Discovering appropriate friends for monetary evaluation is a vexing job that requires cautious consideration of companies’ underlying economics, accounting selections, and monetary assertion presentation. However with out comparable monetary assertion data, peer benchmarking could yield much less significant and even deceptive insights that negatively impression earnings forecasts.
In a recent study printed in The Accounting Evaluation, we developed a technique to determine comparable companies for benchmarking and analyzed its implications for analyst outcomes and valuation with multiples. On this put up, we are going to spotlight the salient particulars, a few of which can shock you.
There are other ways to outline peer companies, comparable to industry membership, stock index membership, closeness in market capitalization, and similarity in value drivers (e.g., P/E ratio, return-on-invested capital, and progress).
As a substitute for conventional classifications, researchers have examined new methods to determine peer companies, comparable to buyers’ co-search, depth of companies’ filings with the SEC’s EDGAR, and inventory data on Yahoo! Finance.
These extensively utilized strategies fail to instantly tackle a vital side of agency benchmarking: the supply of key monetary assertion data for peer companies. When a number of monetary assertion line gadgets are lacking for a peer agency, analysts battle to derive significant inferences from the comparative to the focal agency’s monetary statements.
Our monetary assertion benchmarking (FSB) measure goals to fill this hole. The info and code are freely obtainable on our website.
Capturing the Diploma of Overlap Between Monetary Assertion Gadgets
Constructed on the Jaccard similarity coefficient, pairwise FSB captures the diploma of overlap in monetary assertion gadgets reported by two companies, with scores starting from 0 (no overlap) to 1 (full overlap). The upper the FSB rating, the larger the benchmarking data obtainable to exterior customers.
As an example, if the focal agency has reported 270 gadgets, 200 of which overlap with 220 gadgets reported by the peer agency, the FSB rating is 0.69 (200 / (270 + 220 – 200). To place this into context, the typical rating for analyst-chosen friends in our pattern is 0.68.
Assuming that FSB is a useful metric in capturing the similarity of two companies’ underlying economics and accounting selections, we anticipate it to be positively correlated with analysts’ selections of peer companies.
Our pattern of analyst-chosen friends comes from a Evaluation of Accounting Research article, “Analysts’ choice of peer companies.” By manually screening greater than 2,500 sell-side fairness analysts’ stories, the authors extracted information on comparable peer companies chosen for the focal agency in every report.
In our research, for every analyst-chosen peer agency, we chosen an identical agency in the identical {industry} that was not chosen however which had an analogous measurement and valuation a number of. The outcomes present that analysts have a tendency to decide on peer companies which might be extra similar to a focal agency from a monetary assertion benchmarking perspective.
When FSB is larger by one-standard-deviation, the probability of being chosen as a peer agency by an analyst will increase by 13%.
Larger FSBs Enhance Accuracy of Earnings Forecasts
Does selecting friends with larger FSBs have constructive implications for analyst efficiency? We discover that when the typical FSB of the set of analyst-chosen peer companies is one-standard-deviation larger, the accuracy of analysts’ earnings forecasts will increase by about 23%.
When choosing peer companies, search for companies which have extra comparable monetary statements to the focal agency, even when meaning looking out outdoors the focal agency’s important {industry}. In truth, solely 40% of the analyst-chosen peer companies function in the identical product market because the focal agency.
Which corporations do you assume can be good peer companies to decide on when analyzing Colgate-Palmolive? Morningstar lists Procter & Gamble and Unilever as prime friends for the corporate. Regardless of being listed on a US inventory alternate, Unilever has a modest 0.69 FSB rating with Colgate-Palmolive.
That is seemingly as a result of the corporate makes use of Worldwide Monetary Reporting Requirements to arrange its monetary statements. Utilizing totally different accounting requirements reduces comparability as a result of variations within the recognition and presentation guidelines. In distinction, P&G and Colgate-Palmolive have the next FSB rating of 0.77, suggesting a larger comparability than Unilever and Colgate-Palmolive.
In distinction to Morningstar’s method, Google Finance creates a listing of peer companies primarily based on buyers’ co-search exercise. Notably, among the many peer companies Google Finance lists for Colgate-Palmolive is Coca-Cola. Though this commentary could appear unintuitive at first blush, our methodology means that, from a monetary assertion benchmarking perspective, Coca-Cola can be a wonderful match on this case as a result of its FSB rating with Colgate-Palmolive is effectively above the typical at 0.82. This will likely clarify why buyers extensively co-search the monetary data of the 2 corporations.
Validation and Testing
After validating and testing the pairwise FSB metric, we aggregated information throughout all {industry} friends of the focal agency to grasp how simple it’s to benchmark a agency’s monetary statements total. This course of yielded a big panel of firm-level FSB information. Additionally, to counterpoint our methodology, we decomposed FSB on the monetary assertion degree, producing separate FSB scores for the revenue assertion, steadiness sheet, and assertion of money flows.
Whereas analysts’ consensus earnings and internet debt forecasts are extra correct when firm-level FSB is excessive (i.e., it’s simple to benchmark and perceive a agency’s monetary statements), revenue assertion and steadiness sheet benchmarking play totally different roles in these outcomes.
We discover that the Revenue assertion FSB rating predicts the accuracy of earnings forecasts however not internet debt forecasts. In distinction, steadiness sheet FSB rating predicts the accuracy of internet debt forecasts, however not earnings forecasts. In financial phrases, a one-standard-deviation improve in revenue assertion (steadiness sheet) FSB is related to a 17.3% (12.1%) extra correct consensus earnings (internet debt) forecasts. These findings spotlight that benchmarking advantages depend upon the context of the evaluation.
For the Investor: Business, Business-Dimension, or FSB Friends
Past constructive analyst outcomes, a key query for buyers is whether or not selecting peer companies primarily based on FSB improves valuation with comparables. To this finish, we in contrast the predictive potential of the valuation multiples fashioned utilizing FSB-based friends to these of the fashions using conventional strategies for peer agency choice, comparable to industry- and size-based friends. Particularly, we regressed the longer term enterprise value-to-sales ratio (EVS) of the focal agency on the typical EVS calculated for 3 units of friends: (1) {industry} friends, (2) industry-size friends, and (3) FSB friends.
When predicting one-year, two-year, and three-year-ahead EVS, the fashions utilizing the typical valuation a number of of FSB-based friends constantly outperform these using solely industry- and industry-size friends. As an example, the R-squared of the mannequin predicting one-year-ahead EVS will increase from 24.8% to 31.8% when the typical EVS of the 4 highest FSB friends is included within the mannequin.
In conclusion, we observe that FSB is an easy, easy measure summarizing the overlap in peer companies’ underlying economics and accounting selections, that are the important thing components that form monetary statements. FSB is offered on the pairwise and agency ranges, permitting exterior customers to seek out appropriate peer companies for numerous functions, together with relative efficiency, compensation, and valuation benchmarking.
Discovering appropriate friends for monetary evaluation is a vexing job that requires cautious consideration of companies’ underlying economics, accounting selections, and monetary assertion presentation. However with out comparable monetary assertion data, peer benchmarking could yield much less significant and even deceptive insights that negatively impression earnings forecasts.
In a recent study printed in The Accounting Evaluation, we developed a technique to determine comparable companies for benchmarking and analyzed its implications for analyst outcomes and valuation with multiples. On this put up, we are going to spotlight the salient particulars, a few of which can shock you.
There are other ways to outline peer companies, comparable to industry membership, stock index membership, closeness in market capitalization, and similarity in value drivers (e.g., P/E ratio, return-on-invested capital, and progress).
As a substitute for conventional classifications, researchers have examined new methods to determine peer companies, comparable to buyers’ co-search, depth of companies’ filings with the SEC’s EDGAR, and inventory data on Yahoo! Finance.
These extensively utilized strategies fail to instantly tackle a vital side of agency benchmarking: the supply of key monetary assertion data for peer companies. When a number of monetary assertion line gadgets are lacking for a peer agency, analysts battle to derive significant inferences from the comparative to the focal agency’s monetary statements.
Our monetary assertion benchmarking (FSB) measure goals to fill this hole. The info and code are freely obtainable on our website.
Capturing the Diploma of Overlap Between Monetary Assertion Gadgets
Constructed on the Jaccard similarity coefficient, pairwise FSB captures the diploma of overlap in monetary assertion gadgets reported by two companies, with scores starting from 0 (no overlap) to 1 (full overlap). The upper the FSB rating, the larger the benchmarking data obtainable to exterior customers.
As an example, if the focal agency has reported 270 gadgets, 200 of which overlap with 220 gadgets reported by the peer agency, the FSB rating is 0.69 (200 / (270 + 220 – 200). To place this into context, the typical rating for analyst-chosen friends in our pattern is 0.68.
Assuming that FSB is a useful metric in capturing the similarity of two companies’ underlying economics and accounting selections, we anticipate it to be positively correlated with analysts’ selections of peer companies.
Our pattern of analyst-chosen friends comes from a Evaluation of Accounting Research article, “Analysts’ choice of peer companies.” By manually screening greater than 2,500 sell-side fairness analysts’ stories, the authors extracted information on comparable peer companies chosen for the focal agency in every report.
In our research, for every analyst-chosen peer agency, we chosen an identical agency in the identical {industry} that was not chosen however which had an analogous measurement and valuation a number of. The outcomes present that analysts have a tendency to decide on peer companies which might be extra similar to a focal agency from a monetary assertion benchmarking perspective.
When FSB is larger by one-standard-deviation, the probability of being chosen as a peer agency by an analyst will increase by 13%.
Larger FSBs Enhance Accuracy of Earnings Forecasts
Does selecting friends with larger FSBs have constructive implications for analyst efficiency? We discover that when the typical FSB of the set of analyst-chosen peer companies is one-standard-deviation larger, the accuracy of analysts’ earnings forecasts will increase by about 23%.
When choosing peer companies, search for companies which have extra comparable monetary statements to the focal agency, even when meaning looking out outdoors the focal agency’s important {industry}. In truth, solely 40% of the analyst-chosen peer companies function in the identical product market because the focal agency.
Which corporations do you assume can be good peer companies to decide on when analyzing Colgate-Palmolive? Morningstar lists Procter & Gamble and Unilever as prime friends for the corporate. Regardless of being listed on a US inventory alternate, Unilever has a modest 0.69 FSB rating with Colgate-Palmolive.
That is seemingly as a result of the corporate makes use of Worldwide Monetary Reporting Requirements to arrange its monetary statements. Utilizing totally different accounting requirements reduces comparability as a result of variations within the recognition and presentation guidelines. In distinction, P&G and Colgate-Palmolive have the next FSB rating of 0.77, suggesting a larger comparability than Unilever and Colgate-Palmolive.
In distinction to Morningstar’s method, Google Finance creates a listing of peer companies primarily based on buyers’ co-search exercise. Notably, among the many peer companies Google Finance lists for Colgate-Palmolive is Coca-Cola. Though this commentary could appear unintuitive at first blush, our methodology means that, from a monetary assertion benchmarking perspective, Coca-Cola can be a wonderful match on this case as a result of its FSB rating with Colgate-Palmolive is effectively above the typical at 0.82. This will likely clarify why buyers extensively co-search the monetary data of the 2 corporations.
Validation and Testing
After validating and testing the pairwise FSB metric, we aggregated information throughout all {industry} friends of the focal agency to grasp how simple it’s to benchmark a agency’s monetary statements total. This course of yielded a big panel of firm-level FSB information. Additionally, to counterpoint our methodology, we decomposed FSB on the monetary assertion degree, producing separate FSB scores for the revenue assertion, steadiness sheet, and assertion of money flows.
Whereas analysts’ consensus earnings and internet debt forecasts are extra correct when firm-level FSB is excessive (i.e., it’s simple to benchmark and perceive a agency’s monetary statements), revenue assertion and steadiness sheet benchmarking play totally different roles in these outcomes.
We discover that the Revenue assertion FSB rating predicts the accuracy of earnings forecasts however not internet debt forecasts. In distinction, steadiness sheet FSB rating predicts the accuracy of internet debt forecasts, however not earnings forecasts. In financial phrases, a one-standard-deviation improve in revenue assertion (steadiness sheet) FSB is related to a 17.3% (12.1%) extra correct consensus earnings (internet debt) forecasts. These findings spotlight that benchmarking advantages depend upon the context of the evaluation.
For the Investor: Business, Business-Dimension, or FSB Friends
Past constructive analyst outcomes, a key query for buyers is whether or not selecting peer companies primarily based on FSB improves valuation with comparables. To this finish, we in contrast the predictive potential of the valuation multiples fashioned utilizing FSB-based friends to these of the fashions using conventional strategies for peer agency choice, comparable to industry- and size-based friends. Particularly, we regressed the longer term enterprise value-to-sales ratio (EVS) of the focal agency on the typical EVS calculated for 3 units of friends: (1) {industry} friends, (2) industry-size friends, and (3) FSB friends.
When predicting one-year, two-year, and three-year-ahead EVS, the fashions utilizing the typical valuation a number of of FSB-based friends constantly outperform these using solely industry- and industry-size friends. As an example, the R-squared of the mannequin predicting one-year-ahead EVS will increase from 24.8% to 31.8% when the typical EVS of the 4 highest FSB friends is included within the mannequin.
In conclusion, we observe that FSB is an easy, easy measure summarizing the overlap in peer companies’ underlying economics and accounting selections, that are the important thing components that form monetary statements. FSB is offered on the pairwise and agency ranges, permitting exterior customers to seek out appropriate peer companies for numerous functions, together with relative efficiency, compensation, and valuation benchmarking.