Explore key strengths and pitfalls of major equity valuation models, including Dividend Discount Models, FCFE, Relative Valuation, and Asset-Based Approaches.
Valuing equities can sometimes feel like gazing down a winding road with a lot of twists and turns—you have multiple maps to guide you, but they each provide a slightly different route. In practice, analysts often use more than one valuation tool, cross-verifying and reconciling their results to build confidence in their conclusions. But what makes one approach more suitable than another in certain situations? And when might a technique’s limitations overshadow its theoretical elegance?
This section explores the core strengths and limitations of main equity valuation techniques—Dividend Discount Models (DDM), Free Cash Flow to Equity (FCFE) models, Relative Valuation, and Asset-Based Methods. We’ll also talk about how to reconcile different approaches to arrive at a balanced perspective. While the underlying math can be rigorous, the goal here is to build an intuitive grasp of each approach’s practical uses and to highlight common pitfalls. You’ll see references to advanced concepts (like scenario analysis or cost of equity computation), which you can revisit in earlier or later sections of this curriculum for deeper context. And I might drop in a quick anecdote or two about how these methods have hinted at unexpected results in real-world scenarios—sometimes in ways that made me raise an eyebrow or two.
For clarity, let’s start with a visual overview of the primary valuation techniques:
flowchart LR
A["Valuation Methods"] --> B["Dividend Discount Models<br/>(DDM)"]
A["Valuation Methods"] --> C["Free Cash Flow<br/>to Equity (FCFE)"]
A["Valuation Methods"] --> D["Relative Valuation"]
A["Valuation Methods"] --> E["Asset-Based<br/>Methods"]
Each of these methods digs into a different aspect of firm value, relying on various assumptions about growth, risk, and expected returns. Let’s take them one by one.
Dividend Discount Models are often taught first because they feel elegantly simple: a stock’s value is the present value of all future dividends. In pure theory:
where Dᵗ is the dividend at time t and r is the required rate of return.
• Theoretical purity: DDM thrives when dividends reliably track a firm’s long-term earnings power. It’s rooted in the idea that dividends are the actual cash flows shareholders pocket.
• Easy to communicate: Many investors understand “my paycheck from this stock is its dividend,” so discounting those payments resonates intuitively.
• Good fit for stable, mature firms: Companies in stable industries (e.g., utilities, some consumer staples) often have predictable, steady dividends, making a DDM quite powerful.
• Dividend policy vs. economic reality: Companies often alter dividends in ways not perfectly aligned with long-term earnings (maybe cutting dividends to finance a major project). If dividends are erratic or not reflective of underlying earning power, DDM can produce misleading results.
• Scale and timing: Some high-growth or early-stage firms either pay no dividends or have unpredictable payouts. In such cases, DDM is unworkable unless you project hypothetical dividend patterns.
• Overreliance on r and g assumptions: If your inputs for required return (r) or growth (g) are slightly off, the final value can shift dramatically (particularly in multi-stage DDMs).
FCFE models attempt to measure actual cash flows a firm can distribute to common shareholders after all expenses, reinvestment, and debt repayments. Think of it as a more “holistic” approach—beyond reported dividends, it looks at the real pot of money left for equity holders.
• Flexibility in capturing economic reality: Unlike DDM, FCFE does not rely on a firm’s stated dividend policy. Instead, it looks at the money that could have been paid out.
• Good for companies with variable dividend policies: Growth companies that plow back earnings might show zero actual dividends, yet have high free cash flow, making FCFE more relevant.
• Direct link to firm operations and capital structure: Because FCFE factors in capital investments, changes in working capital, and net borrowing, it is less likely to ignore large financing or investment decisions.
• Complexity and data intensity: Calculating FCFE accurately demands careful projection of capital expenditures, depreciation, changes in working capital, and debt flows. This can become complicated—especially if the firm’s capital structure is in flux.
• High sensitivity to assumptions: If your forecast for CapEx or working capital needs is off, your FCFE forecast can swing widely.
• Heavily reliant on stable capital structure assumptions: If the company frequently issues or repays debt unpredictably, modeling FCFE consistently can be tricky.
If you’ve ever heard “this stock trades at 15× earnings, while that peer trades at 18× earnings,” you’re talking about Relative Valuation. Common multiples include Price/Earnings (P/E), Price/Book (P/B), Price/Sales (P/S), and EV/EBITDA.
• Simple and market-oriented: You quickly see how a firm stacks up to peers on a variety of metrics.
• Identifies potential mispricing: If a target firm’s multiples differ significantly from the industry norm, it could be undervalued or overvalued.
• Easy to communicate: Many professional investors, corporate finance managers, and the financial press talk multiples—so it’s an accessible language.
• Ignores firm-specific nuances: A company might have unique growth prospects or risk factors that aren’t captured by broad industry multiples.
• Susceptible to market over- or under-valuation: If the overall sector is in a bubble, you might get artificially inflated multiples for “fair value.”
• Inconsistent across sectors: Some sectors have consistently high multiples due to intangible assets or growth expectations (e.g., tech) which can hamper cross-sector comparisons.
Asset-based methods sum up the fair value of a company’s assets minus its liabilities. Often used as a “floor” valuation, it’s particularly relevant for companies in liquidation or in capital-intensive industries.
• Provides a tangible baseline: In distressed valuation scenarios, the liquidation or replacement cost of assets sometimes sets a minimum.
• Less influenced by forecasting risk: Instead of guessing future growth or discount rates, you focus on existing asset valuations.
• Useful for asset-heavy firms: Companies in real estate, insurance, or shipping often anchor on the appraised value of tangible assets.
• Ignores intangible value: Growth opportunities, brand equity, or intangible assets might not show up properly on the balance sheet.
• Can be outdated quickly: Market values of assets, especially intangible or specialized assets, can shift dramatically.
• Not always relevant for going concerns: Most operating companies have value far beyond the net sum of their assets.
In real-world valuation exercises, analysts often apply more than one method—especially for complex or high-stakes transactions. The practice of triangulation means weighting different valuation approaches by their perceived relevance, firmness of assumptions, and stage of the firm’s life cycle.
Ask yourself: Does the FCFE approach look drastically different from the DDM? If so, is that because management retains high earnings to reinvest? Or are we missing some hidden financing costs? Are the Price/Earnings multiples giving us a sense that the market sees something special about the company’s growth trajectory, while the asset-based approach suggests a fairly low baseline?
It’s in reconciling these values that a well-rounded perspective emerges:
• Consider the reliability of each method’s assumptions.
• Analyze outliers: Why does one approach produce a significantly higher or lower value?
• Reassess growth rates, discount rates, or any big changes in capital structure or dividend policy.
One reason valuations can differ so widely is the sensitivity of certain models to key inputs, like growth rates or discount rates (r). Scenario and sensitivity analyses let you test whether your central assumptions hold water. For example, you might ask: “If growth stays at 4% instead of 6%, does the fair value measure shift by 5%, or by 50%?” Many a professional investor has learned the importance of performing these sensitivity checks—some the hard way, by seeing how a tiny change in discount rate can slash their estimated fair value in half.
In any valuation, bridging the gap between theory and real-world application relies on empirical data: actual historical financials, observed market multiples, and industry benchmarks. You may calibrate your FCFE forecasts using five years of a firm’s historical capital expenditures. Or you might pick a peer group for relative valuation based on real-time data of close competitors. The quality and relevance of these data points have a direct impact on the reliability of your final valuation.
Let’s hypothesize a consumer products firm, “Lapai Foods.” They have a modest dividend policy but often repurchase shares instead of paying large dividends. Pop that scenario into your mind, and we quickly see:
• A strict DDM might undervalue Lapai Foods because the relatively small dividend yield doesn’t correctly represent the large free cash flow used for buybacks.
• An FCFE model might show a higher fair value once we account for robust free cash flow overshadowing the modest dividend.
• Relative Valuation might show Lapai Foods trading at a discount to the sector average due to lower reported earnings in the short term, if they’ve ramped up marketing spend.
• Even an Asset-based approach might be interesting, but it could be too conservative if intangible brand value fails to show up on the balance sheet.
In reconciling these results, an analyst might weigh the FCFE approach a bit more than DDM—but also check the relative multiples to ensure the final valuation doesn’t drift too far from what market players are paying for comparable names. This approach to blending ensures no single method’s limitations overshadow the final conclusion.
• Blind reliance on multiples: Resist the urge to simply say “The sector average P/E is 18×, so that’s the fair multiple.” Different firms within the same sector can have widely varying business models and risk profiles.
• Overlooking capital structure changes: If heavily indebted firms plan to pay down debt, future free cash flows might rise significantly. You want to incorporate that into your FCFE modeling.
• Ignoring intangible assets: If a company’s intangible assets—like specialized technology or brand prestige—aren’t recognized in an asset-based approach, it’s easy to underestimate the true value.
• Failing to stress-test assumptions: Run sensitivity analyses on discount rates, long-term growth rates, and short-term cyclical changes, especially if your firm is cyclical or prone to economic downturns.
• Sensitivity Analysis: A technique that tests how valuation changes if a key input (like growth or the discount rate) deviates from the central assumption.
• Empirical Data: Actual historical or market-based inputs used for calibrating projections or comparing realized trends against theoretical models.
• Reconciling Valuations (Triangulation): The process of using multiple valuation approaches to arrive at a final, reasoned value range for an equity.
• CFA Institute Program Curriculum – Valuation Best Practices and Methodologies
• Pinto, J. E., “Equity Asset Valuation,” (CFA Institute Investment Series) – provides a comparative overview of popular discount models and relative valuation.
• For deeper dives on advanced topics such as multi-stage FCFE, see the sections on forecasting growth patterns in advanced corporate finance texts.
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.