Celgene: A Primer On Growth Stock Value Investing (GARP)

 | Nov 15, 2015 02:22AM ET

h2 Introduction

This article is the second in a two-part series on applying the principles of value investing. In part 1 found here my primary focus was on the benefits of investing in fundamentally strong dividend growth stocks when they are out of favor, and therefore, undervalued as a result. In this part 2, I will be turning my attention to determining the fair value of growth stocks. Although the underlying principles of value investing apply, assessing the fair value of a true growth stock differs greatly from valuing a dividend paying company. In both cases, the primary focus of the value investor is on fundamentals first and stock price secondarily.

However, one of the primary differences when valuing a growth stock versus valuing a dividend paying stock is the absolute necessity to focus on the future earnings potential of the company in question. Many of the most famous value investors, Ben Graham for example, believed in valuing a company solely based on historical earnings, and never on future earnings estimates.

Personally, I disagree with that approach, but only in part. When valuing a dividend paying stock, I agree that your primary focus can rationally be placed on the company’s historical achievements. On the other hand, since all investing results do, in fact, occur in future time, I believe that it is important to also have a reasonable perspective of the future growth potential of even a dividend paying company. In the long run, future earnings will determine future market price and the amount of dividend income you will receive.

In contrast to dividend paying stocks, investing in pure growth stocks is primarily based on the opportunity and expectations for above-average future capital appreciation. Since there is no dividend income to soften the blow of stock price volatility, when investing in growth stocks everything is about receiving a higher future price on your investment. Consequently, I believe that it is imperative to place most of your focus on the company’s future growth potential when considering investing in growth stocks.

h3 Growth Stocks Defined/h3

My definition of a growth stock is straightforward and precise. First of all, a growth stock represents the common stock of a company whose business is consistently growing earnings and cash flow at a significantly above-average rate. More precisely, I define a growth stock as a company whose earnings are consistently increasing at a minimum rate of change of earnings growth of 15% or better.

Additionally, I would define a hyper growth stock as one that is growing earnings at a rate of change of 25% or better. Admittedly, although both categories are rare, there are more 15% growers than there are companies growing earnings at 25% or higher. In between these broader gradations of growth are additional growth categories such as a high grower at 20%, etc.

Get The News You Want
Read market moving news with a personalized feed of stocks you care about.
Get The App

The reason I am offering my precise definition of a growth stock, is because my experience has taught me that modern finance often holds a very cavalier or vague definition of what a growth stock is. Consequently, those engaged in the growth stock versus dividend growth stock debate will often cite studies indicating that dividend stocks outperform growth stocks. However, when I have personally reviewed and analyzed many of those studies, I usually discovered that the researchers were taking great liberties with the definition of a growth stock.

For example, it is commonly asserted that a growth stock is a company with a high P/E ratio. However, a high P/E ratio does not necessarily indicate a high-growth company. In many cases, a high P/E ratio can simply represent a lower growing business that the market is currently significantly overvaluing. On the other hand, it is true that growth stocks tend to carry higher P/E ratio valuations than are typically applied to blue-chip dividend growth stocks. For me to consider a company to be a growth stock, it must also have both a historical and the potential for a high-growth rate of earnings. A high P/E ratio without supporting earnings growth does not make the company a growth stock.

Consequently, many investors hold a vague or even inaccurate view of what a growth stock truly is. Therefore, in the context of this article, I am only discussing the possibility of adding true growth stocks into retirement portfolios based on the definition of a growth stock provided above.

h3 10 Reasons Why Growth Stocks Can Be Appropriate For Retired Investors/h3

Growth stocks are riskier investments than blue-chip dividend paying stocks. However, the potential for extraordinary future returns are often worth the risk. In June of this year I posted an article found here where I listed 10 reasons why growth stocks might be appropriate for retired investors.

I listed those 10 reasons below. However, the above article provides a more comprehensive explanation of the 10 potential benefits of investing in growth stocks.

The reason I am revisiting the benefits of how a sprinkling of growth stocks might benefit anyone’s portfolio is to put a spotlight on how powerful and extraordinary the returns can be through growth stock investments. On the other hand, I also want to illustrate how tricky growth stock investing can be. But most importantly, my objective is to emphasize the importance of valuation when investing in growth stocks. As pointed out in number 6 below, growth can overcome valuation mistakes. Nevertheless, getting valuation right can both support high future returns while simultaneously keeping your risk under control.

1. Performance Considerations-Opportunity for Significantly Higher Total Returns

2. Today's Growth Stock Can Become Tomorrow's Dividend Growth Stock

3. You Already Have All the Current Income You Need

4. Time and Inclination

5. Growth Stocks Are Contemporary, Interesting, Exciting and Even Fun

6. Growth Can Overcome Valuation Mistakes

7. Growth Stocks Are Often Misunderstood

8. The Power of Compounding

9. Earnings Growth Often Easier to Forecast

10. Growth Stocks Can Add Diversification

h3 Principles of Valuing a Growth Stock/h3

When investing in blue-chip dividend growth stocks I believe a good rule of thumb is to look for P/E ratios in the 14 to 16 range. In addition to representing the historical P/E ratio average range, P/E ratios of 14 to 16 also provide a reasonable current earnings yield on your investment. In contrast, the P/E ratios of growth stocks can be much higher and still represent fair value. Consequently, when valuing a growth stock I favor applying the formula that a fair value P/E ratio will be equal to the company’s earnings growth rate. For example, a company growing at 30% per year can be fairly valued with a P/E ratio of 30.

Although a high P/E ratio (for example a P/E ratio of 30) on a growth stock will represent a lower current earnings yield, when investing in growth stocks I believe it’s all about future earnings yield. The future earnings yield from growth stock investing is all about the power of compounding. Therefore, I felt it would be appropriate to repeat what I said about compounding (reason number 8) in my previous article:

Thanks to the power of compounding, investing in growth stocks can in effect compress time. In other words, instead of taking a decade or more to double your money in a blue-chip dividend growth stock, you can double your money much quicker in a true growth stock.

To illustrate my point I will turn to the widely-recognized Rule of 72. This rule states that you can calculate the number of years it takes to double your money at a given compound return by dividing it into the number 72. I have often utilized the following analogy to illustrate the point I am making about the power of compounding compressing time.

First I will make the assumption that the average person has a working lifespan of 36 years. In modern times this may be a conservative assumption, but as I will soon illustrate it facilitates the math. Next I will assume two different compound rates of return as they apply to the average dividend growth stock, and then to the pure growth stock. For the dividend growth stock I will assume a generous and above- average rate of return of 10% per annum. For the pure growth stock I will assume the appropriately higher rate of return of 20% per annum. The math then looks like this:

  • With the dividend growth stock, If I divide 10% into 72 I calculate that it will take 7.2 years to double my money (72/10% = 7.2 years).
  • With the pure growth stock, if I divide 20% into 72 I calculate it will take 3.6 years to double my money (72/20%=3.6 years).
  • If I apply this math to my assumed average working life of 36 years I get the following results:
  • If my money doubles every 7.2 years at a 10% rate of return, I will get 5 doubles in 36 years (36/7.2=5).
  • If my money doubles every 3.6 years at a 20% rate of return, I will get 10 doubles in 36 years (36/3.6=10).

The net effect is that by doubling my average rate of return from 10% to 20% per annum I do not earn two times the money by earning twice the return. Instead, I get double the doubles. Looked at from the perspective of the first $1 (dollar) invested, the power of compounding (compressing time) becomes vividly clear. Doubling my first $1 (dollar) 5 times at the 10% return results in the following: $1 doubles 5 times to $2, $4, $8, $16, and finally to $32. However, at the 20% return I get 5 additional doubles over the same 36 year timeframe as follows: $64, $128, $256, $512, $1024.

To put this into perspective, over my assumed 36 year working lifetime I earn 32 times more money by earning 20% than I would have if I earned 10% (1024/32=32). Doubling the number of doubles over the same timeframe shows the incredible power of compounding that true growth stocks are capable of offering.

Celgene Corporation (O:CELG): 20 years of 30% Returns

My pure growth stock example to illustrate the power of growth stock investing is the biotechnology company Celgene Corporation. If you had invested $10,000 in Celgene on December 29, 1995 which is as far back as I have data, you would have earned a total annual rate of return exceeding 30% per annum. This would have turned $10,000 into more than $2 million which is more than 50 times greater than an equal investment in the S&P 500 over the same timeframe.