Explore how investors determine required return and implied growth rates for equities using valuation models like CAPM and dividend discount models, with real-life examples and best practices.
I remember the very first time I tried to value a company’s stock—let’s just say I had more questions than answers. I kept asking stuff like, “How do I figure out the right rate of return to discount these cash flows?” and “What if I guess the wrong growth rate—am I basically sunk?” Well, yes, if your assumptions about return and growth are wildly off, your valuation will be way out of line.
This section tackles the core ideas behind the required return on equity—essentially the price investors demand for taking on equity risk—and the implied growth rate, which is the growth that’s “baked in” to a company’s current market valuation. We’ll examine both of these concepts in detail, connect them to widely used valuation models, and explore real-world scenarios.
The notion of a required return on equity (let’s call it r for simplicity) is grounded in the undeniable fact that investors expect to earn something in exchange for the uncertainty they face when they buy shares in a company. If they wanted something relatively risk-free, they might go for short-term government bonds (at least in the idealized view), so the return on equities has to exceed that baseline.
• Discounting Future Cash Flows: As discussed in earlier sections like “Interest Rates as Required Returns, Discount Rates, and Opportunity Costs” (Chapter 1.1), the required return directly affects how we discount a stock’s future cash flows.
• Opportunity Cost: The required return also represents the opportunity cost—what an investor could earn elsewhere for a comparable level of risk.
• Stock Pricing: If the required return is higher, the stock’s fair value (based on discounted cash flows) is lower, all else being equal.
A very common method to estimate the required return on equity is the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). While CAPM has its critics, it often serves as a handy baseline. Under CAPM:
where:
• \( r_f \) is the risk-free rate, often proxied by a short-term sovereign bond yield.
• \( \beta \) is a measure of how sensitive the stock is to market movements.
• \( E[R_m] \) is the expected market return.
So, if you spot a stock with a higher beta, it suggests that the stock moves more dramatically with market ups and downs, making it riskier. Hence, the required return would be higher.
I once got into a debate with a friend about whether beta always captures real-world risk. My friend’s argument was that a well-diversified investor might rely on beta, while a smaller investor (maybe with fewer holdings) might look at total volatility. It’s a valid point: CAPM is built on the assumption that investors hold diversified portfolios. Still, it remains one of the go-to methods for approximating r.
Implied growth is basically the growth rate of dividends (or free cash flows) that, when plugged into a valuation model, matches the current market price. Suppose you see a stock trading at $50. If you assume an 8% required return and you can guess the next dividend or next year’s free cash flow, you might solve for the growth rate that justifies that $50 price.
• Market Expectations: Implied growth reveals the market’s consensus (right or wrong) about the company’s future potential.
• Identifying Discrepancies: You can compare your own forecasts with the implied growth to see if the market is too optimistic or pessimistic.
• Scenario Analysis: By testing different growth scenarios (e.g., 2%, 5%, 10%), analysts can figure out whether a stock’s price is justified under various assumptions.
It’s worth noting that growth assumptions can carry a big punch. A small change in the growth rate can shift valuation dramatically. I once built a basic dividend discount model for a big tech company that everyone was bullish about. When I dialed growth estimates up by a single percentage point, the valuation soared. When I dialed it back down, the firm looked overvalued. That’s the sensitivity you’re dealing with.
One of the cleanest ways to see how required return and implied growth emerge is the Gordon Growth Model (aka the constant growth dividend discount model). Formally:
where:
• \( P_0 \) is the current stock price.
• \( D_1 \) is the dividend expected next period.
• \( r \) is the required return on equity.
• \( g \) is the constant growth rate of the dividend.
If \( P_0 \), \( D_1 \), and \( g \) are known, you can rearrange:
Let’s do a quick numeric example. Suppose a stock trades at $100, next year’s dividend is forecast to be $3, and you believe dividends will grow at 5% per year forever. Then:
So the market is implicitly telling you: “An 8% required return is consistent with a $100 stock price, a $3 dividend, and 5% growth.”
Conversely, if \( P_0 \), \( D_1 \), and \( r \) are known, you can solve:
So if the same $100 stock has next year’s dividend at $3, and you figure the required return is 8%, the implied growth is:
We’ve basically arrived at the same number. But in practice, you might guess at two of these variables and solve for the third, depending on what’s known and what the market price is telling you.
Below is a simple Mermaid diagram to show how these elements connect:
flowchart LR
A["Determine P<sub>0</sub>"] --> B["Known or Estimated: <br/> D<sub>1</sub>, r, g"]
B --> C{"Solve for Missing <br/> Variable?"}
C --> D["Solve for r <br/> = D<sub>1</sub>/P<sub>0</sub> + g"]
C --> E["Solve for g <br/> = r - D<sub>1</sub>/P<sub>0</sub>"]
C --> F["Alternatively: P<sub>0</sub> = D<sub>1</sub> / (r - g)"]
But life isn’t always that tidy, right? Some companies grow quickly at first and then slow down. Others might have cyclical patterns. So we expand the dividend discount model to a multistage approach:
• Stage 1: Project dividends for years 1 through 5 with explicit growth rates, discount them back to present.
• Stage 2: Assume from year 6 onward, dividends grow at a stable rate (g). So at the end of year 5, the value is \( D_6 / (r - g) \), discounted back to present.
• Add: Present values of stage 1 + the present value of the terminal value from stage 2.
In such a model, you could also back-solve for the implied “steady” growth rate after you specify the earlier period’s growth rates and the current price. Analysts often do this to see if the final growth assumption is realistic. If you find your terminal growth is 12% in perpetuity, you might want to re-check that logic—very few firms sustain extremely high growth forever.
Investors sometimes prefer to examine free cash flow to equity instead of dividends. After all, not every firm pays a dividend, but all (hopefully) generate some free cash flow. The concept is analogous:
If it’s constant growth FCFE, we can do:
And from there, you can solve for \( g \) or \( r \) just like with dividends. For multi-stage FCFE models, you partition growth into multiple phases, discount each FCFE, and add the terminal value. I recall analyzing a small growth-oriented company that didn’t pay a dividend at all. I used a multi-stage FCFE model and discovered that my implied growth was basically in double digits for a decade. That was a huge assumption, so I ran scenario analyses (like “What if it only grows for five years?”), and the valuation changed drastically.
One big watch-out: equity valuations are often extremely sensitive to changes in growth assumptions, especially when looking far into the future. Here are a few best practices:
I’ve seen novices plug in a slightly higher growth rate for year 20 onward—yikes! The result can exponentially inflate valuations, giving a false sense of a “fair” price. Don’t fall for that trap. Keep growth within reason.
Imagine a tech company that’s expected to grow at 20% for the first 3 years, then revert to 6%. If the market price is $120, the next dividend is $2, and you use a 10% required return, you can build a timeline of expected dividends:
Then discount everything back using 10%. Suppose you do that math and find that the fair value equals $120 precisely. Then you know the required return of 10% is consistent with a growth path that transitions from 20% to 6%. If you forced the model to match the $120 price but changed the final stage to, say, 7% growth, you’d see a new implied required return or a new implied g. This is how you “back-solve” for whichever variable you’re uncertain about.
Utility stocks often grow at a rate near the economy’s inflation rate—let’s guess 2%. Suppose the stock is at $50, next dividend is $2.50, and you figure the required return is 7%. The implied growth from Gordon Growth would be:
The model lines up well with your expectation for a slow-growing utility. Everything looks consistent. That’s the essence: let your assumptions remain tethered to real-world conditions.
• Use Multiple Valuation Methods: Don’t rely on one approach alone. Combine dividend discount models, FCFE models, and relative valuation metrics.
• Cross-Check With Industry Data: Growth rates that are too far from the norm deserve a second look.
• Perform Stress Tests: Test the valuation with a range of required returns (like 8%, 9%, 10%) to see if the investment still looks viable.
• Ignoring Capital Structure: If a firm’s debt level is changing dramatically, be mindful when you switch between FCFF (free cash flow to the firm) and FCFE.
• Overconfidence in Growth Forecasts: Overly optimistic growth assumptions can lead to major valuation errors.
• Misapplication of CAPM: Beta might not always reflect the actual risk of a stock, especially in small or illiquid markets.
• Diverse Valuation Horizons: Some analysts use 3- to 5-year horizons, while others look 10 years out or more, creating big differences in implied growth.
• Transition Phases: Precisely pinning down when a high-growth company will “normalize” is tricky; mistakes in these transitions can produce large valuation swings.
Though discussions of IFRS or US GAAP rarely revolve around “growth rates” explicitly, it’s essential to ensure the data you use—earnings, dividends, or cash flow figures—complies with recognized accounting standards. The CFA Institute Code of Ethics also emphasizes prudent, fair dealing with clients and realistic, transparent assumptions. Overstating or understating growth for marketing or personal bias can violate professional standards.
• Remember the Formulas: For quick exam-based questions, recall \( r = \frac{D_1}{P_0} + g \) or \( g = r - \frac{D_1}{P_0} \). They often appear in item sets.
• Practice with Sensitivity Tables: On exam day, you might face a scenario question where changing r or g leads to drastically different valuations. Practice building quick tables that show how small changes can move the needle.
• Link Concepts to Other Chapters: Connect this to “Time Value of Money” (Chapter 2.1), “Implied Return for Fixed-Income Instruments” (Chapter 2.2), and so on. A broad perspective helps you see how the required return for equities fits into the bigger picture of discount rates and overall portfolio choices.
• Write Clearly in Constructed-Response Questions: If the exam question is a short-answer or essay, show your steps clearly. The graders want to see your logic.
Focus on clarity of your assumptions—especially with growth. If you’re claiming that a company will perpetually grow at 12%, be sure to justify it. And keep your eyes on the clock, because you can spend a lot of time on these calculations if you’re not methodical.
Important Notice: FinancialAnalystGuide.com provides supplemental CFA study materials, including mock exams, sample exam questions, and other practice resources to aid your exam preparation. These resources are not affiliated with or endorsed by the CFA Institute. CFA® and Chartered Financial Analyst® are registered trademarks owned exclusively by CFA Institute. Our content is independent, and we do not guarantee exam success. CFA Institute does not endorse, promote, or warrant the accuracy or quality of our products.