relative-valuation-multiples
$
npx mdskill add lyndonkl/claude/relative-valuation-multiplesCompare company valuations against peers using price multiples.
- Identifies comparable firms and calculates PE, PBV, and EV ratios.
- Depends on market data feeds and financial statement APIs.
- Selects peers via sector regression or manual comparable selection.
- Delivers sector medians, percentiles, and fundamental drivers.
SKILL.md
.github/skills/relative-valuation-multiplesView on GitHub ↗
--- name: relative-valuation-multiples description: Values a company relative to comparable firms using price multiples (PE, PBV, EV/EBITDA, EV/Sales). Implements the four-step framework (define, describe, analyze, apply) with both simple peer comparison and sector regression approaches. Use when valuing a company relative to peers, analyzing multiples, selecting comparable companies, or when user mentions PE ratio, EV/EBITDA, relative valuation, comparable companies, trading multiples, or price-to-book. --- # Relative Valuation Multiples ## Table of Contents - [Example](#example) - [Workflow](#workflow) - [Common Patterns](#common-patterns) - [Guardrails](#guardrails) - [Quick Reference](#quick-reference) ## Example **Scenario**: Technology company trading at PE 35x vs. sector median 25x. Is the premium justified? **Step 1 -- Define**: PE = Market Price per Share / Earnings per Share (trailing twelve months, diluted). Equity multiple: numerator (equity market value) and denominator (net income to equity) go to the same claimholders. **Step 2 -- Describe**: Sector distribution of 45 software firms: mean 28x, median 25x, 25th percentile 18x, 75th percentile 33x, standard deviation 12x. Target sits at approximately the 75th percentile. **Step 3 -- Analyze**: The fundamental driver equation for PE is: ``` PE = Payout Ratio x (1 + g) / (ke - g) ``` Target has expected earnings growth of 20% vs. sector median 12%, and beta of 0.95 vs. sector 1.1 (lower risk). Higher growth and lower risk both justify a higher PE. **Step 4 -- Apply via sector regression**: ``` Regression (n=45, R-squared=0.62): PE = 8.2 + 1.5 x (Expected Growth %) - 0.3 x (Beta) Target predicted PE: = 8.2 + 1.5 x (20) - 0.3 x (0.95) = 8.2 + 30.0 - 0.285 = 37.9x (call it ~38x) Actual PE = 35x Under/overvaluation = (35 - 38) / 38 = -7.9% ``` **Conclusion**: The regression predicts a PE of ~38x given the company's growth and risk profile. At 35x, the stock appears approximately 8% undervalued relative to sector peers after controlling for fundamentals. Relative valuation suggests it is cheap relative to peers, though this does not address whether the entire sector is fairly priced. ## Workflow Copy this checklist and track your progress: ``` Relative Valuation Analysis Progress: - [ ] Step 1: Select appropriate multiples for company type - [ ] Step 2: Define multiples precisely (numerator, denominator, consistency) - [ ] Step 3: Build comparable universe and describe distributions - [ ] Step 4: Analyze fundamental drivers of each multiple - [ ] Step 5: Apply via simple comparison and sector regression - [ ] Step 6: Synthesize implied values and assess relative pricing ``` **Step 1: Select appropriate multiples for company type** Choose multiples based on company characteristics: earnings-positive companies (PE, EV/EBITDA), capital-intensive or financial firms (PBV), negative-earnings or early-stage firms (EV/Sales). Use at least two multiples for triangulation. See [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md#multiple-selection-guide) for the selection decision tree. **Step 2: Define multiples precisely** For each selected multiple, specify: numerator (equity value or enterprise value), denominator (which earnings/book measure, what time period), and verify consistency (equity multiples use equity-level metrics; firm multiples use firm-level metrics). See [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md#step-1-define-the-multiple) for definitional tests. **Step 3: Build comparable universe and describe distributions** Identify peer companies sharing similar risk, growth, and cash flow characteristics. Compute the multiple for each peer. Report distribution statistics: mean, median, 25th and 75th percentiles, standard deviation, count. See [resources/template.md](resources/template.md#peer-comparison-table) for the comparison table and [resources/template.md](resources/template.md#distribution-analysis-template) for distribution analysis. **Step 4: Analyze fundamental drivers** Every multiple has a fundamental driver derived from DCF. PE is driven by growth, risk, and payout. PBV is driven by ROE, growth, and risk. EV/EBITDA is driven by tax rate, reinvestment, growth, and WACC. Connect the company's fundamentals to its multiple. See [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md#step-3-analyze-the-multiple) for driver equations and derivations. **Step 5: Apply via simple comparison and sector regression** Two approaches: (a) Simple comparison -- compare target's multiple to peer median, adjust qualitatively for fundamental differences. (b) Sector regression -- regress the multiple against its fundamental drivers across the peer universe, plug in the target's values, and compute predicted multiple. See [resources/template.md](resources/template.md#sector-regression-template) for the regression template. **Step 6: Synthesize implied values** Convert predicted multiples to implied share prices or enterprise values. Compute under/overvaluation percentage. Compare results across multiples for consistency. Validate using [resources/evaluators/rubric_relative_valuation_multiples.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_relative_valuation_multiples.json). **Minimum standard**: Average score of 3.5 or above. ## Common Patterns **Pattern 1: PE Ratio Analysis** - **When**: Earnings-positive companies, cross-sector comparisons where earnings quality is comparable - **Multiple**: PE = Price / EPS (use diluted, trailing twelve months for consistency) - **Fundamental driver**: PE = Payout x (1+g) / (ke - g). Higher growth and lower risk justify higher PE - **Regression variables**: Expected earnings growth rate, beta (or other risk proxy), payout ratio - **Pitfall**: PE is undefined for negative-earnings firms. Cyclical earnings distort trailing PE; use normalized earnings **Pattern 2: EV/EBITDA Analysis** - **When**: Comparing firms with different capital structures or across tax jurisdictions. Good for capital-intensive industries - **Multiple**: EV/EBITDA = (Market Cap + Debt - Cash) / EBITDA - **Fundamental driver**: Driven by tax rate, depreciation-to-EBITDA ratio, reinvestment rate, WACC, and growth - **Regression variables**: Expected revenue or EBITDA growth, tax rate, reinvestment rate, WACC - **Pitfall**: EBITDA ignores capital expenditure differences. Firms with heavy capex relative to depreciation may look artificially cheap **Pattern 3: PBV (Price-to-Book) Analysis** - **When**: Financial services (banks, insurance), capital-intensive industries, or when earnings are volatile - **Multiple**: PBV = Price / Book Value per Share - **Fundamental driver**: PBV = (ROE - g) / (ke - g). Higher ROE relative to cost of equity justifies higher PBV - **Regression variables**: ROE, expected growth in earnings, beta or cost of equity - **Pitfall**: Book value depends on accounting conventions (historical cost vs. fair value). Cross-country comparisons require consistent accounting standards **Pattern 4: EV/Sales (Revenue Multiple) Analysis** - **When**: Early-stage companies, negative-earnings firms, or when comparing firms with very different margin structures - **Multiple**: EV/Sales = (Market Cap + Debt - Cash) / Revenue - **Fundamental driver**: EV/Sales = After-tax operating margin x (1 - Reinvestment Rate) x (1+g) / (WACC - g). Margin is the key driver - **Regression variables**: Expected revenue growth, operating margin (or net margin), WACC - **Pitfall**: A low EV/Sales multiple may simply reflect low margins, not undervaluation. Control for profitability differences ## Guardrails 1. **Numerator-denominator consistency**: Equity multiples (PE, PBV) use market value of equity in the numerator and equity-level metrics in the denominator. Firm multiples (EV/EBITDA, EV/Sales) use enterprise value in the numerator and firm-level metrics in the denominator. Mixing levels produces meaningless numbers. 2. **Comparable universe quality**: Comparable companies should share similar risk, growth, and cash flow characteristics. Same industry is a starting point, not a guarantee of comparability. A fast-growing SaaS firm is not comparable to a mature enterprise software firm just because both are "technology." 3. **Report distribution statistics**: Present mean, median, 25th and 75th percentiles, standard deviation, and count. Median is more robust than mean for skewed distributions (PE ratios are heavily right-skewed). Do not rely on the average alone. 4. **Regression sample size**: Sector regressions require a minimum of 15-20 data points to produce meaningful results. Below that threshold, prefer simple peer comparison with qualitative adjustments. Report R-squared to indicate explanatory power. 5. **Negative denominators**: Exclude firms with negative earnings from PE analysis (negative PE has no economic meaning). For EV/EBITDA, exclude firms with negative EBITDA. For PBV, exclude firms with negative book value. Document how many firms were excluded and why. 6. **Fundamental driver linkage**: Every multiple is a compressed DCF. Always identify the fundamental driver equation connecting the multiple to growth, risk, and cash flow patterns. A company trading at a high PE is not "expensive" if its growth and risk profile justify it. 7. **Relative vs. absolute**: Relative valuation tells you whether a stock is cheap or expensive relative to its peers. It does not tell you whether the stock is undervalued or overvalued in absolute terms. If the entire sector is overpriced, the "cheapest" stock in the sector may still be overvalued. ## Quick Reference **Key formulas:** ``` PE = Market Price per Share / Earnings per Share PBV = Market Price per Share / Book Value per Share EV/EBITDA = Enterprise Value / EBITDA EV/Sales = Enterprise Value / Revenue Enterprise Value = Market Cap + Market Value of Debt - Cash Fundamental Driver Equations: PE (stable growth): PE = Payout Ratio x (1 + g) / (ke - g) where Payout = 1 - (g / ROE) PBV (stable growth): PBV = (ROE - g) / (ke - g) EV/EBITDA: EV/EBITDA = (1 - t) x (1 - Reinvestment Rate / (1-t)) x (1 + g) / (WACC - g) simplified: driven by tax rate, depreciation/EBITDA, reinvestment, WACC, growth EV/Sales (stable growth): EV/Sales = After-tax Operating Margin x (1 - Reinvestment Rate) x (1 + g) / (WACC - g) Sector Regression (general form): Multiple = a + b1(Growth) + b2(Risk) + b3(Payout or Margin) Under/Overvaluation: = (Actual Multiple - Predicted Multiple) / Predicted Multiple ``` **Multiple selection by company type:** | Company Type | Primary Multiple | Secondary Multiple | Rationale | |---|---|---|---| | Earnings-positive, stable | PE | EV/EBITDA | Earnings reliable, PE intuitive | | Capital-intensive | EV/EBITDA | PBV | EBITDA normalizes for depreciation methods | | Financial services | PBV | PE | Book value is economically meaningful for banks | | Negative earnings / early-stage | EV/Sales | EV/EBITDA (if positive) | Revenue exists even when earnings do not | | Cross-border comparison | EV/EBITDA | EV/Sales | Firm multiples are capital-structure neutral | | High-growth technology | EV/Sales | PE (forward) | Revenue growth is the primary value driver | **Key resources:** - **[resources/template.md](resources/template.md)**: Peer selection criteria, comparison table, distribution analysis, regression template, implied value calculation - **[resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md)**: Four-step framework in detail, fundamental driver derivations, sector regression technique, cross-sectional market regression - **[resources/evaluators/rubric_relative_valuation_multiples.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_relative_valuation_multiples.json)**: Quality criteria for definition consistency, comparable universe, distribution analysis, regression quality **Inputs required:** - **Target company financials**: EPS, book value per share, EBITDA, revenue, market cap, debt, cash - **Comparable company data**: Same financial metrics for each peer (15-20 minimum for regression) - **Growth estimates**: Expected earnings or revenue growth rates for target and peers - **Risk measures**: Beta, debt ratio, cost of equity or WACC for target and peers - **Profitability measures**: ROE, operating margin, payout ratio for target and peers **Outputs produced:** - `relative-valuation-analysis.md`: Full analysis with peer comparison, distribution statistics, regression output, implied values, and under/overvaluation assessment
More from lyndonkl/claude
- abstraction-concrete-examplesBuilds structured abstraction ladders that translate high-level principles into concrete, actionable examples across 3-5 levels. Bridges communication gaps, reveals hidden assumptions, and tests whether abstract ideas work in practice. Use when explaining concepts at different expertise levels, moving between abstract principles and concrete implementation, identifying edge cases by testing ideas against scenarios, designing layered documentation, decomposing complex problems into actionable steps, or bridging strategy-execution gaps.
- academic-letter-architectGuides the creation of evidence-based academic recommendation letters, reference letters, and award nominations that combine concrete examples, meaningful comparisons, and genuine enthusiasm. Use when writing recommendation letters for students, postdocs, or colleagues, or when user mentions recommendation letter, reference, nomination, letter of support, endorsement, or needs help with strong advocacy and comparative statements.
- adr-architectureDocuments significant architectural and technical decisions with full context, alternatives considered, trade-offs analyzed, and consequences understood. Creates a decision trail that helps teams understand why decisions were made. Use when choosing between technology options, making infrastructure decisions, establishing standards, migrating systems, or when user mentions ADR, architecture decision, technical decision record, or decision documentation.
- adverse-selection-priorProduces a Bayesian prior probability that an offered transaction is +EV for the recipient, given that the counterparty chose to propose it. Applies Akerlof market-for-lemons logic -- if they offered it, they believe it is +EV for them, so the prior that it is +EV for us is materially below 50%. Reusable across trade evaluation, waiver drops (another team dropping a player is also adverse selection), job-offer analysis, M&A, and any "someone offered me this" situation. Use when you receive an unsolicited trade/offer/proposal, analyzing incoming trade prior, evaluating why a counterparty proposed a deal, or when user mentions adverse selection, market for lemons, why did they offer this, incoming trade prior, they proposed it, Bayesian adjustment on received offer.
- alignment-values-north-starCreates actionable alignment frameworks that give teams a shared North Star (direction), values (guardrails), and decision tenets (behavioral standards). Enables autonomous decision-making while maintaining organizational coherence. Use when starting new teams, scaling organizations, defining culture, establishing product vision, resolving misalignment, creating strategic clarity, or when user mentions North Star, team values, mission, principles, guardrails, decision framework, or cultural alignment.
- analogy-weight-checkFor every analogy in a substacker draft, verifies it carries mechanical weight — the analogy does real work explaining the mechanism, not merely decorates it. Cross-references analogy-catalog.md for novelty (is this analogy reused from a prior post?) and domain fit (biology > organizational > sports preferred; physics/military disfavored). Use whenever an analogy appears in the draft. Trigger keywords: analogy weight, decorative, mechanical weight, reused analogy, catalog check, metaphor check.
- answer-uncomfortable-questionTakes one strategic question about substacker ("should we launch paid?", "is this section dead?", "are we writing for the wrong audience?") and produces the mandatory evidence + reasoning + downside triad plus a recommendation. Used 3 times per Growth Strategist review. Trigger keywords: uncomfortable question, strategic question, evidence reasoning downside, triad.
- attribute-performanceFor each substacker post that materially over- or under-performs the rolling baseline (|z| ≥ 1.0), produces a plain-English attribution paragraph with calibrated confidence (high / medium / low / unexplained). Considers subject-line effect, topic zeitgeist, external share, day-of-week, length effect, and audience-notes signals. Labels unexplained outliers explicitly rather than fabricating a story. Use after compute-baseline when outlier posts exist. Trigger keywords: attribution, why did this post work, outlier explanation, performance analysis.
- auction-first-price-shadingComputes the optimal shaded bid for a first-price sealed-bid auction given a true private value, an estimate of the number of competing bidders N, and a value-distribution assumption. Implements the `(N-1)/N` equilibrium shading rule for uniform private values, adjusts for log-normal or empirical value distributions, layers a risk-aversion adjustment, and caps output against the bidder's remaining budget. Domain-neutral auction theory reusable across fantasy sports (baseball FAAB, NBA/NHL waiver auctions), prediction-market limit sizing, sealed procurement bids, and any blind-bid context. Use when user mentions "first-price auction bid", "sealed bid shading", "(N-1)/N", "FAAB bid amount", "auction shading", "optimal bid first-price", "bid for sealed-bid", "blind bid sizing", or when downstream logic needs a principled shade factor rather than an ad-hoc heuristic.
- auction-winners-curse-haircutApplies a Bayesian haircut to a bid valuation for common-value auctions where winning is itself evidence the bidder over-estimated. Takes a raw valuation, a value-type classification (common_value / private_value / mixed), the number of informed bidders N, and a signal-dispersion estimate, and returns an adjusted valuation. Domain-neutral and reusable across fantasy FAAB, prediction markets, M&A bids, ad-auction budgets, and any generic bidding context. Use when user mentions "winner's curse", "common value auction", "valuation haircut", "adverse valuation", "Bayesian bid adjustment", or "over-paying in auction".