The ROIC shows you how well a company is at investing it’s own cash.
Basically company XYZ makes $200mil
->
invests it back into the company for growth
->
makes 20% on the investment(ROIC 20%)
->
makes $240mil
->
invests it again
->
makes $288mil
Basically company XYZ makes $200mil
->
invests it back into the company for growth
->
makes 20% on the investment(ROIC 20%)
->
makes $240mil
->
invests it again
->
makes $288mil
At the end of the day, if you invest into a business for the long term, a well run company should be competent in the way it allocated cash for growth.
Compounding does the rest over time.
Your returns over the long term mirror growth +- share basis(dilution or buybacks).
Compounding does the rest over time.
Your returns over the long term mirror growth +- share basis(dilution or buybacks).
The question now is do I have data to prove the point?
For that I will use the study made by Jake McRobie.
He created a study from 1961 to 2016 (55.5y or 666 months) categorizing stocks into 10 grade of ROIC (low to high).
For that I will use the study made by Jake McRobie.
He created a study from 1961 to 2016 (55.5y or 666 months) categorizing stocks into 10 grade of ROIC (low to high).
The returns using the high ROIC beats the SP500 by a factor of 24x.
Most financial ratios like the PE ratio show a relative numbers which have no meaning given the growth and margins of each companies are different.
The ROIC however shows the compounding ability of a company.
Most financial ratios like the PE ratio show a relative numbers which have no meaning given the growth and margins of each companies are different.
The ROIC however shows the compounding ability of a company.
Loading suggestions...