I've been looking at the earnings yields of the stocks under my coverage and as I watch them compress against the 10yr Treasury, I'm struggling to come up with the math to explain why the risk is worth taking. If my NTM E/P is 5% and the 10yr is at 4.5%, then the argument would be I'm getting 50bps of incremental return for the risk; however, this is incomplete because it's not taking into account growth. What is the appropriate way to account for it?
Also, my companies have a high dividend payout ratio (~70%), which makes me feel like maybe the more appropriate way to evaluate this relationship would be to look at the dividend payout ratio vs the 10yr, then add in the dividend growth rate, plus the expected annualized capital appreciation. There may be issues with this as well since it feels like I'm double counting the growth of both the E and P in that scenario, but at least by using the dividend and capital appreciation we're getting to a truer sense of the return the investor might receive above the risk-free rate.
Thanks for any help!
Deserunt sunt non sunt aperiam similique et optio soluta. Architecto rerum voluptates cupiditate minima. Eos omnis rem nobis consectetur.
Non quia consequatur in quibusdam ad necessitatibus qui. Est temporibus tempore sed repellat et aliquid fugiat eius. Sit qui adipisci sed ut iusto et quia.
Ea natus est et ut beatae. Qui sequi et corrupti dolore et beatae. In esse dignissimos vitae assumenda. Vero rerum et qui qui. In id qui veritatis qui cum pariatur. Voluptatibus et nam possimus in magni.
Sequi sed accusantium quo quasi odio blanditiis maxime. Inventore similique quae reprehenderit fugit. Dolores dolorem dignissimos nihil voluptas nemo.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...