Apple ($AAPL) announced quarter one results today.  With the $AAPL share price over US$200 - 52-week range US$82.33-215.59 - we decided to have a quick look.

Valuecruncher Interactive Analysts Report For Apple ($AAPL)

We have the comparator group set as Microsoft ($MSFT), IBM ($IBM), Google ($GOOG) and Hewlett-Packard($HPQ). You can change these peer companies on the site. For example you could add:

1. Research In Motion ($RIM) - Interactive Analyst Report For $RIM
2. Palm ($PALM) - Interactive Analyst Report For $PALM
3. Qualcomm ($QCOM) - Interactive Analyst Report For $QCOM

So what do we think?

Discounted Cash Flow Valuation

We have completed a discounted cash flow valuation using our interactive tools (there is a “discounted cash flow analysis” link just under the company name on the company page). We have populated our model with a mixture of consensus analyst estimates and Valuecruncher estimates. Our analysis produces a valuation of US$189.23 for $AAPL - 6.7% below the current share price. We see $AAPL overvalued at the moment. But how about compared to a peer group?

Comparison Analysis

I changed the peer group companies to $IBM, $RIM, $QCOM and $GOOG.  I am going to look at only one of the metrics we use at Valuecruncher - EV/EBITDA. Enterprise Value (EV) is simply market capitalization plus net debt [long-term borrowings less cash]. We use EV to capture the impact of debt and cash on a company’s balance sheet - market capitalization doesn’t capture different capital structures when comparing companies. EV/EBITDA shows how a dollar of profit (measured in as Earnings Before Interest Taxes Depreciation and Amortization) is being valued by the market against the comparator set.

On an EV/EBITDA basis $AAPLT is trading at 18.6x ($AAPL is being valued at 18.6x last year’s profit at the EBITDA line). A dollar of $AAPL EBITDA is worth more a dollar of $IBM (more than double), $RIM, $QCOM or $GOOG EBITDA. This is despite $AAPL making less margin at the EBITDA line than any of these comparators ($AAPL made a 22.8% EBITDA margin last year comparded with 23.0% at $IBM and 41.6% at $GOOG). There are still some steep expectations being priced into the current share price.

If we lower the $AAPL EV/EBITDA multiple to 17.5x (a slight premium to $QCOM) then this gives a share price of US$187.57 - 7.5% below the current share price. This valuation is in line with our DCF analysis.

Summary

Based on our DCF valuation - $AAPL looks overvalued. Looking at some comparators - the market is valuing $AAPL highly compared to some peers. We believe if you are investing in $AAPL at the current price - you are paying a full price and there are cheaper options available. We know that we will hear about that from the $AAPL fans out there however.

Disclosure: no positions.

It has been a crazy 15 months for the Apple ($AAPL) share price. On the 22 August 2008 $AAPL was trading at $176.79. By 16 January 2009 $AAPL had dropped to $82.33 - down over half (53% down) in under five months. Today $AAPL closed at $190.01 - up over 130% in under nine months. The graph below shows the closing prices over the period. So what do we think about $AAPL?

Valuecruncher Interactive Analysts Report For Apple ($AAPL)

We have the comparator group set as Microsoft ($MSFT), IBM ($IBM), Google ($GOOG) and Hewlett-Packard($HPQ). You can change these peer companies on the site. For example you could add:

1. Research In Motion ($RIM) - Interactive Analyst Report For $RIM
2. Palm ($PALM) - Interactive Analyst Report For $PALM
3. Qualcomm ($QCOM) - Interactive Analyst Report For $QCOM

So what do we think?

Discounted Cash Flow Valuation

We have completed a discounted cash flow valuation using our interactive tools (there is a “discounted cash flow analysis” link just under the company name on the company page). We have populated our model with a mixture of consensus analyst estimates and Valuecruncher estimates. Our analysis produces a valuation of US$176.16 for $AAPL - 7.3% below the current share price. We see $AAPL overvalued at the moment. But how about compared to a peer group?

Comparison Analysis

I changed the peer group companies to $IBM, $RIM, $PALM and $QCOM.  I am going to look at two of the metrics we use at Valuecruncher - Enterprise Value (EV)/Revenue and EV/EBITDA. Enterprise Value (EV) is simply market capitalization plus net debt [long-term borrowings less cash]. We use EV to capture the impact of debt and cash on a company’s balance sheet - market capitalization doesn’t capture different capital structures when comparing companies.

EV/Revenue shows how a dollar or revenues is being valued by the market against the comparator set. On an EV/Revenue basis $AAPL is trading at 4.5x ($AAPL is being valued at 4.5x last year’s revenues). This compares to $IBM at 1.7x, $RIM at 3.5x, $PALM at 3.4x and $QCOM at 5.8x. $AAPL’s profit margins (at the EBITDA line) are 20.9% of revenues.  A dollar of $AAPL revenues is being valued more than a dollar of $RIM revenues - despite that dollar of revenues producing less profit (on an EBITDA basis) than the $RIM revenues.  A dollar of $AAPL revenues is being valued less than a dollar of $QCOM revenues - but $QCOM produces nearly twice the profit (on an EBITDA basis) as $AAPL.  We would expect the difference between the multiples for $QCOM and $AAPL to be larger - in $QCOM’s favour. There are some big growth expectations for $AAPL - on an EV/Revenue basis there appears to be a premium being paid for $AAPL against the peer group.

If we lower the $AAPL EV/Revenue multiple to 3.75x (a slight premium to $RIM) then this gives a share price of $163.30 - 14% below the current share price.

EV/EBITDA shows how a dollar of profit (measured in as Earnings Before Interest Taxes Depreciation and Amortization) is being valued by the market against the comparator set. On an EV/EBITDA basis $AAPLT is trading at 21.51x ($AAPL is being valued at 21.5x last year’s profit at the EBITDA line). A dollar of $AAPL EBITDA is worth more than double a dollar of $IBM, $RIM or $QCOM EBITDA ($PALM is losing money at the EBITDA line).

If we lower the $AAPL EV/EBITDA multiple to 17.5x (a slight premium to $QCOM) then this gives a share price of $160.06 - 16% below the current share price.

Summary

Based on our DCF valuation - $AAPL looks overvalued. Looking at some comparators - the market is valuing $AAPL highly compared to some peers. We believe if you are investing in $AAPL at the current price - you are paying a full price and there are cheaper options available. We do recognize that there are a lot of $AAPL fans out there however.

Disclosure: no positions.

After our recent post on Microsoft ($MSFT) - people asked for a quick take on Apple ($AAPL). Here it is.

Valuecruncher Interactive Analysts Report For Apple ($AAPL)

We have the comparator group set as Microsoft ($MSFT), IBM ($IBM), Google ($GOOG) and Hewlett-Packard($HPQ). You can change these peer companies on the site. For example you could add:

1. Research In Motion ($RIM) - Interactive Analyst Report For $RIM
2. Palm ($PALM) - Interactive Analyst Report For $PALM
3. Qualcomm ($QCOM) - Interactive Analyst Report For $QCOM

$AAPL’s share price is currently trading at US$160.00. This is well up from the 52-week low of US$78.20. The graph below shows the last 12 months of closing prices.

So what do we think?

Discounted Cash Flow Valuation

We have completed a discounted cash flow valuation using our interactive tools (there is a “discounted cash flow analysis” link just under the company name on the company page). We have populated our model with a mixture of consensus analyst estimates and Valuecruncher estimates. Our analysis produces a valuation of US$161.63 for $AAPL - 1.0% above the current share price. We see $AAPL correctly valued at the moment. But how about compared to a peer group?

Comparison Analysis

I am going to look at two of the metrics we use at Valuecruncher - Enterprise Value (EV)/Revenue and EV/EBITDA. Enterprise Value (EV) is simply market capitalization plus net debt [long-term borrowings less cash]. We use EV to capture the impact of debt and cash on a company’s balance sheet - market capitalization doesn’t capture different capital structures when comparing companies.

EV/Revenue shows how a dollar or revenues is being valued by the market against the comparator set. On an EV/Revenue basis $AAPL is trading at 3.66x ($AAPL is being valued at 3.66x last year’s revenues). This compares to $MSFT at 3.08x, $IBM at 1.70x, $GOOG at 5.73x and $HPQ at 0.91x. $AAPL’s profit margins (at the EBITDA line) are 20.9% of revenues.  A dollar of $AAPL revenues is being valued more than a dollar of $MSFT revenues - despite that dollar of revenues producing just more than half the profit of the $MSFT revenues.  A dollar of $AAPL revenues is being valued twice as much as a dollar of $IBM revenues - despite that dollar of revenues producing a similar level of profit as the $AAPL revenues.  As we have previously noted - that is some big growth expectations for $AAPL.

EV/EBITDA shows how a dollar of profit (measured in as Earnings Before Interest Taxes Depreciation and Amortization) is being valued by the market against the comparator set. On an EV/EBITDA basis $AAPLT is trading at 17.51x ($AAPL is being valued at 17.51x last year’s profit at the EBITDA line). A dollar of $AAPL EBITDA is worth more than double a dollar of $MSFT, $IBM or $HPQ EBITDA. And more than a dollar of $GOOG EBITDA as well. $AAPL is trading at a higher EV/EBITDA multiple than $RIM and $QCOM as well - but it is in the same general ballpark. $RIM is trading at 15.08x and $QCOM at 16.93x.

Summary

Based on our DCF valuation - $AAPL looks correctly valued. Looking at some comparators - the market is valuing $AAPL pretty highly compared to some peers. On an EV/Revenue basis - a dollar of $AAPL revenues is worth more than a dollar of $MSFT revenues even when the dollar of $MSFT revenues produces nearly twice the profits of the $AAPL revenues. We believe if you are investing in $AAPL at the current price - you are paying a full price and there are cheaper options available.

Disclosure: no positions.

One of the things that we frequently observe in discussions about stocks is a focus on the qualitative story - “I like my iPhone, buy Apple  ($AAPL)”.

Now the story behind a stock is important. That Apple (or any other company) makes great products that people want to buy is very relevant to the value of the company.

BUT - to make good investment decisions you need to understand how the financial markets value this story. Markets can have an overly optimistic or pessimistic view of a company. To understand value - you need to look at the numbers.

Let’s look at an example - Microsoft ($MSFT)

We have previously looked at $MSFT and the comments on those posts have reflected the challenges that $MSFT faces as a company moving forward. These comments have mostly reflected the story of these challenges - the view that $MSFT will not be as successful in the future as it has been in the past. Because of these challenges - $MSFT must be a bad investment.

Let’s have a look at that assumption - from a valuation perspective.

Remember - the market should value companies on future expected prospects (measured in future expected cash flows). Where opportunities exist, either buying or selling, is where companies expected future cash flows are viewed either excessively optimistically or pessimistically. Over the long-run it should correct.

“In the short run, the market is a voting machine, but in the long run it is a weighing machine.” — Benjamin Graham, The Intelligent Investor

Now looking at $MSFT.  It has been an amazing business - it has the second largest market capitalization in the world after Exxon Mobil ($XOM) [$XOM US$336.41 Bn, $MSFT US$218.31 Bn, PetroChina US$208.37 Bn]. Since 2005 (to 2008) the company has grown revenues at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 15% with EBITDA margins of 40%.

Now $MSFT has a raft of potential challenges to their business - only one recent example: Google Chrome OS.

But how is the $MSFT story being valued? We will look at this from two angles - $MSFT vs a set of peer companies and $MSFT as a standalone entity using a discounted cash flow valuation model.

Comparator Analysis

At Valuecruncher we provide a range of different valuation metrics for each company and a starting set of peer companies (that can be changed).  Here is the $MSFT comparator tool - and some explanation on how to use the tools. Our tools are interactive - you can adjust the valuation outputs to see the impact on the share price.

I am going to look at two of the metrics - Enterprise Value (EV)/Revenue and EV/EBITDA. Enterprise Value (EV) is simply market capitalization plus net debt [long-term borrowings less cash]. We use EV to capture the impact of debt and cash on a company’s balance sheet - market capitalization doesn’t capture different capital structures when comparing companies.

For $MSFT we will look at four comparators - IBM ($IBM), Apple ($AAPL), Google ($GOOG) and Hewlett-Packard ($HPQ).

EV/Revenue shows how a dollar or revenues is being valued by the market against the comparator set. On an EV/Revenue basis $MSFT is trading at 3.2x. This compares to $IBM at 1.7x, $AAPL at 3.5x, $GOOG at 5.5x and $HPQ at 0.9x. $MSFT’s profit margins (at the EBITDA line) are 43.3% of revenues compared to 20.6% and 12.0% for $IBM and $HPQ respectively - so those feel right.  $GOOG has similar margins to $MSFT and significant growth options - but a dollar of $GOOG revenues being worth 70% more than a dollar of $MSFT revenues feels rich. But the standout - to us - is that $AAPL with profit margins half that of $MSFT is valued similarly on an EV/Revenue basis. A dollar of $AAPL revenues is being valued slightly more than a dollar of $MSFT revenues - despite that dollar of revenues producing less than half the profit of the $MSFT revenues.  That is some big growth expectations for $AAPL.

EV/EBITDA shows how a dollar of profit (measured in as Earnings Before Interest Taxes Depreciation and Amortization) is being valued by the market against the comparator set. On an EV/EBITDA basis $MSFT is trading at 7.4x. This compares to $IBM at 8.2x, $AAPL at 16.5x, $GOOG at 14.8x and $HPQ at 7.4x. Talk about no respect - a dollar of $MSFT EBITDA is worth only slightly more than a dollar of $HPQ EBITDA and less than the other comparators.

Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Analysis

We have completed a discounted cash flow valuation using our interactive tools (there is a “discounted cash flow analysis” link just under the company name on the company page). We have populated our model with a mixture of consensus analyst estimates and Valuecruncher estimates. Our analysis produces a valuation of US$29.43 for $MSFT - 18.5% above the current share price. A key input to that calculation is an estimate of long-term growth of 4.0% - which we don’t feel is too aggressive. Remember revenues have grown at a CAGR of 15% since 2005. The US economy grew at a 3.6% CAGR between 2003 and 2007.

Summary

Our DCF analysis produces a valuation of US$29.43 for $MSFT - 18.5% above the current share price. This equates to an EV/EBITDA multiple of 9.1x. This appears reasonable in comparison to the peer group of companies that we have examined.

Based on our analysis it appears that $MSFT is undervalued. There are certainly challenges facing the business - but the market currently has an overly pessimistic view on the company. $MSFT currently represents a good buy. All our tools are interactive - you can complete your own analysis.

Disclosure: No Positions.

A great quarterly result from IBM ($IBM).  We decided to have a look at the latest numbers for $IBM and look at some comparator analysis.

Valuecruncher Interactive Analyst Report For $IBM

Valuecruncher’s interactive analyst report covers both comparator valuation analysis and a discounted cash flow (DCF) valuation for $IBM.

Starting with the comparator analysis:

• $IBM is compared to Microsoft ($MSFT), Oracle ($ORCL), Hewlett-Packard ($HPQ) and Accenture ($ACN).
• On an Enterprise Value (EV) /Revenue basis $IBM is valued less than half of $MSFT and $ORCL but nearly double $HPQ and $ACN. This is due to the relative profitability of those revenues - at the EBITDA line approximately 20% for $IBM versus 43-45% for $MSFT and $ORCL and 12-14% for $HPQ and $ACN.
• On an EV/EBITDA basis - the companies profits are being valued more closely. EBITDA is a measure of profitability - Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization.

Note: Enterprise Value is calculated as Market Capitalization plus Net Debt [Long-term Borrowings less Cash].

Our DCF valuation produces a value of US$108.42. This is just under 2% below the current share price of US$110.60.

Assumptions

• Revenue: Reuters aggregates 18 analysts covering $IBM and the mean estimates of 2009 and 2010 revenues are US$95.2 billion and US$97.3 billion respectively. For our analysis we have used US$95.0 billion in 2009, US$97.0 billion in 2010 and US$99.0 billion in 2011.
• Profitability: We have used an EBITDA margin of 22.5% in 2009 rising to 23.0% in 2010. Reuters has $IBM‘s EBITD margin at 20.8% last year and an average of 17.9% over the last five-years.
• Capital Expenditure: We have assumed capital expenditures of US$4.0 billion in 2009, US$4.5 billion in 2010 then US$5.0 billion per annum moving forward.
• Discount Rate: 10.5%.
• Terminal Growth Rate: 3.0%.

Our analysis incorporates the cash and debt on the $IBM balance sheet – Valuecruncher calculates a net debt number.

Both the comparator and DCF valuations are interactive. You can play with the assumptions and calculate your own valuations. Based on our analysis $IBM appears fairly valued.

Disclosure: None.

10 days ago we made the argument that the withdrawl of the IBM ($IBM) acquistion offer for Sun ($JAVA) was a problem for $JAVA shareholders. The heading for the post was “Sun ($JAVA) needs IBM ($IBM)“.  The basis of our analysis was that the IBM acquisition offer looked much better than Sun as a standalone business.

It looks like we were half right - the important half.  Today Oracle ($ORCL) announced the acquisition of Sun ($JAVA) at US$9.50 a share - just above the revised $IBM offer of US$9.40 a share.  Sun did not need IBM because of Oracle.  The logic of being acquired in the board price range was still compelling.

$JAVA has found an acquirer and this still looks a higher value option for $JAVA shareholders than remaining an independent company.  This is a good result for $JAVA shareholders.

Disclosure: None

Last weekend IBM ($IBM) withdrew their acquisition offer for Sun Microsystems ($JAVA).  Pre-offer $JAVA had not traded over US$6.00 since October last year.  The original $IBM offer was at US$9.55 (subsequently dropped to US$9.40).  With this offer $IBM was valuing $JAVA not as a standalone business - but as part of a combined entity.  The premium to the pre-offer share price represented the synergies $IBM believed they could achieve with the acquisition (additional revenues opportunities - but more likely expense savings).  These synergies are what allowed $IBM to make the offer they did.  Upon announcement of the offer the $JAVA shares traded as high as US$9.27.  With the withdrawal of the offer the shares fell back to close at $6.56 on 6 April - now US$6.68.  So what does a valuation of $JAVA as a standalone business look like? This is the way to examine $JAVA - to compare with a US$9.40 offer from $IBM.

Valuecruncher Interactive Analyst Report For $JAVA - New Format

Valuecruncher produces a valuation of US$6.44 for $JAVA. This is a current valuation (an estimate of intrinsic value using a discounted cash flow model) not a target price. This valuation is 3.6% below the current share price of US$6.68.  It is 31.5% below the US$9.40 $IBM offer.

Assumptions

• Revenue: Reuters aggregates 15 analysts covering $JAVA and the mean estimates of 2009 and 2010 revenues are US$12.4 billion and US$12.2 billion respectively. For our analysis we have used US$12.4 billion in 2009, US$12.2 billion in 2010 and US$12.0 billion in 2011.
• Profitability: We have used an EBITDA margin of 4.5% in 2009 rising to 5.5% in 2010 and beyond. Reuters has $JAVA‘s EBITD margin at -7.5% last year and an average of 5.5% over the last five-years.
• Capital Expenditure: We have assumed capital expenditures of US$550.0 million in 2009 then US$450.0 million per annum moving forward.
• Discount Rate: 10.0%.
• Terminal Growth Rate: 3.0%.

Our analysis incorporates the cash and debt on the $JAVA balance sheet – Valuecruncher calculates a net debt number.

Based on our numbers - the $IBM offer looks very attractive for $JAVA shareholders.  Play with our assumptions – what does your analysis say? Our model is interactive - you can change any of our assumptions.

Disclosure: None

“In the short run, the market is a voting machine, but in the long run it is a weighing machine.” — Benjamin Graham, The Intelligent Investor

That is the best analysis we can find about the current market. We believe there is an intrinsic value for shares and our analysis attempts to calculate this. But in the short-term market sentiment is a key factor and at the moment the votes are primarily negative. But there are some positives appearing. This week it was IBM ($IBM). $IBM announced better than expected fourth quarter results. At Valuecruncher we have previously looked at $IBM. Our 2008 projections in our previous analysis were not far out - we projected 2008 revenues of US$105.0 billion against actuals of US$103.6. We decided to update our valuation of $IBM.

Valuecruncher valuation model of $IBM with interactive assumptions

Valuecruncher produces a valuation of US$128.62 for $IBM. This is a current valuation (an estimate of intrinsic value using a discounted cash flow model) not a target price. This valuation is 42.8% above the current share price of US$90.07.

Assumptions

• Revenue: Reuters aggregates 15 analysts covering $IBM and these analysts have a mean estimate of 2009 revenues of US$103.2 billion. For our analysis we have used US$105.0 billion in 2009, US$107.0 billion in 2010 and US$110.0 billion in 2011.
• Profitability: We have used an EBITDA margin of 20% flat to 2010. Reuters had $IBM‘s EBITD margin at 20.26% in 2007 but is waiting for detailed profitability results for 2008 (including at the EBITDA line) which have not yet been released by the company.
• Capital Expenditure: We have assumed capital expenditures of US$4.5 billion in 2009 and 2010 rising to US$5.0 billion in 2011 and beyond.
• Discount Rate: 10.5%.
• Terminal Growth Rate: 3.0%.

Our analysis incorporates the cash and debt the $IBM balance sheet – Valuecruncher calculates a net debt number.

Our analysis has considerable range for downside:

• Increasing the discount rate to 11.5% drops our valuation to US$116.20.
• Lowering the terminal growth rate to 2% drops our valuation to US$117.41.
• Lowering our 2009-11 revenues to US$100.0 billion drops our valuation to US$116.43.
• Lowering our EBITDA margin to 17.5% from 2009 drops our valuation US$111.00.
• Combining all of these sensitivities results in a valuation of US$84.74 - 5.9% below the current share price.

Comparator Analysis

Comparator analysis (sometimes called comparison company analysis) is a relative valuation approach. For $IBM we looked at four peer companies - Accenture ($ACN), HP ($HPQ), Microsoft ($MSFT) and Oracle ($ORCL). We calculated enterprise values - market capitalisation plus net debt (long-term borrowings less cash). Then we measured a range of metrics against the enterprise value for $IBM and the peer set.

We have used the last financial year (LFY) as the base set of metrics. $IBM has not yet released the 2008 LFY profitability (EBIT and EBITDA) and free cash flow results. For this analysis we have used the 2008 revenue numbers with the 2007 profitability and free cash flow margins. The highlighted column links our DCF valuation to the current market valuation.

$IBM is currently trading in the middle to the upper-end of the valuation metrics of the peer group. Our DCF valuation places a value on $IBM well above where the market is currently valuing the company and the peer group. Reviewing our assumptions we remain comfortable with our valuation. Using the DCF valuation approach we believe that $IBM is trading at a discount to intrinsic value. The market is definitely voting negative - but in the long-run we believe $IBM represents value at current prices.

Play with our assumptions – what does your analysis say?

Disclosure: None

Microsoft ($MSFT) continues to trade under US$20 a share.  We have previously looked at $MSFT and felt it was undervalued in the US$20-25 range.  We decided it was time to revisit our valuation.

Valuecruncher valuation model of $MSFT with interactive assumptions

Valuecruncher produces a valuation of US$25.34 for $MSFT. This is a current valuation (an estimate of intrinsic value using a discounted cash flow model) not a target price. This valuation is 33.6% above the current share price of US$18.96.

Assumptions

• Revenue: Reuters aggregates 30 analysts covering $MSFT and the mean estimate of 2009 revenues is US$67.3 billion. For our analysis we have used US$64.0 billion in 2009, US$68.5 billion in 2010 and US$72.5 billion in 2011.  Between 2004 and 2008 $MSFT grew revenues at a compound annual growth rate of 13.2% - revenues of US$36.8 billion in 2004 to US$60.4 billion in 2008.
• Profitability: We have used an EBITDA margin of 40.0% to 2011. Reuters has $MSFT‘s EBITD margin at 39.25% last year and an average of 37.0% over the last five-years.
• Capital Expenditure: We have assumed capital expenditures of US$3.75 billion per annum moving forward.
• Discount Rate: 11.0%.
• Terminal Growth Rate: 3.0%. In our assumptions we have 2010/11 revenue growth at 5.8% - we have assumed that growth eventually slows to a 3.0% long-term stable growth rate.  We have used 3.0% as our terminal growth rate.

Our analysis incorporates the cash on the $MSFT balance sheet – Valuecruncher calculates a net debt number.

Comparator Analysis

Comparator analysis (sometimes called comparison company analysis) is a relative valuation approach. For $MSFT we looked at four peer companies - IBM ($IBM), Apple ($AAPL), HP ($HPQ) and Google ($GOOG). We calculated enterprise values - market capitalisation plus net debt (long-term borrowings less cash). Then we measured a range of metrics against the enterprise value for $MSFT and the peer set.

We have used the last financial year (LFY) as the base set of metrics. $MSFT is currently priced at the bottom of the peer group for the EV/EBITDA and EV/EBIT metrics and in the middle for the EV/FCF metric.  The market is currently valuing the profits (EBIT and EBITDA) and free cash flow produced by $MSFT at less than half that of the comparable numbers for $GOOG. This reflects the perceived different future growth prospects of the two businesses.  The comparator numbers show $MSFT is comparably priced against the peer group - even with the strengths of their business model (39.8% EBITDA margins vs 18.9% for $IBM and 11.7% for $HPQ).  $MSFT’s growth is slowing - but it is still a very good business.  Should $MSFT’s profits (at the EBITDA and EBIT levels) really be valued less than $IBM and $HPQ?

Play with our assumptions – what does your analysis say? We think that $MSFT looks undervalued.  Our model is interactive - you can change any of our assumptions.

Disclosure: None

At Valuecruncher we have looked at $IBM several times.  Our valuations have been in the US$128 – US$141 range.  $IBM is currently trading at US$88.86 - when we looked previously $IBM was trading at US$126.52 and US$119.42.  We thought that it was time to revisit our valuation.

Valuecruncher valuation model of $IBM with interactive assumptions

Valuecruncher produces a valuation of US$130.55 for $IBM. This is a current valuation (an estimate of intrinsic value using a discounted cash flow model) not a target price. This valuation is 46.9% above the current share price of US$88.86.

Assumptions

• Revenue: Reuters aggregates 17 analysts covering $IBM and these analysts have mean estimates of 2008 and 2009 revenues of US$106.7 billion and US$111.7 billion respectively. For our analysis we have used US$105.0 billion in 2008, US$106.5 billion in 2009 and US$110.0 billion in 2010.
• Profitability: We have used an EBITDA margin of 20% flat to 2010. Reuters has $IBM‘s EBITD margin at 20.26% last year.
• Capital Expenditure: We have assumed capital expenditures of US$5.0 billion in 2008 and 2009 rising to US$5.5 billion in 2010 and beyond.
• Discount Rate: 10.5%.
• Terminal Growth Rate: 3.0%.

Our analysis incorporates the cash and debt the $IBM balance sheet – Valuecruncher calculates a net debt number.

Play with our assumptions – what does your analysis say?

Disclosure: None