Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 569

Have value investors been hindered by this quirk of accounting?

A couple of weeks ago I wrote an article on why so few fund managers have managed to replicate Buffett’s success in the professional arena. The article was inspired by listening to a recent podcast appearance by Robert Hagstrom, author of The Warren Buffett Way.

Hagstrom’s return to the podcast circuit wasn’t a coincidence. The fourth edition of his book recently landed. The big draw of the new edition – launched to celebrate the book’s 30th anniversary – is a new Buffett case study to follow earlier ones on Geico, Coke, Amex, Heinz and IBM.

The new case study is Buffett’s purchase of Apple in 2017. I won’t give too much away, but Hagstrom spends a fair bit of time talking about Michael Mauboussin’s assertion that accounting conventions have failed to keep up with economic reality.

Is the denominator broken?

For decades – maybe even a century or more – investors have relied on ratios like price-to-earnings and price-to-book as a barometer of relative value.

If a stock’s P/E is far higher than that of the general market, it is common to see the shares being written off as overvalued. If a stock trades at a far lower P/E ratio than the market average, investors seeking a bargain might jump in.

I’d argue that there is a lot more to value investing than buying stocks with cheap P/E ratios. But it is undoubtedly the general understanding of the strategy – even if simplistic. The ratio is so ingrained that many investors experience knee-jerk reactions once a P/E passes a certain point in either direction. A P/E of under 12 and the so-called value investor leans in on instinct. Anything above 25 and they instantly write off the shares.

One problem with P/E is that it is often based on last year’s earnings, while investing is all about what is going to happen in the future. For that reason, a stock with a high backwards looking P/E can actually be very cheap. Another problem, and the topic of today’s article, is that the denominator – reported net income – is heavily influenced by accounting rules.

According to Mauboussin, those rules no longer match up with how value is created in many industries. His paper Intangible assets and earnings (written for Morgan Stanley) argues that accounting conventions were built to fit industrial businesses dominated by tangible assets. They are not made to accommodate companies that invest more in intangible assets like R&D and customer acquisition.

These companies, Mauboussin suggests, end up reporting lower profits than they could have done otherwise. Why? Because their intangible investments, which are as essential to them as trucks and drills are to a miner, are expensed from profits straight away. This is very different to the treatment of tangible investments, which are recorded as an asset on the balance sheet and depreciated over several years.

Accounting rules are simply a universally agreed and applied mechanism to report financial results. As investors we are buying businesses and there is science involved in the process of evaluating businesses – but there is also a good deal of art as well.

Adjusting reported earnings for modern reality

In his paper, Mauboussin references a study by Iqbal and co, a group of accountants trying to estimate what percentage of common income statement expenses could be considered as ‘intangible investments’ – and therefore moved to the balance sheet.

The paper focused on SG&A (sales, general and administrative costs) and R&D (research and development). In their pre-amble, they note a rule of thumb that 30% of SGA and 100% of R&D could be considered as investments rather than expenses. I hadn’t heard this before and, like the paper’s authors, thought it sounded far too arbitrary. Iqbal and co’s goal was to reflect the different nature of various industries through different adjustments to R&D and SGA.

I am not completely sure how they arrived at the numbers they did. There is a mathematical explanation in the paper that is beyond my level of left-brain intelligence. The results, though, are pretty clear. For some industries, they think a lot of costs currently taken to the income statement could be capitalised on the balance sheet instead. Here is a sample of the numbers they arrived at:

Industry

% of SGA with capitalisation potential (years of useful life)

% of R&D with capitalisation potential (years of useful life)

Pharmaceuticals

85% (3.3 years)

91% (4.8 years)

Medical Equipment

90% (3.6 years)

93% (4.5 years)

Consumer Goods

72% (4.4 years)

88% (1.9 years)

Coal

62% (3.6 years)

3% (4.2 years)

For companies that spend a decent percentage of sales on SGA and R&D, making these adjustments to the reported earnings would leave them with far higher reported earnings. In turn, this would have a big impact on how expensive their P/E multiples would look on an adjusted basis. It would also increase the book value of these companies and make their price-to-book look cheaper.

I would, however, raise a couple of potential issues. Number one is that gauging the correct level of adjustment seems extremely hard. You would need intricate knowledge not only of the industry but also the specific business. The weighted average adjustment (69% for SGA and 87% for R&D) covering all of the industries in the study is high. Could this be used as an excuse to pay more for any stock?

The effects of these adjustments are also biggest in the first year you make them. This is because the new ‘intangible investments’ account we create on the balance sheet gets bigger each year and leads to higher charges from that account in future years. Unless a company’s revenue and profits grow rapidly ahead of the amounts previously invested, the positive impact of the re-shuffling decreases.

As an example, I applied these adjustments to the results of a well-known ASX share. Fiddling with the 2023 results alone added over $750m to what they reported as pre-tax profit. Assuming the same effective tax rate, the P/E of the stock falls from over 30 to 18 on an adjusted basis.

But look what happens when I start these tweaks in 2021 and roll them forward. The depreciation charge rises and the uplift in pre-tax profit by the time I reach 2023 falls by almost $300m. As a result, the “new” P/E ratio is 21.5 instead of 18. The company still looks cheaper than the standard P/E ratio, it’s just something to keep in mind if someone tries to dazzle you with adjusted numbers.

Of course for a company’s adjusted P/E to be useful on a comparative basis, you’d need to adjust the earnings of several other companies too. Oh, and don’t forget that my example took 90%+ adjustments to R&D and SGA as gospel. I don’t take them as gospel and was just trying to illustrate a point.

Do we need an accounting overhaul?

If Mauboussin, Iqbal and co are right about intangible investments, do we need an overhaul of accounting rules to suit modern business? Or will investors simply need to be more thoughtful about the ratios and shortcuts they choose?

Maybe this quirk of accounting goes some way to explaining why systematic low P/E, low price to book strategies haven’t worked as well as they did in the past. A whole swathe of companies may have been excluded for being too expensive when they weren’t. A lot of companies only look cheap in hindsight and never at the time.

I assume that quantitative value funds have tweaked their algorithms to account for this. Potentially by using cash flow metrics rather than earnings. Maybe even by adjusting what they include in book value. Investors still relying on P/E as a quick gauge of value, however, may need to look a little closer.

 

Joseph Taylor is an Associate Investment Specialist, Morningstar Australia and Firstlinks.

 


 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Buffett acolyte warns passive investors of mediocre future returns

Profiting from panic: inside the mind of a contrarian investor

Is crypto a currency or a collectible?

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Australian house prices close in on world record

Sydney is set to become the world’s most expensive city for housing over the next 12 months, a new report shows. Our other major cities aren’t far behind unless there are major changes to improve housing affordability.

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

Tariffs are a smokescreen to Trump's real endgame

Behind market volatility and tariff threats lies a deeper strategy. Trump’s real goal isn’t trade reform but managing America's massive debts, preserving bond market confidence, and preparing for potential QE.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

Getting rich vs staying rich

Strategies to get rich versus stay rich are markedly different. Here is a look at the five main ways to get rich, including through work, business, investing and luck, as well as those that preserve wealth.

Latest Updates

SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

Superannuation

The huge cost of super tax concessions

The current net annual cost of superannuation tax subsidies is around $40 billion, growing to more than $110 billion by 2060. These subsidies have always been bad policy, representing a waste of taxpayers' money.

Planning

How to avoid inheritance fights

Inspired by the papal conclave, this explores how families can avoid post-death drama through honest conversations, better planning, and trial runs - so there are no surprises when it really matters.

Superannuation

Super contribution splitting

Super contribution splitting allows couples to divide before-tax contributions to super between spouses, maximizing savings. It’s not for everyone, but in the right circumstances, it can be a smart strategy worth exploring.

Economy

Trump vs Powell: Who will blink first?

The US economy faces an unprecedented clash in leadership styles, but the President and Fed Chair could both take a lesson from the other. Not least because the fiscal and monetary authorities need to work together.

Gold

Credit cuts, rising risks, and the case for gold

Shares trade at steep valuations despite higher risks of a recession. Amid doubts that a 60/40 portfolio can still provide enough protection through times of market stress, gold's record shines bright.

Investment strategies

Buffett acolyte warns passive investors of mediocre future returns

While Chris Bloomstan doesn't have the track record of his hero, it's impressive nonetheless. And he's recently warned that today has uncanny resemblances to the 1990s tech bubble and US returns are likely to be disappointing.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.