higher than the cor-
poration estimated), that is very positive. And you might see a
positive trend in the stock’s price, confirming the good news.
2. Earnings surprises. The difference of a few pennies between ex-
pected earnings and actual earnings is part of the expectation
on the market. And when these small adjustments occur, a
stock’s price may fall or rise for one or two days, usually return-
ing to ‘‘normal’’ levels quickly. But an earnings surprise is
somewhat different. For example, if a corporation booked a
large downward adjustment in the latest quarter, earnings may

be reported substantially lower than expected. Even with an an-
nouncement that future revenue and earnings are expected to
be lower than previously announced, a drop in the stock’s price
confirms the earnings surprise, often months in advance.
This works in the opposite direction as well. A surprise may
be a reported higher than predicted level of revenue and earn-
ings, usually based on exceptionally strong sales in the last por-
tion of the quarter. The inevitable result will be higher stock
prices, sometimes temporarily and at other times as part of a
breakout leading to a higher trading range. The identification
of cause and effect is difficult because with every price move-
ment, some stockholders take profits (at the top) or cut losses
(at the bottom). So short-term speculation in trading obscures
what is going on with long-term investors who follow the fun-
damentals. On a day-to-day basis, price movement is likely to
be chaotic and involve a series of offsetting overreactions to
virtually everything. So confirming earnings surprises with ob-
servation of trading-range adjustments is a valuable step.
3. Rumors or news reports concerning mergers and acquisitions.
Wall Street loves rumors and thrives on them. The culture of
the market prefers rumor over fact, and investors often make
snap decisions on the basis of rumor, without even knowing
whether the information is true or false. At the same time, those
enthusiasts who encourage rumor also worry constantly about
whether their information is reliable. The expression, ‘‘Stocks
climb a wall of worry’’ is based not only on the realities of sup-
ply and demand, but also on the popularity of the rumor.
One of the favorite rumors is that a particular company is
going to be taken over by a competitor. This ‘‘merger mania’’
comes and goes at various times, but the course of the rumor
is always the same. The fact that the rumor exists makes it more
likely than not that it is true, and traders react accordingly. This
gives rise to one of the favorite (but illegal) tactics used by some
traders, the ‘‘pump and dump.’’ An individual buys a large
number of shares in a company and then spreads a rumor (on
investment chat lines, for example) that the company is about
to be acquired by a larger competitor. This rumor drives up the

stock’s price (pump), and then the instigator sells (dumps) the
stock.
4. News announcements concerning lawsuits, tax matters, and
more. A bit more tangible than a rumor concerning a merger or
acquisition is the reality of contingent liabilities. In recent years,
two very large companies have been named as defendants in
literally thousands of lawsuits. Altria (MO), the world’s largest
tobacco company, has been and remains a defendant in law-
suits filed by smokers, states, and the federal government.
These suits will not be settled for many years and could end up
costing the company billions of dollars. But because the out-
come is not known, the problem is only a contingent liability.
The second company is Merck (MRK), whose Vioxx problems
also led to thousands of lawsuits when it was revealed that the
prescription drug was far from safe. As in the case of Altria,
Merck’s actual future liability cannot be known until the thou-
sands of lawsuits run their course.
Merck suffered another contingent problem in 2006 when
it was revealed the company might face as much as a $5.58
billion additional tax liability with the United States and Can-
ada. As a result of this story (accompanied by the November
2006 election results), the company’s stock fell several points.
The liability itself—like the lawsuit liabilities—is contingent,
and the final outcome may be far lower, but the contingency
itself is enough to cause the stock’s price to fall several points.
■ Valid Versus Invalid Forms of Testing
One of the important assumptions about any form of analysis is

that it will yield information that is valuable as well as revealing.
For example, there are valid justifications for comparing revenue
and expenses or dividends and price, but there is no logical reason
to compare accounts receivable to depreciation, or to track a devel-
oping trend in fixed overhead compared to intangible assets.
This issue is an important one because, in order for your own
program to make sense, you need to be able to achieve the fol-

lowing:
1. You have to limit the number of indicators you follow. It would

be impossible to track every possible form of analysis. With
thousands of possible methods you could use, the sheer weight
of information would make it impossible to draw useful conclu-
sions. The greater the number of indicators, the higher the
chance you will find contradictory outcomes. You are much
better off identifying a very limited number of indicators and
tracking them together.
2. The information has to be readily available. Another problem
with some theories is that the raw information itself is not
readily available. For example, even a simple balance sheet
item, such as inventory level, is not likely to be published by
companies every month, so you will need to use quarterly lev-
els. Physical counts of inventory are not performed routinely
either, so the information may not be accessible. This means
that a detailed month-to-month average of inventory cannot be
part of your program of analysis.
3. The data you employ have to be current. Some data are simply
outdated by the time you get the information. If you are refer-
ring to published financial statements from six months in the
past, matters are likely to have changed due to emerging earn-
ings, cyclical realities, and changed markets. Finding current
data may rely on estimates and unaudited results, but there is a
trade-off between timing and accuracy. This doesn’t mean cer-
tain ratios should not be calculated; it does mean that current
information is not always available, and whatever is published
might be modified later.
4. Data in related sets of information should be comparable, in
terms of valuation and time. A ratio should involve two or more
sets of information that are directly related. This applies in two
specific ways. The first is valuation; the second is timing. For
example, the inventory turnover ratio should be performed
comparing inventory to the cost of goods sold because both of
these are reported on a cost basis. (Inventory statistics used
should be an average for the period in which cost of goods sold
is derived.) However, some analysts prefer comparing inven-

tory values to revenue. The reported revenue total is marked up
so inventory is at cost and revenue is at retail. This makes the
comparison less reliable because the valuation base is not the
same. Proponents of using revenue argue that the mix of cost
markup is one feature in tracking turnover, and while this is
true, the outcome can be distorted when one line of business is
marked up more than another.
Timing is also a crucial factor influencing comparability of
data. For example, if you use the traditional P/E ratio, you will
be comparing price (current value) to latest-reported earnings,
which may be several months old. Invariably, this gap in time
makes P/E less reliable than analysts would like. With that in
mind, P/E makes sense when compared as a matter of period-
specific ending price and earnings (so that P/E can be tracked
from quarter to quarter over time). Or current price should
be representative of average prices for the last period of time
extending back through the earnings period (quarter or year).
As an alternative, average mid-trading range price may be com-
pared to estimated current-period earnings. This is an unrelia-
ble method because it includes data that are not specific.
However, the current-period P/E is always going to be unrelia-
ble because it uses information from two different time periods.
5. You need to be able to act on the information revealed. Finally,
the ratios and formulas you use must be valuable in some way.
The outcome of indicated trends must provide you with a con-
forming or contradicting set of circumstances. For example, if
a company’s revenues have been rising and earnings keeping
pace, this is a positive trend. But if the latest quarter’s results
show continuing increased revenue but declining earnings, this
is an indication that something has changed. It warrants further
investigation and may signal that a previously positive trend has
turned negative.
■ Identifying Important Combined Tests
The major indicator using a combination of fundamental and tech-

nical information is the P/E ratio. The price is shown as a multiple
of earnings. So when the P/E is 10, that means that the current
price is 10 times greater than the latest earnings per share.
The problem in relying heavily on this popular ratio is its poten-
tially inaccurate outcome. The problem of distortion is especially
severe if and when the interim cycles of an industry have changed
since the latest earnings report. For example, in the retail sector,
the quarter ending December 31 is usually the highest volume for
revenue and earnings, and the March 31 quarter is often the lowest.
So if your P/E calculation takes place in March or early April, it
could be unreliable. If the current price is compared to the latest
reported earnings as of December 31, the entire calculation has
been distorted. If the price itself has remained within a narrow trad-
ing range but actual current revenue and earnings levels have fallen
off, the P/E cannot be assumed to be accurate at all.
Even with the obvious distortion between price and earnings,
current P/E remains a popular litmus test of stock values. The his-
torical quarterly and annual P/E are much more revealing, in which
a year-end price is compared to that year’s earnings. However,
even this test makes P/E outdated throughout most of the year.
A solution involves tracking the price of a stock throughout the
year. You can calculate and estimate a trend in both stock price and
earnings and avoid the inaccuracy of time distortions. However,
this only works in those companies with relatively stable price
movement and predictable earnings.
For example, a test of Wal-Mart’s annual revenue shows that
top-line growth has been remarkably consistent:1
Year (in $millions)

2006 312,427
2005 285,222
2004 256,329
2003 244,524
2002 217,799
Earnings were also fairly reliable during this same period, averag-
ing between 3.1% and 3.3%. But when this record is compared to
that of other retail corporations, the consistency is not always
1
Wal-Mart annual reports.
found. In the case of Wal-Mart, tracking year-to-year P/E is an

easy matter, and because revenue and earnings are so consistent, it
is easy to rely on estimates during the year. The same suggestion
does not apply to every company in the sector, however.
When you are trying to track P/E but recognize that price or
earnings volatility makes the outcome less than reliable, you have
some alternatives. These include:
1. Use P/E along with related and confirming indicators. All indi-
cators and trends should be confirmed or tested through alter-
natives. Never rely on any single indicator to make a decision
about a stock, recognizing that it is the combination of many
different indicators that really points out the relative strength
of a company and its stock. So when the apparent P/E seems
consistent with the historical trend, confirm this with a check
of current quarter revenue, estimated earnings, and other tests.
The same applies when the P/E seems off from the average:
Why is price more volatile than usual? Are cyclical forces at
work? What else has changed?
2. Compare price volatility to reported earnings versus core earn-
ings. If the trading range of a stock has broadened since the
previous year’s range, what does that mean? One way to con-
firm greater volatility is to track the spread between reported
earnings and core earnings. You are likely to see a correlation
between price volatility and inconsistency in earnings. As core
earnings increase, price volatility is likely to increase as well;
and when there is very little adjustment between reported and
core earnings, it is more likely that the stock’s trading range
will be narrow and consistent. While these are generalizations,
the indicators may serve as confirming data for the current
P/E.
3. Evaluate historical year-end P/E and price range next to current
quarter data. Does the current P/E seem in line with the histor-
ical trend? This is always an important test. If you discover that
the current P/E is far out of line with the year-end historical
level for P/E, it could be that your information is flawed (com-
paring old earnings with current price levels). If the price has
spiked above or below historical trading ranges, this could ex-

plain how the change has occurred, also indicating that the P/
E developed currently is not reliable. If earnings estimates are
also unusual compared to historical levels for the same quarter
(or based on typical year-end), then the P/E should not be as-
sumed to be a conclusive sign of change in the trend.
4. Confirm P/E changes by comparing price to revenue, book value
per share, and cash. The next section provides additional ratios
for comparison of price data. By using these as well as the
traditional P/E analysis, you improve the reliability of your in-
formation. For example, if all the indicators wander from estab-
lished levels, you can conclude that the current price is not
typical; current earnings are not typical (or perhaps cyclical and
distorting the year-long outcome); or both sides of the ratio
are less than reliable. In that case, the information gained from
fundamental/technical analysis is not reliable. But when these
additional price-based tests provide confirming information
about the historical consistency in price-based trends, that
strengthens the reliability of the current P/E.
■ Additional Price-Based Combined Tests
The importance of the P/E ratio in evaluating stocks includes the

following points:
1. It is an efficient method for deciding whether a stock is priced at

bargain levels. The higher the P/E, the more chance a stock is
overpriced. Over many years, studies have concluded that
lower-P/E stocks outperform higher-P/E stocks. When enthu-
siasm for a stock drives the price up, the P/E follows, so the
multiple of earnings rises as well. An efficient method for nar-
rowing down a field of potential investments is to eliminate
stocks above a specific P/E level. For example, you might seek
stocks with low price volatility (measured by trading range),
dividend yield, revenue and earnings, and moderate to low
P/E. In this simplified variation of analysis, your rule might be
to not even consider stocks whose current P/E is greater than
25, for example. (This assumes that you are also able to elimi-
nate the timing disparities inherent in the P/E.) A more conser-
vative investor may set the bar lower; for example, this investor
might not care to look at stocks with P/E above 15.
2. The ratio is easily understood. Most people can easily compre-
hend the significance of earnings multiples. The P/E is popular
largely because it is simple, easily computed and tracked, and
reliable as a comparable indicator. Many other ratios have to
be evaluated based on the industry. For example, profitability
in the construction sector is expected to be much lower than in
information technology or finance. But the P/E tends to be
more universal, so it is an excellent test of pricing across the
board.
3. The P/E can help you to set standards for stocks. The P/E can
also be used to set decision points for buy, hold, or sell deci-
sions. A range for P/E is useful for investors, because in ideal
circumstances you want some strong market interest (thus, you
don’t want the P/E to fall too low) while wanting to avoid an
unjustified price run-up (so the P/E should not rise too high).
Another version of this is a comparison of P/E and core P/E
(based on core earnings rather than on reported earnings). The
greater the gap between these two, the less reliable the histori-
cal P/E. As an alternative test of fundamental volatility (and
price volatility), core P/E serves as a way for confirming other
emerging trends in price as well as in earnings.
Some additional tests between technical (price) and fundamen-

tal results can help to both confirm P/E and expand its significance.
The first of these is the price to revenue ratio. This test, sometimes
called the revenue multiplier, is less popular than the P/E ratio but
can provide depth in the all-important comparison between price
and fundamentals. The current price per share is divided by reve-
nue per share:
FORMULA: PRICE TO REVENUE RATIO
P
R
S

S sales (revenue) per share
R price to revenue ratio
In situations where earnings are flat as a percentage of revenue, but

represent a growing dollar value each year, the P/E ratio can be-
come less revealing. As a measurement, P/E has always been
assumed as a positive when it remains within a narrow band. How-
ever, as long as the number of outstanding shares remains station-
ary, you would expect the price to revenue ratio to change as
revenue levels expand.
A second of the alternative price-based tests is the price to book
value per share. This compares price at the end of a quarter or year
to the reported book value:
FORMULA: PRICE TO BOOK VALUE PER SHARE
P
R
B

R price to book value per share
A problem with book value is what it includes and excludes. Under

GAAP, companies are not required to report pension liabilities even
when they are huge. At the same time, numerous inflated intangible
assets, such as goodwill, distort book value, and the market value
of real estate may be far greater than the acquisition price minus
depreciation. The price to book by itself is not meaningful, but if
you track it as a trend over time, you may discover that a company
is being perceived as more valuable or less valuable (based on this
ratio). Most analysts agree that market value is a factor of revenue
and earnings more than book value, but this serves as a good con-
firming test.
A more reliable version of this is the price to tangible book value
per share, in which intangible assets are removed from the equa-
tion. This formula at least is more likely to approximate a ‘‘liquida-
tion value’’ of a company, since goodwill and other intangibles

cannot be given a sales value. The tangible book value per share is
more widely used by analysts than the unadjusted book value, but
under GAAP it continues to present problems with accuracy. The
formula:
FORMULA: PRICE TO TANGIBLE BOOK VALUE PER SHARE
P
R
BI

I intangible assets per share
R price to tangible book value per share
One final price-based ratio is the price to cash ratio. This is a com-
parison between current price per share and current cash per share.
Included in cash are other liquid assets, such as marketable securi-
ties—cash plus assets immediately convertible to cash. The for-
mula:
FORMULA: PRICE TO CASH RATIO
P
R
CL

C cash on hand
L liquid assets
R price to cash ratio
Use of cash within a company is going to vary greatly by sector; so

this ratio is useful only for tracking a trend within one company, or
for comparing companies within a single sector. It is also a valuable
confirming test when companies allow their long-term debt to rise
while creating an offsetting increase in cash balances. (This keeps
the current ratio at desired levels while creating long-term prob-

lems for the company.) The price to cash ratio is also a test of how
efficiently a company manages its working capital while avoiding
inefficient use of cash balances. Thus, the ratio may be tied to a
calculation of return on equity and return on invested capital.
■ The Oddities of Hybrid Analysis
The traditional ratios, such as P/E, are hybrids; this term is used
because fundamental and technical analysis are so dissimilar that
many people don’t consider the viability of combining both. Beyond
the P/E, little discussion takes place about combining fundamental
and technical analysis. This is true because the two sides are based
on different influences and forces:
1. Price is the result of auction bidding; earnings are not. The

dynamic changes in the price of stock can be described in simple
terms. For example, a supply and demand argument tells you that
increased supply drives prices down and increased demand drives
prices up. But within the realm of supply and demand, an unknown
number of forces are at work: knowledge about earnings strength
or weakness, changes in management, insider buy or sell decisions,
labor disputes, institutional acquisition or disposal or large blocks,
good or bad news among a company’s competitors, unrest in some
part of the world, election results . . . the list can go on endlessly.
Price and the influences around it are highly chaotic and unpredict-
able.
The fundamentals are far more predictable and give a range of
possible outcomes. Compared to prices, the fundamentals usually
offer very few surprises. You probably know the likely range of EPS
for a company you are tracking; revenue and earnings growth is
probably going to occur within a known range as well. In compa-
nies with volatility in levels of revenue and earnings, investors be-
come uncertain because predictions are difficult if not impossible
to make. But compared to price uncertainty, the fundamental
tests—especially over many years—reveal trends more dependable

than price trends.
2. The causes of movement in revenue and earnings are finite.
It is reassuring to a fundamental analyst that specific trends need
to be tracked and interpreted. The potential cause and effect is a
smaller universe than the technical (price-based) cause and effect.
Fundamental change in corporate valuation involves capitalization
and working capital. Fundamental change in profitability involves
study of revenue trends, costs, and expenses. Within that, an ana-
lyst considers capitalization, competition, sector strength or weak-
ness, management, and other fundamental realities. The difference
between reported and core earnings also affects the analyst’s judg-
ment about a company. This does not mean that volatility is always
bad news; it does mean that prediction is more difficult when vola-
tility is greater.
3. Price potentially changes rapidly in either direction based on
perceived value; earnings and valuation tend to be more stable and
rational. The changes in price levels can be studied and quantified
in many ways. Traditional but overly simplified analyses of price
volatility ignore price spikes. A more insightful analysis of typical
breadth in trading range is more dependable for identifying price
volatility. Combining this with a study of the direction the trading
range is moving (prices trending up, down, or flat) is also more
revealing than traditional volatility studies. When trading range
broadens or narrows, that may also signal changes in the near fu-
ture. Technical analysis is complex because it requires interpreta-
tion without any specific, limited standards.
Fundamental analysis is more likely to be based on a universally
understood standard. A current ratio of 2 or better is good; when
it slips down below 1 or into negative territory, that is bad. In a
particular sector, companies usually report net earnings of 4% to
6%. If a company’s profits fall below that, it is negative. Virtually
any company wants to report a profit, which is always better than
reporting a net loss (in spite of what some annual reports claim to
the contrary). Most ratios are the latest entry in a trend. Thus,
you can quickly and easily determine whether a trend is positive or
negative, or whether the results are reasonably predictable or highly

volatile.
With these comparisons and differences in mind, it makes sense to

combine both sides of the analytical model. The fundamentals can
be more easily interpreted and trends established and followed, but
financial reports are historical and out of date by the time you have
final data. To find out what is taking place today in a highly erratic
and dynamic market, you also need to track the technical trends.
Specifically, trading range and its emerging trend, price volatility
itself, volume, and the hybrid ratios comparing price to fundamen-
tals are all valuable in confirming fundamental trends, establishing
and spotting new trends in price and risk, or setting up an apparent
trend for additional confirmation through other tests.
To the extent that you identify useful and insightful forms of
hybrid analysis, your overall program is going to improve in the
process. For the most part, all analysis is going to improve your
estimates; but remember, decisions you make based on analysis are
at best informed guesses. Good analysis improves your profits, but
there are no guarantees, except one: If you make a profit, the gov-
ernment is going to want its share of that profit. This is the topic of
the next chapter.
C H A P T E R 1 0
Taxation of Investments
Uncle Sam’s Share
alculating net profit on investments or tracking corporate
C profits as reported are by no means simple matters. The variables

are many in both instances. On the corporate side, one major factor
affecting net earnings is the tax liability the corporation incurs. It is
very difficult to make like-kind comparisons between corporations
due to the complexities. No two corporations will necessarily have
the same tax burden because of:
1. Tax liabilities or benefits from international operations. Some

corporations operate major segments overseas; others do not.
This affects overall tax rates. For example, Altria involves both
tobacco and food operations. Altria reports a large source of
revenue from international operations. Over five years, Altria
and one of its competitors, Reynolds American, reported vastly
different effective tax rates:1
Reynolds
Year American Altria
2005 30.4% 29.9%
2004 24.4 32.4
1
Reynolds American and Altria annual reports.
191
2003 — 34.9
2002 38.8 35.5
2001 50.2 37.9
2. Reduced net liabilities caused from carryover losses. When cor-
porations report large net losses, they may carry those losses
forward and apply them against future profits. This complicates
the after-tax comparison between companies. That does not
mean the tax carryover should not be considered, but it is yet
one additional complication in the attempt to make valid com-
parisons between companies and the yield investors may expect
in the future.
3. Variation in state tax liabilities. Tax liabilities for corporations
vary depending on the state where they are based, and on the
many states where they have active operations. If a company
has large volume in a state with a higher than average tax rate,
then its tax expense will also be larger than average.
There is no single, effective tax rate that can be applied at the cor-
porate level. This is one of many considerations to keep in mind in
a program of fundamental analysis. Investors are also keenly aware
of their own tax burden and need to calculate the tax consequences
within their personal portfolio.
■ After-Tax Return
As an investor, you probably place most emphasis on a straight

return. You invest $1,000 and sell for $1,100, netting 10%. But in
fact there are three elements to this return that affect your real
profit:
1. Time. The 10% return you earn in three months actually annu-
alizes out as a 40% return: 10% 3 months 12 months
40%. But annualizing works in the other direction as well. If it
takes you two years to earn your 10%, the annualized return is
cut in half: 10% 24 months 12 months 5%. Time can-
not be ignored as a significant factor in comparing returns be-
tween investments.
Taxation of Investments 193
2. Inflation. That time element is further affected by the deteriora-

tion in purchasing power. Most people think of inflation as a
rise in prices, but this is a coin with two sides. Prices rise be-
cause the dollar loses its purchasing power. So if it takes you
two years to realize a 10% return and inflation is 3% per year,
you also lose purchasing power. A $1,000 investment over two
years loses
Year 1 $1,000 97% $970

Year 2 $970 97% $941
The after-inflation value of the original investment loses $59

over two years. So the gross gain of 10% has to be reduced
because of inflation:
$100 profit $59 $41
If this profit were to take a longer period of time to realize,

inflation’s bite would be even greater.
3. Taxes. Finally, the rate you pay in taxes also reduces the profit.
Even a 10% profit can quickly disappear. For example, federal
tax rates can be as high as 35%, and state tax rates vary. For
example, if you have to pay 35% federal and 6% to your state,
that is a significant drop in your profit. When you combine tax
liability with inflation, the combined effect can cause that 10%
return to evaporate. Based on the assumptions presented
above:
Profit before taxes and inflation, 10%

of a $1,000 investment $100
Less: Taxes, federal, 35%
35
Taxes, state, 6%
6
Inflation (assuming 3% per
year, over 2 years)
59
Total reductions $100
After-tax, after-inflation profit $ 0
The assumed federal and state tax liability is based on the effective
tax rate, or the actual rate assessed on taxable income, which is
discussed later in this chapter. The point in the example above is to
demonstrate that the combined effect of inflation and taxes can be
destructive to a return on investment. A 10% return is not only
annualized to potentially a much lower rate (the example assumed
two years, or 5% per year), but in the year of sale, you suffer not
only the federal and state tax effect, but the loss of purchasing
power, the invisible loss caused by inflation.
In calculating any return on investment, it makes sense to be
aware of these problems. Every investor needs to set personal goals
based on what level of return is expected. If you want to achieve a
10% return—an aggressive goal in most cases—then how do you
deal with inflation and taxes? Some suggestions:
1. Invest in a tax-deferred account. The investments you make

through a self-directed IRA or other qualified retirement ac-
count are exempt from the year-to-year tax impact. These
profits are not taxed until funds are withdrawn in future years.
The investments you make in this protected account can
achieve your goals without having to be higher to pay taxes to
the federal or state government.
2. Look for ways to shelter some income. You can either reduce
your taxable income or offset investment profits by looking for
ways to shelter some of your income. Owning your own home
provides itemized deductions for interest and property tax, and
can significantly lower your taxable income. Buying investment
real estate and renting it out produces cash flow and also pro-
vides attractive tax benefits. Real estate is the only investment
in which you are allowed to deduct passive losses, up to
$25,000 per year. So it is possible to achieve positive cash flow
and, at the same time, a tax loss (due to depreciation), which
helps you to reduce your tax burden—and if you select real
estate in a healthy market, the property value rises while your
tenants cover your mortgage payment.
3. Set after-tax goals lower and more realistically. You should not
expect to realize a post-inflation, post-tax return of 10% unless
you are also willing to take on much higher risks. If your com-
bined federal and state effective tax rate is 41% and you assume
3% inflation per year, you would need to earn about 22.5% to
reach your annual goal:
Profit before taxes and inflation, 22.5%

of a $1,000 investment $225
Less: Taxes, federal, 35%
79
Taxes, state, 6%
14
Inflation (assuming 3%)
30
Total reductions $123
After-tax, after-inflation profit $102 (10.2%)
An expectation of earning a 22.5% return each and every year is

not realistic, so the plan will not work. Most investors will be happy
to preserve their spending power while covering taxes, so a return
anywhere above 5% accomplishes this goal.
■ Federal and State Liabilities
The calculation of income tax liability is so varied by state and in-

come level that it is impossible to provide even an estimate of a
typical tax rate. In addition, the actual rate depends on personal
income level, exemptions, deductions, retirement plans, and carry-
over losses. Many large U.S. cities also assess a local income tax.
Among these cities are New York, Baltimore, Columbus, Detroit,
and Cincinnati. Maryland counties outside of Baltimore also assess
a county income tax.
The decision to trade off income taxes for property taxes is
debated in many states, and those states with relatively low tax rates
may have higher than average property taxes. This is a complicated
subject, but for the purposes of determining an after-tax return on
your investments, if you live in a city where income taxes have to
be paid, you need to include that liability in your calculation of
after-tax profits.
Table 10.1 summarizes the range of federal tax rates, with rates
all based on taxable income.
TA BLE 10.1. 2005 FEDERAL PERSONAL INCOME TA X R ATES.
Married Filing
Jointly or
Tax Qualifying Married Filing Head of
Rate Single Filers Widow/Widower Separately Household
10% Up to $7,300 Up to $14,600 Up to $7,300 Up to $10,450

15% $7,301–$29,700 $14,601–$59,400 $7,301–$29,700 $10,451–$39,800
25% $29,701–$71,950 $59,401–$119,950 $29,701–$59,975 $39,801–$102,800
28% $71,951–$150,150 $119,951–$182,800 $59,976–$91,400 $102,801–166,450
33% $150,151–$326,450 $182,801–$326,450 $91,401–$163,225 $166,451–$326,450
35% $326,451 or more $326,451 or more $163,226 or more $326,451 or more
The state tax rate has to be included in the calculation of after-

tax income from your investments. State ranges of income tax rates
are summarized in Table 10.2. Many states include different brack-
ets for single or married people, and other rules and exceptions
(such as tax-free earnings up to a specified amount) might also
apply.
To check the rules in detail in your state, check the Web sites for the
Federation of Tax Administrators, www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/ind_inc.html
and State Tax Central at www.statetaxcentral.com.
The actual range of tax liability you will experience in your state
depends on your income and filing status, and there is no specific
‘‘high state’’ or ‘‘low state’’ except those few states that have no
income tax or that tax only interest and dividends. The range of
rates is quite varied. The highest low-end rate is North Carolina,
where the tax burden starts out at 6% (however, the first $12,749
of income is exempt). The highest high-end rate is in Vermont,
where the tax rate can be as high as 9.5%.
In both federal and state calculations, the definition of taxable
income and effective tax rate are the same. Taxable income is the
remainder when gross income is reduced by adjustments to gross
income, itemized or standard deductions, and exemptions. The ef-
fective tax rate is the rate paid on taxable income. In some states,
rules for the calculation of taxable income are not identical to fed-
TABLE 1 0.2. 2005 STATE INCOME TAX RATES.
Tax rates Tax rates

State Low High State Low High
Alabama 2.00% 5.00% Alaska no state income tax
Arizona 2.87 5.04 Arkansas 1.0% 7.00%
California 1.00 9.30 Colorado 4.63 flat rate
Connecticut 3.00 5.00 Delaware 2.20 5.95
Florida no state income tax Georgia 1.00 6.00
Hawaii 1.40 8.25 Idaho 1.60 7.80
Illinois 3.00 flat rate Indiana 3.40 flat rate
Iowa 0.36 8.98 Kansas 3.50 6.45
Kentucky 2.00 6.00 Louisiana 2.00 6.00
Maine 2.00 8.50 Maryland 2.00 4.75
Massachusetts 5.30 flat rate Michigan 3.90 flat rate
Minnesota 5.35 7.85 Mississippi 3.00 5.00
Missouri 1.50 6.00 Montana 1.00 6.90
Nebraska 2.56 6.84 Nevada no state income tax
New Hampshire tax only on New Jersey 1.40 8.97
dividends and
interest
New Mexico 1.70 5.30 New York 4.00 6.85
North Carolina 6.00 8.25 North Dakota 2.10 5.54
Ohio 0.712 7.185 Oklahoma 0.50 6.25
Oregon 5.00 9.00 Pennsylvania 3.07 flat rate
Rhode Island 25% of federal tax South Carolina 2.50 7.00
South Dakota no state income tax Tennessee tax only on divi-
dends and interest
Texas no state income tax Utah 2.30 7.00
Vermont 3.60 9.50 Virginia 2.00 5.75
Washington no state income tax West Virginia 3.00 6.50
Wisconsin 4.60 6.75 Wyoming no state income tax
DC 4.50 9.00
eral rules. For example, the lower federal rate for long-term capital
gains (see explanation below) may not apply equally in state tax
rules. This means that in order to calculate the true tax liability
based on large capital gains in a single year, you need to perform
two separate calculations. The states also apply their own rules for
taxation of dividends. The Tax Act of 2003 changed the federal
rules. From that time onward, dividends are taxed at the same rate
as long-term capital gains, 5% for some and 15% for most people.
Even when the effective tax rate is calculated, it applies only to
ordinary income (from salary and wages, self-employment, etc.)

but not on capital gains or dividends, where rates are lower.
The Tax Act of 2003 changed the rules for long-term capital
gains. A long-term gain is defined as a gain on any asset owned
more than one year. For example, if you held stock for 13 months
and then sold it at a profit, your tax rate on the profit would most
likely be 15% (some lower-income people would pay only 5%).
■ Deferred Tax Planning
The tax rules are complex, and when you consider both federal and
state together, the total cost of taxes is considerable. A family with
taxable income above $190,000 will be taxed at 33%, and this level
of income in a two-income family is not unusual. When you add in
a typical 5% state tax, the total penalty is 38% of taxable income.
On $150,000, that is $72,200 in annual taxes.
With this in mind, careful advance tax planning is essential,
and a little time invested is likely to reduce your tax burden. Some
suggestions:
1. Time capital gains with taxes in mind. You have control over
the timing of capital gains. In years where your taxable income
will be high, avoid selling stocks and accumulating a larger tax
debt. Also try to hold stocks long enough so that larger gains
are long-term, so that you achieve the favored rates.
2. Match capital gains with losses in the same year. If you are plan-
ning to sell stock this year and report a gain, try to match it
with a capital loss at the same time. If you have stocks in your
portfolio whose performance has lagged, matching gains and
losses is a sensible way to avoid taxes.
3. Seek high-dividend stocks as an alternative to interest income.
If you invest a portion of your capital in certificates of deposit
(CDs), you may reduce taxes by replacing these with high-
yielding stocks. While dividends are taxed at favorable lower
rates, interest is not. So you can reduce your tax burden by
locating stocks with dividends at the same yield as those CDs.
4. Maximize tax-deferred investment whenever possible. Invest the

maximum allowed in your IRA and other tax-deferred ac-
counts. Long-term capital gains are not especially useful in a
tax-deferred account, but income taxed at your full rate (such
as short-term capital gains and interest) is appropriate in a self-
directed retirement account.
5. Diversify into real estate investments to reduce taxes. The tax
benefits of real estate should not be ignored in your diversified
portfolio. Investment real estate losses can be deducted to as
high as $25,000 per year. In addition, you can sell a primary
residence as often as once every two years and all the profits
(up to $500,000 for a married couple or $250,000 for a single
person) are exempt from federal tax.
The range of tax benefits and consequences is a complication

for anyone who invests money in the stock market. For most, the
services of a qualified and experienced tax professional are needed
just to comply with the law. The same professional should also be
qualified to help you with your tax planning so that future taxes are
kept to the legal minimum.
All aspects of investing—including taxes—require diligence
and research. To the extent that you are able to apply the formulas
and ratios investors need and use, your analytical base of informa-
tion improves. This applies on multiple levels, as this book has
demonstrated. The two major areas of interest to you are:
1. Corporate profitability and valuation. The task of determining

which companies are strongest in terms of long-term profit-
ability, and which ones hold out the strongest valuation for in-
vestors, is by no means simple. It should be, but the accounting
rules obscure many facts rather than reveal them. A few key
ratios and formulas can help you to cut through the veil of tech-
nical reporting to find the truth.
2. Stock analysis. Whether you like the fundamentals or the tech-
nical, or use a combination of both, analysis can become com-
plex and confusing. For this reason, it makes sense to identify
a very limited number of valuable tests and use them in con-
junction to test, verify, and confirm the trends you spot. Beat-
ing the market is not as easy as some people try to make it
sound; but smart use of a few indicators definitely will improve
your odds, leading to higher profits and lower risks.
No one can promise you the certainty investors would like

without also considering the risk levels involved. The higher the
opportunity for profit, the higher the risk. These relationships are
unavoidable, but the use of those all-important ratios and formulas
can help you select the proper range for your situation, identify the
means for picking the best stocks, and know when to sell and take
your profits.
A P P E N D I X A
Stock Market Formulas:

Summarizing the
Essentials
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE TURNOVER
S
T
A
where S credit sales

T accounts receivable turnover
ACCUMULATED VALUE
P (1 R)n A

R interest rate
n number of periods
A accumulated value
201
202 Stock Market Formulas
ACCUMULATED VALUE PER PERIOD
P冉 ((1 R)n 1)
R
冊 A

R interest rate
n number of periods
A accumulated value
ACCUMULATED VALUE WITH COMPOUNDING
R
A
P (1 (R D))n

R interest rate
D division based on compounding method
n number of periods
A accumulated value
ADJUSTED DEBT RATIO
DS
R
C

R adjusted debt ratio
Stock Market Formulas 203
ADJUSTED VOLATILITY
(H L) S
V
L

L 52-week low price
S price spikes
V adjusted volatility
ADVANCE/DECLINE RATIO
A
R
D
where A number of advancing issues

D number of declining issues
R advance/decline ratio
AFTER-TAX INCOME
(100 R)
I A
100
where I income before taxes

A after-tax income
AMORTIZATION PAYMENTS
B 冉冊
1
Vn
P
where B balance due on a loan

V present value per period
n number of periods
P payment required
ANNUALIZED RATE
R
A
M
where R net return

M months the position was open
A annualized yield
ANNUALIZED TOTAL RETURN IF EXERCISED
冉COD
B
H 12 R 冊
where C capital gain
O option premium
D dividend income
B original basis in stock
H holding period in months
R annualized total return
AVERAGE
O1 O2 ... On
A
E
where O outcomes
E number of entries (n)
A average
AVERAGE COLLECTION PERIOD
R
D
S 365
where R accounts receivable

S annual credit sales
D average collection period (days)
AVERAGE INVENTORY
Ia Ib ... In
A
n
where I inventory value

a, b period used in calculation
n total number of periods
A average inventory
BAD DEBTS TO ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE RATIO
B
R
A
where B bad debts reserve

R bad debts to accounts receivable ratio
BOOK VALUE PER SHARE
NP
B
S
where N net worth

P preferred stock
BREAKEVEN RETURN
I
B
100 R
where I rate of inflation

B breakeven return
CASH RATIO
CM
R
L
where C cash
M marketable securities
R cash ratio
CHANGE IN VOLUME
(C P)
V
P
where C current period volume

P past period volume
V change in volume
COMMON STOCK RATIO
S
R
C
where S common stock issued and outstanding

R common stock ratio
CORE DEBT RATIO
L
C
T () A
where L long-term debt

T total capitalization
A core valuation adjustments
C core debt ratio
CORE EARNINGS PER SHARE
N () A
C
S

C core earnings per share
CORE NET WORTH
N () A () L C
where N net worth as reported

A adjustments to reported value of assets
L adjustments to reported value of liabilities
C core net worth
CORE P/E RATIO
P
C
E () A

E earnings per share as reported
C core P/E ratio
CORE RETURN ON EQUITY
C
R
E

R core return on equity
CORE RETURN ON TOTAL CAPITALIZATION
CI
R
EB

R core return on total capitalization
CORE TANGIBLE BOOK VALUE PER SHARE
N P I () C
B
S
where N net worth

P preferred stock
I intangible assets
C core net worth adjustments
B core tangible book value per share
CURRENT RATIO
A
R
L

R current ratio
DAILY COMPOUNDING (ACTUAL DAYS)
(1 (R 365))365 I

DAILY COMPOUNDING (BANKING METHOD)
(1 (R 360))360 I

DEBT RATIO
D
R
C

R debt ratio
DECLINING-BALANCE DEPRECIATION
冉 BP
R
冊
AD
where B basis of asset

P prior depreciation deducted
R recovery period
A acceleration percentage
DIVIDEND PAYOUT RATIO
D
R
E

R dividend payout ratio
DIVIDEND YIELD
D
Y
P

P current price per share
Y dividend yield
EARNINGS PER SHARE
N
E
S

EFFECTIVE TAX RATE (FEDERAL)
L
R
T
where L liability for taxes

T taxable income
EFFECTIVE TAX RATE (TOTAL)
FL SL LL
R
T
where FL liability for taxes, federal

SL liability for taxes, state
LL liability for taxes, local
T taxable income (on federal return)
R effective tax rate, total
GROSS MARGIN
G
M
R
where G gross profit
R revenue
M gross margin
INTEREST
PRTI
where P principal
R interest rate
T time
I interest
INTEREST EXPENSE
PRI
R annual rate
I interest (per year)
INVENTORY TURNOVER
C
T
A
where C cost of goods sold (annual)
A average inventory
T turnover
LARGE BLOCK RATIO
B
R
V
where B large block volume in shares
V total volume in shares
R large block ratio
MARKET CAPITALIZATION
SPC
where S shares issued and outstanding

P price per share
C market capitalization
MONTHLY COMPOUNDING
(1 (R 12))12 I

MUTUAL FUNDS CASH/ASSETS RATIO
C
R
A
where C cash held by mutual funds

A total assets held by mutual funds
R cash/assets ratio
NET AFTER-TAX ANNUALIZED RETURN
冉I
100 R
100
冊
M 12 A
where I income from investments

M months held
A net after-tax annualized return
NET RETURN ON EQUITY
P
R
ES

R net return on equity
NEW HIGH/NEW LOW RATIO
H
R
L
where H number of issues with new high prices

L number of issues with new low prices
R new high/new low ratio
OPERATING PROFIT MARGIN
E
M
R
where E expenses
R revenue
M operating profit margin
PERCENTAGE PRICE CHANGE
C
P
O
where C change
O opening price
P percentage price change
PREFERRED STOCK RATIO
P
R
C
where P preferred stock

R preferred stock ratio
PRESENT VALUE
冉
F
1
(1 R)n
冊
P
where F fund value

R interest rate
n number of periods
P present value
PRESENT VALUE PER PERIOD
W 冋冉1
1
(1 R)n
冊册
R P
where W withdrawals in the future

R interest rate
n number of periods
P present value per period
PRICE/EARNINGS RATIO
P
R
E

R P/E ratio
PRICE TO BOOK VALUE PER SHARE
P
R
B

R price to book value per share
PRICE TO CASH RATIO
P
R
CL

C cash on hand
L liquid assets
R price to cash ratio
PRICE TO REVENUE RATIO
P
R
S

S sales (revenue) per share
R price to revenue ratio
PRICE TO TANGIBLE BOOK VALUE PER SHARE
P
R
BI

I intangible assets per share
R price to tangible book value per share
PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON A MONTHLY PAYMENT
Interest
B 冉冊
R
12
I
Principal
TIP
New balance forward

BPN
where B balance forward

R annual interest rate
I interest amount
T total monthly payment
P principal
N new balance forward
QUARTERLY COMPOUNDING
(1 (R 4))4 I

QUICK ASSETS RATIO
AI
R
L

I inventory
R quick assets ratio
RATE OF GROWTH IN CORE EARNINGS
CC PC
E
PC
where CC current year core earnings

PC past year core earnings
E rate of growth in core earnings
RATE OF GROWTH IN EXPENSES
CP
E
P
where C current year expenses

P past year expenses
E rate of growth in expenses
RATE OF GROWTH IN NET EARNINGS
CP
E
P
where C current year net earnings

P past year net earnings
E rate of growth in net earnings
RATE OF GROWTH IN OPERATING PROFIT
CP
R
P
where C current year operating profit

P past year operating profit
R rate of growth in operating profit
RATE OF GROWTH IN REVENUE
CP
R
P
where C current year revenue

P past year revenue
R rate of growth in revenue
RATIO OF EXPENSES TO REVENUE
E
P
R
where E expenses
R revenue
P ratio (percentage)
RETURN IF EXERCISED
SI
R
IO
where S sales price of stock

I invested capital
O option premium received
R return
RETURN ON EQUITY
P
R
E

R return on equity
RETURN ON INVESTED CAPITAL
SI
R
I
where S sales price

I invested capital
R return
RETURN ON INVESTMENT NET OF MARGIN
VBI
R
C
where V current market value

B basis (including leveraged portion)
I interest cost
C current market value at time of sale
R return on investment net of margin
RETURN ON LONG OPTIONS
SP
R
P
where S closing net sales price

P opening net purchase price
R net return
RETURN ON NET INVESTMENT
SIC
R
I
where S sales price

I invested capital
C costs
R return
RETURN ON NET INVESTMENT WITH NET COST BASIS
SI
R
IC
where S sales price

I invested capital
C costs
R return
RETURN ON PURCHASE PRICE
SP
R
P
where S sales price

P purchase price
R return
RETURN ON TOTAL CAPITALIZATION
PI
R
EB

R return on equity
SEMIANNUAL COMPOUNDING
(1 (R 2))2 I

SHORT INTEREST RATIO
S
R
V
where S number of shares sold short

V total trading volume
R short interest ratio
SINKING FUND PAYMENTS
F冉 1
(((1 R)n 1) R)
S 冊
where F fund value
R interest rate
n number of periods
S sinking fund payments
STRAIGHT-LINE DEPRECIATION
A
D
R
where A basis of asset

R recovery period
TANGIBLE BOOK VALUE PER SHARE
NPI
B
S
where N net worth

P preferred stock
I intangible assets
B tangible book value per share
TAXABLE INCOME
(1) I A G
(2) G E D T
where I total income, all sources

A adjustments
G adjusted gross income
E exemptions
D deductions (itemized or standard)
T taxable income
TOTAL RETURN
SICD
R
I
where S sales price

I invested capital
C costs
D dividends earned
R return
VOLATILITY
HL
V
L

L 52-week low price
V volatility
WEIGHTED AVERAGE CAPITAL
(p1 v) (p2 v)
W
pt
where p1 period 1 (number of months)

p2 period 2 (number of months)
v value
pt total periods (months in the year)
W weighted average capital
WORKING CAPITAL TURNOVER
R
T
AL
where R one year’s revenue

A current assets
T working capital turnover
Glossary of Terms
accounts payable A current liability representing the dollar

amount of all currently due bills for a company.
accounts receivable A current asset (minus a reserve for bad

debts) reporting the amount currently due from a company’s cus-
tomers.
accumulated depreciation An asset account reducing the gross

basis of capital assets and offsetting the sum of annual depreciation
expenses.
accumulated value The value of a fund after a period of time,

assuming a rate of interest and compounding method.
acid test Alternate name for the quick assets ratio, the division of
current asserts without inventory by current liabilities.
after-tax income Net income from investments after deducting all

applicable income tax liabilities.
amortization The annual expensing of an asset set up in one year,

but applying over two years or more (such as a three-year insur-
ance premium paid in one installment).
annual report A document published each year by companies that

includes financial statements and footnotes; explanations of trends
and products provided by management; and descriptions of the
company’s primary business and segments, markets, and officers.
225
226 Glossary of Terms
assets Properties owned by companies, including current assets

(cash and assets convertible to cash within 12 months), capital
assets net of accumulated depreciation, deferred and prepaid
assets, and intangible assets.
bad debts Accounts receivable written off as expenses because

they have become uncollectible.
balance sheet A financial statement prepared as of a specific date,

usually the end of a fiscal quarter or year, reporting the ending
balances of all asset, liability, and net worth accounts. The sum of
liabilities and net worth equals the sum of all assets.
bonds Forms of liability reported on the balance sheet as long-

term obligations; debt capitalization representing contractual obli-
gations to bondholders for periodic interest payments as well as
repayment of the bond face value by a specified deadline.
book value per share A company’s total net worth divided by the
number of common shares issued and outstanding.
breakeven return The return needed to break even after consider-

ing the effects of both inflation and taxes.
breakout An important signal in technical analysis, in which the

price of a stock moves above resistance or below support.
call An option granting its owner the right to buy 100 shares of
stock at a fixed price.
capital assets Those assets reported on a company’s balance

sheet subject to depreciation over many years, including real estate,
vehicles, machinery and equipment, furniture, computers, and
tools.
capital stock The equity value of a company held by stockholders,

reported as the value of shares outstanding in one or more classes
of common and preferred stock.
capitalization The total funding of a company, consisting of eq-

uity (capital stock) and long-term debt (bonds and notes).
cash flow The movement of funds into and out of a company;

tests of cash flow indicate the company’s ability to pay current lia-
bilities and fund growth.
comparative financial statement A statement including informa-

tion for the current period as well as the previous period (quarter-
to-quarter or year-to-year).
confirmation A process of verifying an indicated trend or change

in a trend through a separate indicator.
consolidated financial statement A financial statement including

information for the entire company, including all subsidiaries.
contingent liability A liability that may or may not become an

actual liability in the future, such as the potential losses from law-
suits.
contrarian investing A strategy in which decisions are made spe-

cifically opposite the decisions of the majority, in the belief that the
majority is usually wrong.
core earnings Those earnings derived from a company’s primary

(core) business and excluding nonrecurring sources such as the
sale of assets or segments, or accounting adjustments; and includ-
ing expenses not reported under current accounting rules.
core net worth The true dollar value net worth of a company,
including all assets and liabilities not reported on the balance sheet,
and with adjustments to reflect the true market value of assets.
cost of goods sold The direct costs incurred by a company, in-

cluding materials purchased and direct labor, the level of which is
expected to track revenue closely.
covered call A call sold when the seller also owns 100 shares of
stock for each option.
current assets and liabilities Those assets that are in the form of
cash or are convertible to cash within 12 months (accounts receiv-
able, securities, and inventory); and those liabilities that are payable
within the next 12 months (accounts payable for current expenses,
taxes, and 12 months’ payments of long-term obligations).
current ratio A ratio testing working capital; current assets are

divided by current liabilities to test a company’s conditions against
a commonly applied standard of ‘‘2’’ or better as acceptable.
current yield The percentage yield investors earn from dividends,

based on the dividend per share divided by the current price per
share.
debt ratio An important test of capitalization; long-term debt is

divided by total capitalization (long-term debt and net worth), and
the result is expressed as a percentage.
deferred assets Any assets that will eventually be reclassified as

expenses, either in a single year or over a period of years.
depreciation An annual reduction in the book value of capital

assets and reflection of the annual claim as an expense; the term,
or recovery period.
diversification Dividing investment capital among different in-

vestments and markets, to avoid the risk of loss in an entire portfo-
lio due to a single negative turn.
dividend yield The current yield on stock based on declared divi-

dends. The dividend per share is divided by the current price per
share, with the result expressed as a percentage.
Dow Theory A technical market theory based on tracking of pri-

mary movements in indices and confirmation of indicated trends,
based on the writings of Charles Dow.
earnings per share (EPS) The dollar amount of earnings when

divided by the number of common shares issued and outstanding
during the same period. When the number of shares has changed
during the year, an average for the year is used.
effective tax rate The rate an individual pays based on net taxable
income, after deducting exemptions and itemized or standard de-
duction.
efficient market theory A theory stating that the current prices of

all stocks include all known information about the company at all
times; the theory that pricing is the direct result of public knowl-
edge.
equity The ownership value of a company, as opposed to debt;

net worth.
expenses Payments made by a company for sales or general obli-

gations, including rent, salaries and wages, telephone, office sup-
plies, travel, advertising, and legal fees.
financial statements The periodic reports published by compa-

nies, including the balance sheet (summary of ending balances in
asset, liability, and net worth accounts), income statement (reve-
nue, costs, expenses, and profits for the period), and statement of
cash flows (a summary of the movement of cash into and out of the
company during the reported period).
fiscal year The year used by corporations to report financial re-

sults, which does not necessarily correspond to the calendar year.
footnotes A section of a company’s annual report providing de-

tailed explanations, expansions, and disclosures of items shown on
the financial statements.
fundamental analysis Investment analysis based on financial and

related information, including financial statements, dividend decla-
rations and payments, management, competition, and product
news.
GAAP Generally accepted accounting principles, a series of opin-

ions, publications, and rulings issued by several organizations (pri-
marily the AICPA and FASB) mandating the rules for interpreting
a company’s financial transactions and performing audits.
gaps Spaces between a stock’s trading range from one day to the
next, viewed as significant by technicians if those gaps establish a
movement out of the current trading range.
goodwill An intangible asset, an estimated value assigned to the

reputation of a company and its product or service.
gross margin The percentage of gross profit divided by revenue.
gross profit The dollar value remaining when the cost of goods
sold is subtracted from revenue.
head and shoulders A chart formation popular among techni-

cians, indicating a coming move away from the established trading
range.
income statement A financial statement reporting revenue, costs,

expenses, and profits for a specified period of time, usually a fiscal
quarter or year.
institutional investor Any investor in the market with the com-

bined capital of many individuals, such as mutual funds, insurance
companies, and pension plans; institutional investors represent the
majority of trades and dollar value of the stock market.
intangible assets Any assets reported on a company’s balance

sheet that lack tangible value, including goodwill, non-compete
covenants, trademarks, and organizational expenses.
inventory turnover A calculation of the average number of times

inventory is replaced during a year; a ratio testing inventory effi-
ciency.
large blocks Trades of 10,000 or more shares in a single transac-

tion, usually executed by institutional investors.
liquidity The availability of working capital based on comparisons

between current assets and current liabilities.
long-term assets Alternative name for capital assets, or fixed

assets; properties set up as assets and depreciated over a recovery
period.
long-term liabilities All liabilities due beyond the next 12 months,

including long-term notes, contracts, and bonds.
margin An expression of return in the form of a percentage, such

as gross margin (gross profit as a percentage of sales), operating
margin, or pretax margin.
market capitalization The value of a listed company, or the sum

of total shares outstanding multiplied by the current price per
share.
market value The current value of an asset on the market, in the

event of an immediate sale.
moving average An average in which the latest fields are added

and older fields are dropped from the calculation.
multiple The number of times earnings are reflected in the stock’s

current price. Price per share is divided by earnings per share (the
P/E ratio) to find the multiple.
net income The income after all costs and expenses are deducted
from revenues.
net profit The bottom line of profit after all adjustments and taxes.
net return A percentage calculated by dividing net income by rev-

enues.
net worth The value of a company including capital stock and

retained earnings; the remaining value when total liabilities are de-
ducted from total assets.
operating profit The profit strictly from operations and excluding

other income and expenses and tax liabilities.
option an intangible contract granting its owner the right to buy

or sell 100 shares of stock at a fixed price and before a specified
expiration date.
other income and expenses All adjustments to operating profit

for nonoperating items, including interest income and expense,
currency exchange gains or losses, and profit or loss from selling
capital assets.
P/E ratio Also called the price/earnings ratio, a popular test of a

stock’s risk and demand on the market; price per share is divided
by earnings per share to calculate a multiple, reported as a single
number.
premium The cost or value of an option.
prepaid assets Any assets paid in advance of the applicable pe-

riod; these are set up on the balance sheet and amortized over a
period of time so that the expense is reported in the proper ac-
counting year.
present value The value today of a future fund, based on interest

rate and compounding method.
put An option granting its owner the right to sell 100 shares of
stock at a fixed price.
qualified opinion An opinion expressed as a final step in an inde-

pendent audit, including specific reservations about the accuracy
or fairness of a company’s financial statements.
quick assets ratio Also called the acid test ratio, a comparison
between current assets (excluding inventory) and current liabilities;
a variation of the current ratio.
random walk hypothesis A theory stating that all stock price

movement is random and cannot be predicted accurately, because
price change results only from supply and demand.
ratio Generally, any abbreviated form of expression concerning

two related financial outcomes, expressed as a percentage or a sin-
gle number.
reserve for bad debts An account reducing the balance sheet value
of accounts receivable to anticipate likely levels of bad debt ex-
penses.
resistance The top of a stock’s trading range, or the highest price

buyers are willing to pay for shares based on current conditions.
retail investor The individual, a non-institutional investor.
return Profit from investing in stocks or, in the reporting by com-

panies, profit remaining after costs and expenses are deducted
from revenue.
revenues The gross income, or sales, reported by a company dur-

ing a specified period of time (fiscal quarter or year), before deduc-
tions of costs or expenses.
shareholders’ equity The net worth of a company, equal to the

net difference between total assets and total liabilities.
simple average An average calculated without adjustments, in

which a number of values are added together and then divided by
the total count of values.
sinking fund payments The amount of periodic payments needed

to accumulate a sum at the end, based on frequency of payments,
interest rate, and compounding method.
spike In statistics, an aberration in a trend above or below more

typical entries. Spikes are normally removed from any calculations
such as averages or price ranges.
statement of cash flows The third financial statement (included

with the balance sheet and income statement), which summarizes
all sources and applications of funds and provides details between
beginning and ending balances of cash.
statement of operations Alternative name for the income state-

ment.
stockholders’ equity The total equity value of a company, also

representing the net difference between total assets and total liabili-
ties.
support The lowest price in a stock’s trading range; the lowest

price at which investors are willing to sell under current conditions.
swing trading A technical trading strategy based on two- to five-

day price trends, identification of buy and sell set-up signals, and
chart tracking to time decisions.
tangible book value per share The net worth of a company minus
intangible assets, divided by the number of shares issued and out-
standing.
technical analysis All forms of analysis based on a stock’s price

and price movement and trend, including patterns in price charts,
trading range, and volume.
total capitalization The sum of long-term liabilities (debt capital-

ization) and shareholders’ equity (equity capitalization).
trading range The price difference between the trend in the high-
est and lowest prices of a stock under current conditions.
trend Any factor followed by investors, either fundamental or

technical, that is tracked and monitored over time.
volatility An expression of a stock’s risk, usually based on a com-

parison of high and low prices over a 12-month period.
weighted average capital The dollar value of capital calculated to

account for changes in level at various times during the year.
weighted moving average Any moving average in which some

fields (usually the most recent) are given greater weight than
others.
working capital Funds available to a corporation to pay its bills

and fund growth, consisting of the net difference between current
assets and current liabilities.
yield The margin, profit, or return; used by corporations to indi-

cate yield in the form of dividends or based on profits compared to
revenues, and used by investors to calculate profit or loss on in-
vested funds.
Index
accounting rules, 90–93 current ratio, 115–117
accounts receivable tests, inventory tests, 121–123
119–121 long-term asset tests,
accumulated value, 79–82 123–125
adjusted debt ratio, 37 problems, 98–100
adjusted volatility, 170–171 quick assets ratio, 117
advance/decline ratio, 162 tangible book value, 129–132
after-tax income, 21 working capital tests,
amortization payments, 85–86 115–118
annualized return, 44–46 banking method, 78
asset valuation, 99–100 basic equation, 9–15
average, 63–64 book value per share, 130
average collection period, 121 breakeven return, 71–73
average inventory, 122–123 breakout, 164
average net worth, 26–29
calculation method, 7, 9
bad debts to accounts receivable call option, 16
ratio, 119–120 candlestick charts, 50–51
bail-out goal, 6–7 capital gains, 97–98, 198
balance sheet capital stock, 114
accounts receivable tests, capitalization, 126–129
119–121 carryover losses, 69–71
analysis, nature of, 109–112 cash ratio, 117–118
basics, 112–115 change in volume, 171
book value per share, 130 chart patterns, 162–164
capitalization, 126–129 combined analysis
cash ratio, 117–118 confirmation, 176–177
237
238 Index
combined analysis (continued) daily compounding, 78

described, 175–176 debt ratio, 30–32, 37
effective use of, 176–179 declining-balance depreciation,
forms of testing, 179–181 125
oddities, 188–190 dividend payout ratio, 126–128
tests, 181–184 dividend yield, 14–15
common stock ratio, 129 Dow Theory, 154–156
compounding
annualized, 44–46 earnings per share (EPS), 47–
banking method, 78 48, 101–102, 139
comparisons, 7–8 earnings trends, 143–146
daily, 78 effective tax rate, 19–21
monthly, 46, 77 efficient market theory,
quarterly, 76 157–159
semiannually, 75–76 exercise (option), 16
confirmation, 176–177
conflict of interest, accounting, GAAP, 32, 90–98, 109–110
90–91 gaps, 164, 166
contingent liabilities, 97, 99 gross margin, 146–147
core
debt ratio, 103–104 head and shoulders, 163, 165
earnings per share (CEPS), hybrid capitalization, 35–38
102, 105–107
earnings, defined, 89–90 in the money, 17
growth rate (earnings), inflation, 71–73, 193
145–146 interest expense, 42–43
net worth, 32–35 interest formula, 74–75
p/e ratio, 105 inventory tests, 121–123
return on equity, 34 IRA accounts, 66–67
tangible book value per share,
131–132 judging the outcome, 6–9
cost of money, 42–44
covered call, 16, 54–55 key ratios, 100–105
current assets and liabilities,
112, 114 large block ratio, 172–173
current ratio, 115–117 LEAPS option, 56
current yield, 14–15 leverage-based risk, 46–51
Index 239
long-term asset tests, 114, ratio of expenses to revenue,

123–125 148
long-term lease obligations, 99 ratios, 133–135
revenue, 136–137, 141–143,
market capitalization, 128–129 146–151
market sentiment, 164–168 option
material expenses, 96–98 call and put, 16
mergers and acquisitions, 178 covered, 16, 54–55
monthly compounding, 77 definitions, 16
moving average, 64–65 LEAPS, 56
multiple of earnings, 47 leverage with, 51–60
municipal bonds, 67 ratio write, 55
mutual funds cash/assets ratio, return on long, 52–53
171–172 trading return, 15–19
uncovered, 54, 55
net after-tax annualized return, value, 52
67–68 out of the money, 17
net return on equity, 37–38
new high/new low ratio, 161 P/E ratio, 46–51, 181–182,
nonrecurring accounting 184–185
changes, 98 passive reporting, 93–96
pension liabilities, 99, 103
operating profit margin, percentage price change,
149–150 160–161
operating statement preferred stock ratio, 36–37
after-tax profit, 141 premium (option), 16
basics, 135–141 present value, 82–83, 84–85
cost of goods sold, 137 price to
earnings trends, 143–151 book value per share, 186
expenses, 137–139, 147–148 cash ratio, 187–188
fundamentals of analysis, 133 revenue ratio, 185–186
gross margin, 146–147 tangible book value per share,
gross profit, 137 186–187
margins, 135–136 principal and interest calcula-
operating profit, 139, tion, 86–87
149–150 profit goal, 6–7
pretax profit, 140 pump and dump, 178–179
240 Index
purchase price, 6 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

put option, 16, 55–56 (SOX), 91, 94–96
semiannual compounding,
quarterly compounding, 76 75–76
quick assets ratio, 117 short interest ratio, 167
sinking fund payments, 83–84
random walk hypothesis, state income taxes, 66, 197
157–159 stock option liability, 99
rate of growth in revenue, straight-line depreciation, 124
142–143 strike price, 16
ratio of expenses to revenue, support level, 163
148 swing trading, 51
ratio write, 55
resistance level, 163 tangible book value, 129–132
retained earnings, 114 tax
return and investment return,
annualized, 44–46, 66–68 19–22
breakeven, 71–73 capital gains, 198
carryover losses and, 69–71 deferred liability, 194,
compound, 74–79 198–200
corporate view of, 24–26 federal and state, 195–198
if exercised, 18–19, 57–58 profit calculations, 191–192
long-term, 62–66 returns (after-tax), 192–195
mutual fund, 61–62 shelter, 194
on equity, 24–25, 34, 37–38 technical analysis
on invested capital, 10–11, advance/decline ratio, 162
23–40 basics, 154–157
on investment net of margin, calculations (price),
43–44 159–162
on net investment with net chart patterns, 162–164
cost basis, 12–13 Dow Theory and, 154–156
on net investment, 11–12 efficient market theory,
on purchase price, 9–10 157–159
on total capitalization, 25– explained, 153–154
26, 34–35 market sentiment, 164–168
taxes and, 19–22 new high/new low ratio, 161
total annualized net, 66–68 random walk hypothesis,
risk, degree of, 7, 8 157–159
Index 241
volatility, 168–171, 183 use of capital, 38–40

volume, 171–173 useful life, 124
time factor in return, 7
time value of money, 79–87 value of stock, 6
total capitalization, 29–32 volatility, 168–171
volume, 171–173
underlying security, 16 weighted average capital, 27–29

unlisted liabilities, 32–35 working capital, 114, 115–118

The Stock Investers Pocket Calculator WWW - Dl4all

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Stock Investers Pocket Calculator WWW - Dl4all

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Stock Investers Pocket Calculator WWW - Dl4all

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Stock Investor’s

American Management Association

This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

2007 Michael Thomsett.

The Basic Dollars

ou have so many different ways of calculating ‘‘profit’’ or ‘‘yield’’

Y or ‘‘return’’ that no clear, simple answer will suffice. It is different

tions report versus what is accurate; fundamental and technical

of specific products but also in comparing one to another—and

1. Information and background. One of the most amazing things

quarterly reports online. This is very valuable. Before the In-

This book is designed for a spectrum of investors, from novices

E For example, what is your ‘‘return’’? If you invest money in a

capital is usually different and is used by corporations to judge op-

■ Judging the Outcome—What Did You Expect?

All investment calculations are done in order to monitor and judge

1. The purchase price is the assumed ‘‘starting point.’’ It is an easy

expectations. Do you plan to double your money? Triple it? Or

FIGURE 1.1. OPPORTUNITY AND RISK.

ods in use, and these are explained in this chapter. However, in

The important determination of an investment’s success has

The second part—deciding how to compute profits and

■ The Basic Equation: Return on Cash Invested

Calculating return is perceived in many instances as rather simple.

FORMULA: RETURN ON PURCHASE PRICE

where S sales price

The result is expressed as a percentage. In the example, the return

Return on purchase price is the calculation most investors are de-

FORMULA: RETURN ON INVESTED CAPITAL

where S sales price

This calculation is a theoretical outcome only. It is not realistic to

FORMULA: RETURN ON NET INVESTMENT

where S sales price

$2,934 $1,294 $78

An alternative method of computing this would assume that the

FORMULA: RETURN ON NET INVESTMENT WITH NET COST

where S sales price

This outcome is not significantly different from the previous calcu-

FORMULA: TOTAL RETURN

where S sales price

$2,934 $1,294 $78  $124

The involvement of dividends is somewhat complicated, for two

The final calculation for return on cash invested is dividend yield,

FORMULA: DIVIDEND YIELD

where D dividend per share

For example, a particular stock closed yesterday at $48.86 per

per share, yield would increase to 4.0% ($40  $1.60). However,

100 shares earn 3.3% current yield

If this calculation were performed each quarter, you would arrive

■ Calculating Option Trading Returns

The calculations of stock return and dividend yield involve subtle

The comparison between a stock’s profit and an option’s demon-

position). Second, because you also own shares of stock, exercise

FORMULA: RETURN IF EXERCISED

where S sales price of stock

on the covered call would be 100% (because you received $100

■ Taxes and Investment Return

FORMULA: TAXABLE INCOME

$2,934 $1,294 $78 $124

per share, yield would increase to 4.0% ($40 $1.60). However,

(2 months at $4,500,000 10 months at $5,700,000) 12

(4 $4,500,000) (15 $5,700,000)