Michael Mauboussin E28093 Base Rate Books 2015 2016

Michael Mauboussin – Base Rate Books (2015-2016)
YYMMDD Title Page #

15-05-04 The Base Rate Book - Sales Growth: Integrating the Past to Better Anticipate the Future 2
15-12-16 The Base Rate Book - Earnings Growth: Integrating the Past to Better Anticipate the Future 22
16-02-23 The Base Rate Book - Sales Growth: Integrating the Past to Better Anticipate the Future 39
16-04-25 The Base Rate Book - Gross Profitability: Integrating the Past to Better Anticipate the Future 55
16-09-26 The Base Rate Book: Integrating the Past to Better Anticipate the Future 65
Twitter @mjbaldbard mayur.jain1@gmail.com

GLOBAL FINANCIAL STRATEGIES
www.credit-suisse.com
The Base Rate Book – Sales Growth

Integrating the Past to Better Anticipate the Future
May 4, 2015
50
Authors
45
Michael J. Mauboussin 40 Base Rates
Frequency (Percent)
michael.mauboussin@credit-suisse.com 35 Current Estimates

30
Dan Callahan, CFA
25
daniel.callahan@credit-suisse.com
20
15
10
5
0
<(25)
(5)-0
5-10
0-5
>45
(25)-(20)
(20)-(15)
(15)-(10)
(10)-(5)
35-40
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
40-45
3-Year Sales CAGR (Percent)
“‘Pallid’ statistical information is routinely discarded when it is incompatible

with one’s personal impressions of a case.”
Daniel Kahneman1
Successful active investing requires a forecast that is different than what

the market is discounting.
Forecasts about outcomes relevant to us commonly suffer from biases of
optimism and overconfidence.
Research reveals that consideration of the results for an appropriate
reference class can enhance the quality of forecasts.
Sales growth is the most important value driver for most companies.
This report shows the base rate of sales growth rates for a large sample of
companies over more than two decades. We sort the companies into
deciles, allowing for easy identification of an appropriate reference class.
We provide a method to integrate our views with the base rates to sharpen
the quality of forecasts.
We share some case studies, positive and negative, to demonstrate
results for some outliers.
FOR DISCLOSURES AND OTHER IMPORTANT INFORMATION, PLEASE REFER TO THE BACK OF THIS REPORT.
May 4, 2015
Introduction
On an earnings call in February 2015, Elon Musk, the chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of Tesla
Motors, set out a path for the company to reach a market capitalization of about $700 billion in 10 years.2
That approached the size of Apple Inc., which had the largest market capitalization of any company in the
world at the time.
Here is Musk’s math. If you assume sales in 2015 of $6 billion (the current consensus is around $5.7 billion)
and sales growth of 50 percent compounded annually, you get about $345 billion in 2025. If you then take a
10 percent net income margin and apply a price-earnings multiple of 20, you get very close to $700 billion.
The obvious question is: How likely is it that Tesla will achieve those figures? The natural way to answer the
question is to roll up your sleeves and do an analysis from the bottom up. How many cars can they sell? How
much will each cost? In which countries can they expand sales? What other businesses can they move into?
How profitable will the business be? And so forth.
Researchers who study forecasts of this nature find that two biases, optimism and overconfidence, are
common. Optimism about personal predictions has value for encouraging perseverance in the face of
challenges, but distorts assessments of likely outcomes.3 For example, notwithstanding that only about 50
percent of new businesses survive five or more years, a survey of thousands of entrepreneurs found that more
than 8 of 10 of them rated their odds of success at 70 percent or higher, and fully one-third did not allow for
any probability of failure at all.4 The bottom line on optimism: “People frequently believe that their preferred
outcomes are more likely than is merited.”5
Overconfidence bias also distorts the ability to make sound predictions. This bias reveals itself when an
individual’s confidence in his or her subjective judgments is higher than the objective outcomes warrant. For
instance, nearly two thousand people answered 50 true-false questions and provided a confidence level for
each. They were correct about 60 percent of the time but indicated confidence in their answers of 70
percent.6 Most people, including financial analysts, place too much weight on their own information.7
The classic way that overconfidence shows up in forecasts is with ranges of outcomes that are too narrow. As
a case in point, researchers asked chief financial officers to predict the results for the stock market, including
high and low growth rates within which the executives were 80 percent sure the results would land. They were
correct only one-third of the time.8
Exhibit 1 shows how this bias manifests in forecasts. Both are distributions of sales growth rates annualized
over three years for roughly 1,500 public companies in the U.S.9 The distribution with the lower peak reflects
the actual results over the past two decades, and the distribution with the higher peak is the set of growth
rates that analysts are currently forecasting.
The Base Rate Book – Sales Growth 2

May 4, 2015
Exhibit 1: Overconfidence – Range of Sales Growth Rates Too Narrow

50
45 Base Rates
40 Current Estimates
Frequency (Percent) 35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
5-10
(5)-0
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-45
(10)-(5)
<(25)
0-5
>45
(25)-(20)
(20)-(15)
(15)-(10)

Source: FactSet.
Note: I/B/E/S consensus estimates as of May 4, 2015.
Consistent with the overconfidence bias, the range of expected outcomes is vastly narrower than what the
results of the past suggest is reasonable. Forecasts are commonly too optimistic and too narrow. Behavioral
biases and distortions introduced by incentives are the best explanations for the pattern of faulty forecasts. 10
Given these insights, how might we assess the plausibility of Musk’s assumptions? One way would be to delve
into the specifics for Tesla and come up with conceivable scenarios. We might even employ an analogy: Tesla
has a disruptive innovation and a dynamic leader as did Apple, the company Tesla hopes to match in market
capitalization.
But knowing that we are prone to optimism and overconfidence suggests that we should introduce techniques
to manage those biases. By far the most useful way to do that is to examine the experience of many
companies over time, the base rate, and thoughtfully integrate that rate with our own view. This is not our
typical approach. As Daniel Kahneman, the eminent psychologist, notes bluntly, “People who have information
about an individual case rarely feel the need to know the statistics of the class to which the case belongs.”11
We can certainly think about Tesla’s individual prospects in assessing the likelihood that the company will
achieve those figures. But Kahneman’s approach would have us look at the sample of all the companies that
had $6 billion of sales, adjusted for inflation, to determine how many grew 50 percent compounded annually
for ten years. The answer for the past two decades: zero. In fact, if we lower the starting sales base to $700
million, there was not an instance of growth at that rate in a population of 6,700. While Musk allowed that
these were assumptions only, he added, “I bet that they do occur.”
Though decision scientists have known for a long time that the proper use of base rates improves the quality
of forecasts, the technique remains remarkably underused.12 We believe this reflects the human desire for a
narrative. Causality is clear in stories about the specifics, which makes those scenarios vivid. Base rates, on
the other hand, are largely antiseptic and hence less appealing to the mind.

May 4, 2015
Base Rates of Sales Growth
An investor’s primary task is to determine whether the expectations for future financial performance, as
implied by the stock price, are too optimistic or pessimistic relative to how the company is likely to perform. In
other words, the intelligent investor seeks gaps between expectations and fundamentals.13 This approach
does not require forecasts of pinpoint accuracy, but rather only judgments as to whether the expectations
embedded in the shares are too high or low.
Sales growth is the most important driver of corporate value.14 As a result, we analyze the distribution of sales
growth rates for the constituents of the S&P 1500 Index over a 21-year period from 1994-2014. This sample
represents roughly 90 percent of the capitalization of the U.S. equity market. We identify the members of the
index at the beginning of each year and then calculate the compound annual growth rates (CAGR) of sales for
the subsequent 1, 3, 5, 10, and 20 years for each firm. We adjust all of the sales figures to remove the
effects of inflation, which translates all of the numbers to 2014 dollars. So no company is in our sample until it
is included in the S&P 1500, but once it is in the index it stays in our sample even if it exits the index.
Exhibit 2 shows the results for the full sample. In the panel on the left, the rows show sales growth rates and
the columns reflect time periods. Say you want to know what percent of the universe grew sales at a CAGR of
20-25 percent for three years. You start with row marked “20-25” and slide to the right to find the column “3-
Yr.” There, you’ll see that 4.4 percent of the companies achieved that rate of growth. The panel on the right
shows the sample sizes for each growth rate and time period, allowing us to see where the 4.4 percent comes
from: 1,060 instances out of the total of 23,914 (1,060/23,914 = 4.4 percent).
Exhibit 2: Base Rates of Sales Growth (CAGR) for the S&P 1500 (1994-2014)
Full Universe Base Rates Full Universe Observations
CAGR (%) 1-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 20-Yr CAGR (%) 1-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 20-Yr
<(25) 4.0% 1.7% 1.1% 0.5% 0.1% <(25) 1,153 406 205 56 1
(25)-(20) 1.6% 1.0% 0.7% 0.1% 0.1% (25)-(20) 471 246 126 14 1
(20)-(15) 2.6% 1.8% 1.4% 0.7% 0.1% (20)-(15) 748 425 261 75 1
(15)-(10) 3.9% 3.7% 2.9% 1.4% 0.4% (15)-(10) 1,147 875 564 149 4
(10)-(5) 7.0% 7.7% 7.0% 5.4% 1.8% (10)-(5) 2,050 1,842 1,355 574 21
(5)-0 12.7% 14.7% 16.5% 16.8% 11.5% (5)-0 3,695 3,508 3,184 1,796 131
0-5 17.6% 21.6% 24.6% 30.8% 43.0% 0-5 5,138 5,157 4,748 3,285 488
5-10 15.4% 17.2% 18.7% 23.3% 25.9% 5-10 4,489 4,104 3,606 2,485 294
10-15 10.6% 11.2% 11.7% 11.7% 11.8% 10-15 3,094 2,689 2,260 1,251 134
15-20 6.9% 7.0% 6.9% 5.5% 3.9% 15-20 2,004 1,672 1,332 589 44
20-25 4.7% 4.4% 3.5% 2.0% 0.6% 20-25 1,358 1,060 677 211 7
25-30 3.2% 2.6% 2.1% 0.7% 0.6% 25-30 929 625 397 80 7
30-35 2.1% 1.6% 1.0% 0.4% 0.1% 30-35 610 380 192 45 1
35-40 1.6% 1.2% 0.6% 0.2% 0.2% 35-40 469 282 116 26 2
40-45 1.2% 0.8% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 40-45 349 180 84 18 0
>45 4.9% 1.9% 0.9% 0.3% 0.0% >45 1,416 463 181 27 0
Mean 8.8% 6.2% 5.3% 4.6% 4.9% Total 29,120 23,914 19,288 10,681 1,136
Median 5.2% 4.5% 4.2% 4.1% 4.2%
StDev 50.3% 16.4% 13.1% 9.6% 6.7%
Source: FactSet.
Note: CAGR = compound annual growth rate.
Exhibit 3 is the distribution for the three-year sales growth rate. This shows, in a graph, what the numbers say
in exhibit 2. The mean, or average, growth rate was 6.2 percent per year and the median growth rate was 4.5
percent. The median is a better indicator of the central location of the results because the distribution is
skewed to the right. The standard deviation, 16.4 percent, gives an indication of the width of the bell curve.

May 4, 2015
Exhibit 3: Three-Year CAGR of Sales for the S&P 1500 (1994-2014)

25
20
Frequency (Percent)
15
10
5-10
(5)-0
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-45
(10)-(5)
<(25)
0-5
>45
(25)-(20)
(20)-(15)
(15)-(10)
CAGR (Percent)
Source: FactSet.
While the data for the full sample are a start, we want to sharpen the reference class of base rates to make
the results more relevant and applicable. The best way to do that is to break the universe into deciles based
on a company’s sales in the prior year. Within each size decile, we sort the observations of growth rates into
bins in increments of 5 percentage points (except for the tails). The population includes companies that are
now dead.15
There is a modest survivorship bias because each sample only includes the firms that survived for that
specified time. For a company to be included in our 20-year sample, for instance, requires 20 years of survival.
To give you some sense of this effect, the survivorship rates are 92 percent for 1 year, 84 percent for 3 years,
76 percent for 5 years, 59 percent for 10 years, and 38 percent for 20 years.
The heart of this analysis is exhibit 4, which shows each decile, the total population, and an additional analysis
of mega companies (those with sales in excess of $50 billion). Here’s how you use the exhibit. Determine the
base sales level for the company that you want to model. Then go to the appropriate decile based on that size.
You now have the proper reference class and the distribution of growth rates for the various time horizons.
Let’s use Tesla as an example. Elon Musk said he hopes to grow sales 50 percent per year for the next
decade from a sales base of $6 billion. We first find the correct reference class. In this case, it’s the decile
that has a sales base between $6 and 13 billion. Next we examine the row of growth that is marked “>45,”
representing a sales growth rate of 45 percent or more. Going out to the column under “10-Yr,” we see that
no companies achieved this feat. Indeed, we have to go down to 35-40 percent growth to see any companies,
and even there it is only one-fifth of 1 percent of the sample.
In total, exhibit 4 shows results for 55 reference classes (11 size ranges times 5 time horizons) that should
cover the vast majority of possible outcomes for sales growth. The appendix contains the sample sizes for
each of the reference classes. We will show how to incorporate these base rates into your forecasts for sales
growth in a moment, but for now it’s useful to acknowledge the utility of these data as an analytical guide and
a valuable reality check.

May 4, 2015
Exhibit 4: Base Rates by Decile for S&P 1500 (1994-2014)

$0-250 Mn Base Rates $250-450 Mn Base Rates $450-700 Mn Base Rates
CAGR (%) 1-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 20-Yr CAGR (%) 1-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 20-Yr CAGR (%) 1-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 20-Yr
<(25) 6.6% 4.1% 4.0% 2.7% 0.8% <(25) 4.1% 1.6% 0.9% 0.2% 0.0% <(25) 3.9% 1.4% 0.5% 0.2% 0.0%
(25)-(20) 2.2% 1.4% 0.7% 0.2% 0.0% (25)-(20) 1.6% 0.8% 0.6% 0.1% 0.0% (25)-(20) 1.6% 1.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%
(20)-(15) 2.6% 1.8% 1.3% 1.9% 0.0% (20)-(15) 2.9% 1.9% 1.0% 0.2% 0.0% (20)-(15) 2.8% 2.1% 2.1% 0.2% 0.0%
(15)-(10) 3.8% 3.2% 2.2% 1.0% 0.0% (15)-(10) 3.3% 3.2% 3.0% 0.8% 0.0% (15)-(10) 4.5% 3.7% 3.4% 1.9% 0.0%
(10)-(5) 6.0% 6.4% 4.6% 2.0% 1.6% (10)-(5) 6.1% 5.6% 5.5% 4.0% 0.0% (10)-(5) 6.5% 7.8% 6.0% 6.7% 0.0%
(5)-0 8.8% 9.1% 10.5% 7.4% 4.0% (5)-0 10.8% 9.8% 11.0% 15.7% 4.6% (5)-0 10.3% 10.7% 12.8% 13.5% 7.3%
0-5 11.0% 12.9% 14.7% 18.1% 17.7% 0-5 13.4% 17.1% 19.3% 22.1% 34.5% 0-5 14.4% 17.3% 19.4% 25.6% 34.9%
5-10 10.4% 12.5% 15.5% 20.9% 26.6% 5-10 12.6% 16.6% 19.3% 23.8% 29.9% 5-10 15.0% 18.2% 20.0% 26.0% 29.4%
10-15 9.3% 11.2% 12.1% 15.8% 25.0% 10-15 11.6% 14.6% 16.3% 16.4% 23.0% 10-15 11.2% 13.1% 16.1% 16.0% 23.9%
15-20 7.4% 8.2% 11.3% 11.0% 14.5% 15-20 8.4% 8.5% 9.2% 9.7% 6.9% 15-20 7.7% 9.6% 9.0% 6.0% 3.7%
20-25 5.1% 7.4% 5.6% 7.7% 2.4% 20-25 6.2% 7.2% 5.6% 4.4% 1.1% 20-25 5.5% 6.5% 4.5% 2.0% 0.0%
25-30 4.6% 5.3% 4.8% 3.3% 4.8% 25-30 4.5% 4.4% 3.6% 1.1% 0.0% 25-30 4.5% 2.5% 3.1% 0.7% 0.9%
30-35 3.7% 3.3% 3.3% 2.2% 0.8% 30-35 2.6% 2.3% 1.6% 0.2% 0.0% 30-35 3.1% 1.7% 0.8% 0.6% 0.0%
35-40 2.9% 3.0% 2.3% 1.1% 1.6% 35-40 2.8% 1.7% 1.1% 0.5% 0.0% 35-40 1.9% 1.3% 0.8% 0.3% 0.0%
40-45 2.5% 2.0% 1.4% 1.5% 0.0% 40-45 2.3% 1.6% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 40-45 1.5% 0.9% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0%
>45 12.9% 8.2% 5.8% 3.1% 0.0% >45 6.9% 3.2% 1.0% 0.1% 0.0% >45 5.6% 2.1% 0.8% 0.1% 0.0%
Mean 24.1% 13.3% 10.9% 9.9% 9.9% Mean 11.2% 9.6% 8.1% 6.9% 7.5% Mean 10.0% 7.7% 6.9% 5.5% 6.7%
Median 9.1% 9.5% 8.8% 8.8% 9.8% Median 8.3% 7.9% 7.1% 6.1% 6.7% Median 6.9% 6.7% 6.3% 5.4% 6.9%
StDev 153.9% 30.6% 24.2% 18.1% 12.8% StDev 25.9% 17.4% 13.9% 9.5% 5.2% StDev 28.4% 16.0% 12.3% 8.9% 5.3%
$700-1,000 Mn Base Rates $1,000-1,500 Mn Base Rates $1,500-2,250 Mn Base Rates
<(25) 3.4% 1.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% <(25) 3.5% 1.1% 0.8% 0.7% 0.0% <(25) 3.3% 1.2% 0.5% 0.2% 0.0%
(25)-(20) 1.6% 1.4% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% (25)-(20) 1.7% 0.7% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% (25)-(20) 1.9% 1.0% 0.6% 0.3% 0.0%
(20)-(15) 2.6% 1.2% 1.0% 1.1% 0.0% (20)-(15) 2.8% 2.0% 1.0% 0.5% 1.0% (20)-(15) 2.4% 1.9% 1.2% 0.3% 0.0%
(15)-(10) 4.2% 3.9% 2.6% 1.4% 1.8% (15)-(10) 4.1% 3.5% 2.5% 0.6% 0.0% (15)-(10) 4.1% 3.7% 2.8% 0.9% 0.9%
(10)-(5) 7.4% 8.5% 7.3% 3.2% 1.8% (10)-(5) 7.3% 8.4% 8.1% 3.0% 0.0% (10)-(5) 6.8% 7.3% 6.6% 7.7% 2.6%
(5)-0 12.8% 13.6% 15.4% 12.9% 6.3% (5)-0 12.3% 15.3% 17.3% 17.6% 7.9% (5)-0 12.8% 14.7% 17.3% 14.6% 11.1%
0-5 16.2% 20.7% 24.9% 31.0% 39.6% 0-5 16.9% 20.8% 22.5% 29.2% 53.5% 0-5 18.4% 22.7% 25.3% 35.0% 48.7%
5-10 15.4% 16.0% 17.4% 22.2% 34.2% 42134 15.8% 15.9% 19.2% 28.6% 26.7% 5-10 15.6% 19.1% 21.6% 23.8% 19.7%
10-15 9.9% 12.1% 13.1% 15.5% 9.9% 42292 11.5% 13.0% 13.5% 12.0% 8.9% 10-15 12.2% 12.2% 11.6% 10.3% 13.7%
15-20 8.3% 8.7% 8.3% 7.9% 5.4% 15-20 6.9% 8.0% 7.5% 5.5% 2.0% 15-20 6.9% 6.7% 6.3% 4.8% 2.6%
20-25 5.0% 4.6% 4.1% 2.4% 0.9% 20-25 5.3% 4.2% 3.2% 1.1% 0.0% 20-25 4.6% 3.4% 3.2% 1.2% 0.9%
25-30 3.5% 2.9% 2.1% 1.0% 0.0% 25-30 3.4% 2.3% 1.6% 0.8% 0.0% 25-30 2.8% 2.3% 1.4% 0.5% 0.0%
30-35 2.5% 2.1% 0.8% 0.8% 0.0% 30-35 2.0% 1.5% 0.9% 0.2% 0.0% 30-35 1.9% 1.0% 0.6% 0.3% 0.0%
35-40 1.8% 1.4% 0.6% 0.2% 0.0% 35-40 1.3% 0.9% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 35-40 1.7% 0.8% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0%
40-45 1.1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 40-45 1.0% 0.7% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 40-45 1.0% 0.5% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0%
>45 4.4% 1.3% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% >45 4.3% 1.5% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% >45 3.9% 1.5% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0%
Mean 9.0% 6.5% 5.9% 5.7% 5.1% Mean 7.8% 6.0% 5.0% 4.6% 4.3% Mean 7.5% 5.5% 4.8% 4.1% 4.3%

May 4, 2015
$2,250-3,500 Mn Base Rates $3,500-6,000 Mn Base Rates $6,000-13,000 Mn Base Rates

<(25) 3.8% 1.6% 0.6% 0.7% 0.0% <(25) 3.7% 1.4% 0.9% 0.3% 0.0% <(25) 4.1% 1.6% 1.3% 0.2% 0.0%
(25)-(20) 1.5% 1.0% 0.4% 0.3% 1.0% (25)-(20) 1.3% 1.0% 0.8% 0.1% 0.0% (25)-(20) 1.7% 1.2% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0%
(20)-(15) 2.8% 2.0% 2.0% 0.4% 0.0% (20)-(15) 2.2% 1.5% 1.4% 0.7% 0.0% (20)-(15) 2.6% 1.7% 1.1% 1.0% 0.0%
(15)-(10) 3.8% 4.0% 3.4% 1.9% 1.0% (15)-(10) 4.3% 3.9% 3.1% 1.0% 0.0% (15)-(10) 3.7% 4.1% 3.2% 1.4% 0.0%
(10)-(5) 6.5% 7.6% 8.4% 6.6% 3.0% (10)-(5) 7.3% 7.6% 6.9% 6.4% 1.9% (10)-(5) 7.5% 9.1% 8.2% 6.0% 2.1%
(5)-0 12.8% 15.2% 16.7% 19.6% 14.0% (5)-0 13.7% 16.5% 17.9% 19.1% 17.0% (5)-0 14.0% 18.1% 21.6% 21.7% 13.4%
0-5 20.5% 24.8% 26.6% 31.6% 55.0% 0-5 20.4% 24.4% 28.8% 36.2% 44.3% 0-5 20.3% 24.3% 27.6% 36.8% 59.2%
5-10 16.2% 16.9% 17.9% 22.3% 17.0% 5-10 17.3% 18.9% 18.7% 20.3% 33.0% 5-10 17.2% 17.5% 18.6% 22.3% 19.7%
10-15 10.9% 11.1% 11.8% 8.9% 5.0% 10-15 10.4% 9.8% 8.3% 11.8% 1.9% 10-15 10.8% 9.1% 8.8% 6.6% 5.6%
15-20 7.0% 6.5% 5.9% 5.3% 3.0% 15-20 6.3% 5.7% 6.1% 3.3% 1.9% 15-20 5.5% 5.4% 4.5% 2.6% 0.0%
20-25 4.2% 3.4% 2.9% 1.6% 1.0% 20-25 4.0% 3.2% 3.7% 0.4% 0.0% 20-25 3.9% 3.3% 1.7% 0.9% 0.0%
25-30 2.8% 2.4% 1.5% 0.4% 0.0% 25-30 2.2% 1.6% 1.7% 0.4% 0.0% 25-30 2.3% 1.9% 1.7% 0.1% 0.0%
30-35 1.5% 1.3% 0.9% 0.1% 0.0% 30-35 1.4% 1.7% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 30-35 1.5% 0.8% 0.4% 0.3% 0.0%
35-40 1.4% 0.9% 0.4% 0.3% 0.0% 35-40 1.1% 1.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 35-40 1.0% 0.8% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0%
40-45 0.9% 0.4% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 40-45 0.8% 0.8% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 40-45 0.7% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%
>45 3.4% 0.9% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% >45 3.6% 1.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% >45 3.4% 0.8% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%
Mean 6.3% 4.7% 4.1% 3.4% 3.1% Mean 6.1% 4.9% 4.1% 3.3% 3.6% Mean 5.5% 3.5% 3.0% 2.8% 3.1%
>$13,000 Mn Base Rates >$50,000 Mn Base Rates Full Universe Base Rates
<(25) 3.8% 2.2% 1.4% 0.2% 0.0% <(25) 4.4% 3.1% 3.6% 0.5% 0.0% <(25) 4.0% 1.7% 1.1% 0.5% 0.1%
(25)-(20) 1.3% 0.9% 1.2% 0.2% 0.0% (25)-(20) 1.1% 0.9% 0.9% 0.5% 0.0% (25)-(20) 1.6% 1.0% 0.7% 0.1% 0.1%
(20)-(15) 2.2% 1.7% 1.5% 1.0% 0.0% (20)-(15) 2.0% 1.6% 1.1% 0.9% 0.0% (20)-(15) 2.6% 1.8% 1.4% 0.7% 0.1%
(15)-(10) 3.6% 3.3% 2.8% 2.6% 0.0% (15)-(10) 4.1% 3.6% 2.3% 5.7% 0.0% (15)-(10) 3.9% 3.7% 2.9% 1.4% 0.4%
(10)-(5) 8.6% 8.1% 7.5% 6.6% 4.6% (10)-(5) 9.9% 9.5% 7.7% 4.7% 12.5% (10)-(5) 7.0% 7.7% 7.0% 5.4% 1.8%
(5)-0 17.1% 20.5% 20.7% 21.3% 26.9% (5)-0 16.5% 20.9% 22.0% 23.1% 25.0% (5)-0 12.7% 14.7% 16.5% 16.8% 11.5%
0-5 22.3% 26.6% 31.5% 33.9% 36.9% 0-5 23.3% 28.2% 33.6% 34.9% 43.8% 0-5 17.6% 21.6% 24.6% 30.8% 43.0%
5-10 17.2% 18.8% 18.2% 22.3% 26.9% 5-10 18.0% 19.5% 17.9% 25.9% 18.8% 5-10 15.4% 17.2% 18.7% 23.3% 25.9%
10-15 8.7% 7.4% 7.9% 8.4% 4.6% 10-15 7.7% 6.6% 7.7% 3.3% 0.0% 10-15 10.6% 11.2% 11.7% 11.7% 11.8%
15-20 5.1% 3.9% 3.5% 2.6% 0.0% 15-20 4.5% 2.9% 1.8% 0.5% 0.0% 15-20 6.9% 7.0% 6.9% 5.5% 3.9%
20-25 3.3% 2.5% 2.1% 0.6% 0.0% 20-25 3.5% 1.6% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 20-25 4.7% 4.4% 3.5% 2.0% 0.6%
25-30 2.0% 1.4% 0.6% 0.2% 0.0% 25-30 1.7% 0.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 25-30 3.2% 2.6% 2.1% 0.7% 0.6%
30-35 1.1% 0.9% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% 30-35 0.8% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30-35 2.1% 1.6% 1.0% 0.4% 0.1%
35-40 0.8% 0.6% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 35-40 0.6% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 35-40 1.6% 1.2% 0.6% 0.2% 0.2%
40-45 0.6% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 40-45 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40-45 1.2% 0.8% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0%
>45 2.4% 0.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% >45 2.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% >45 4.9% 1.9% 0.9% 0.3% 0.0%
Mean 4.1% 2.8% 2.5% 2.6% 2.5% Mean 2.4% 1.0% 1.0% 1.2% 1.2% Mean 8.8% 6.2% 5.3% 4.6% 4.9%
Source: FactSet.

May 4, 2015
While the value of these data is in the details, there are some useful observations about the whole that are
worth keeping in mind. The first is that the mean and median growth rates decline as firm size increases, as
does the standard deviation of the growth rates. This point has been well established empirically.16 Exhibit 5
shows this pattern for annualized growth rates over three years. The lesson is to temper expectations about
sales growth for large companies.
Exhibit 5: Growth Rates and Standard Deviations Decline with Size

Mean Median Standard Deviation
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mega Universe
Decile (Smallest to Largest by Sales)
Source: FactSet.
Note: Growth rates are annualized over three years; mega companies have sales in excess of $50 billion in the base year.
Next, sales growth follows gross domestic product (GDP) reasonably closely (see Exhibit 6). The correlation between
GDP growth and the median sales growth in the same year is strong, with a coefficient of 0.80. Over the 21-year
period, U.S. GDP grew at 2.5 percent per year, adjusted for inflation, with a standard deviation of 1.8 percent.
Corporate sales growth was higher than that of the broader economy for a few reasons, including mergers and
acquisitions, international growth, and currency swings.17

May 4, 2015
Exhibit 6: Median Sales Growth Rate Is Correlated with GDP Growth

10%
Sales Growth
8%
6%
GDP Growth
4%
2%
0%
-2%
-4%
-6%
-8%
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Source: FactSet and Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Finally, notwithstanding our natural tendency to anticipate growth, 31 percent of the companies in the sample had
negative sales growth rates for 3 years, after an adjustment for inflation, and 30 percent shrunk for 5 years. Whereas
a decline in sales need not be bad if it occurs for the right reasons, few analysts or corporate leaders project shrinking
sales unless there is a clear strategy of divestiture.18
Using Base Rates to Model Growth
We have established that there are two ways of making a forecast. You can do bottom-up research, which is the most
natural method, or you can turn to a base rate. The research in decision making shows that the bottom-up approach is
subject to biases and that incorporating the base rate generally improves the accuracy of the forecast. Yet we don’t
want to lean too much on either our own analysis or the base rate. We want to combine the two intelligently.
There is a technique to combine the two approaches, which we will apply to our sales growth data.19 Correlation is the
key to the method. Correlation measures the degree of linear relationship between variables in a pair of distributions.
The value of a correlation can fall between -1.0 (the rise in one variable perfectly correlates with the fall of the other)
and 1.0 (both variables move in tandem). A zero correlation indicates randomness. We will examine a single variable,
sales growth, measured over time and all of the correlations are positive.
If the correlation between two distributions is high, then what happened before gives you a really good sense of what
will follow. For example, the correlation for cash flow return on investment (CFROI®) for companies in the consumer
staples sector is about 0.90 from one year to the next.20 That means if you know Nestlé’s CFROI from last year, you
can forecast it this year with a great deal of accuracy. The bottom-up work is highly relevant.
If the correlation is low, what happened before provides no inkling of what will happen next. Take the annual total
shareholder returns for the S&P 500 as a case.21 The correlation from year to year, from 1928 through 2014, is
essentially zero. Telling you last year’s return provides no help in forecasting the return for this year. Your best forecast
is the average of the reference class.
May 4, 2015
The basic idea is that the correlation determines how you should weight the bottom-up analysis and the base rate. For
Nestlé, a sensible forecast is nine parts last year’s CFROI and one part last year’s average sector CFROI, the base
rate. For your S&P 500 forecast, you should place minimal weight on what happened last year and rely largely on the
average return since 1928, the base rate.
Studying base rates for sales growth is logical for two reasons. First, sales growth is the most important driver of value
for most companies. Second, sales growth has a higher correlation from year to year than does earnings growth,
which is the most commonly discussed item on the income statement.22 Sales growth is important and more
predictable than profit growth.
Exhibit 7 shows that the correlation coefficient is 0.27 for the year-to-year sales growth rate. We start with the
constituents of the S&P 1500 Index as of 1994, and use the figures from 1994 through 2014.23 Specifically, we
correlate the growth rates of 1994 with those of 1995, 1995 with 1996, et cetera. It turns out that the correlation
doesn’t change much if we consider only companies with sales in excess of $20 billion.
Exhibit 7: Correlation of One-Year Sales Growth Rates

r = 0.27
75%
Sales Growth Following Year
0%
-75% 0% 75%
-75%
Sales Growth Prior Year
Source: FactSet.
The correlations tend to decline as we consider longer time periods, which comes as no surprise. Exhibit 8 shows the
correlations for 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year horizons for the full population of companies. The lesson is that the base rate
for the reference classes, the median growth rate, should receive the majority of the weight for forecasts of three
years or longer. In fact, you might start with the base rate and seek reasons to move away from it.

May 4, 2015
Exhibit 8: Correlation of Sales Growth Rates for 1-, 3-, 5- and 10-Year Horizons
0.30
0.27
Correlation (r) 0.14

0.13
0.12
0.00
1-Year 3-Year 5-Year 10-Year
Period
Source: FactSet.
This approach to modelling regression toward the mean doesn’t say that some companies won’t grow rapidly
and others won’t shrink. We know that companies will fill the tails of the distribution. What it does say is that
the best forecast for a large sample of companies is something close to the median, and that companies that
anticipate sales growth well in excess of the median are likely to be disappointed.
Case Studies
We have already compared Elon Musk’s scenario for Tesla’s next decade to a base rate. We now turn to some case
studies of successes and failures.
The first case is Apple, and the results are astounding. In fact, the company has had extraordinary results in
two eras (see Exhibit 9). From 1981 through 1990, the company’s sales grew at a CAGR of 36 percent.
While impressive, this was off a relatively low starting sales base of $400 million. Still it was a rate of growth
achieved by less than one-half of one percent of companies of a similar size.
Exhibit 9: Apple’s Extraordinary Growth, Then (1981-1990) and Now (2003-2013)

10-Year Period Real CAGR Yr (0) Sales Base Rate
1981-1990 36.4% 418 4 out of 833 0.48%
2003-2012 36.2% 7,463 2 out of 1251 0.16%
2004-2013 35.6% 8,396 2 out of 1251 0.16%

Source: FactSet.
Note: Figures in 2014 U.S. Dollars.
Apple’s growth in the last dozen years has also been truly amazing. Out of the 1,251 companies in Apple’s
size cohort ($6-13 billion), there were only 2 instances of sales growth of 35-40 percent compounded
annually over 10 years. Both were Apple. That this was without any major acquisitions makes the feat even
more remarkable.
May 4, 2015
It is interesting to compare Apple in the early 2000s to Microsoft, another company that realized rapid growth.
We matched the two companies based on sales, adjusted for inflation, which suggest fiscal 2003 as the base
year for Apple and fiscal 1995 for Microsoft. We then examine the sales growth for the subsequent decade
(see Exhibit 10). Note that the vertical axis is on a logarithmic scale, which means that the difference between
the tick marks reflects the same percentage change (1 to 10 is the same as 10 to 100). Apple grew sales at
a rate roughly double that of Microsoft.
Exhibit 10: Sales and Gross Margins for Apple (F2003-13) and Microsoft (F1995-2005)
Microsoft Sales Apple Sales
Microsoft Gross Margin Apple Gross Margin
10,000 200
180
Real Sales Indexed (Year 0 = 100)
160
Gross Profit Margin (Percent)

1,000
140
120
100 100
80
60
10
40
20
1 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Years
Source: FactSet.
Note: Figures in 2014 U.S. Dollars.
Exhibit 10 also shows the annual gross margin for each company. Microsoft, primarily a software company,
had an average gross margin of more than 85 percent while Apple, primarily a hardware company, averaged
35 percent.
Will the level of sales of Apple, now at $200 billion, place a limit on the company’s growth? Tim Cook, the
company’s CEO, doesn’t think so. Here’s what he said recently (emphasis added):24
Y’know, we’re fortunate to have a good year, but maybe the most important answer to that first would
be that we don’t believe in such laws as laws of large numbers. This is sort of, uh, old
dogma, I think, that was cooked up by somebody and Steve [Jobs] did a lot of things for us for
many years, but one of the things he ingrained in us [is] that putting limits on your thinking [is] never
good. And so, we’re actually not focused on numbers, we're focused on the things that produce the
numbers, right?

May 4, 2015
Apple shows that base rates are not destiny. As Dan Lovallo and Daniel Kahneman write, “It’s true that the
outside view [the base rate], being based on historical precedent, may fail to predict extreme outcomes—
those that lie outside all historical precedents. But for most projects, the outside view will produce superior
results.”25
Amazon.com is another company that has sustained remarkable top line growth. One interesting comparison
is between Amazon and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. The companies had a similar level of sales, adjusted for inflation,
at the time of their respective initial public offerings (IPOs). Amazon’s IPO was in 1997 and Wal-Mart’s in
1970. Exhibit 11 shows the sales growth of both companies for the ten years following their IPOs. Both
realized torrid sales growth: Amazon about 55 percent compounded annually and Wal-Mart about 34 percent.
Exhibit 11: Sales and Gross Margins for Wal-Mart and Amazon.com, Ten Years Post-IPO
Wal-Mart Sales Amazon Sales
Wal-Mart Gross Margin Amazon Gross Margin
10,000 60
50

1,000
40
100 30
20
10
10
1 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Years Following Initial Public Offering
Source: Company filings and FactSet.
Exhibit 11 also shows the gross margins for each company. Wal-Mart’s gross margin was in the mid-20
percent range, while Amazon, save the heavy spending during the peak of the dot-com bubble, was in the low
20s. In 2014, Wal-Mart’s gross margin was about 25 percent and Amazon’s was in excess of 29 percent.
Warren Buffett, the chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, sounds a cautionary note about companies
that predict rapid growth. Here’s an excerpt from his letter to shareholders in 2000. While this was during the
dot-com bubble, the passage bears quoting in full (emphasis added):26
One further thought while I’m on my soapbox: Charlie [Munger] and I think it is both deceptive and
dangerous for CEOs to predict growth rates for their companies. They are, of course, frequently
egged on to do so by both analysts and their own investor relations departments. They should resist,
however, because too often these predictions lead to trouble.

May 4, 2015
It’s fine for a CEO to have his own internal goals and, in our view, it’s even appropriate for the CEO to
publicly express some hopes about the future, if these expectations are accompanied by sensible
caveats. But for a major corporation to predict that its per-share earnings will grow over the long term
at, say, 15% annually is to court trouble.
That’s true because a growth rate of that magnitude can only be maintained by a very small
percentage of large businesses. Here’s a test: Examine the record of, say, the 200 highest
earning companies from 1970 or 1980 and tabulate how many have increased per-share
earnings by 15% annually since those dates. You will find that only a handful have. I would
wager you a very significant sum that fewer than 10 of the 200 most profitable companies
in 2000 will attain 15% annual growth in earnings-per-share over the next 20 years.
The problem arising from lofty predictions is not just that they spread unwarranted optimism. Even
more troublesome is the fact that they corrode CEO behavior. Over the years, Charlie and I have
observed many instances in which CEOs engaged in uneconomic operating maneuvers so that they
could meet earnings targets they had announced. Worse still, after exhausting all that operating
acrobatics would do, they sometimes played a wide variety of accounting games to “make the
numbers.” These accounting shenanigans have a way of snowballing: Once a company moves
earnings from one period to another, operating shortfalls that occur thereafter require it to engage in
further accounting maneuvers that must be even more “heroic.” These can turn fudging into fraud.
(More money, it has been noted, has been stolen with the point of a pen than at the point of a gun.)
Charlie and I tend to be leery of companies run by CEOs who woo investors with fancy predictions. A few of
these managers will prove prophetic — but others will turn out to be congenital optimists, or even charlatans.
Unfortunately, it’s not easy for investors to know in advance which species they are dealing with.
Naturally, not all of the examples are success stories. The Eastman Kodak Company and Nokia Corporation are two
companies that have struggled in recent years as the result of technological change. Kodak had a dominant, and
highly profitable, franchise in photo film that came under severe pressure as digital photography took off. The
company filed for bankruptcy in early 2012 and continued to restructure the business. In the decade ended 2014,
Kodak’s sales declined at a compounded annual rate of close to 19 percent. Part of this decline is attributable to
divestitures.
Nokia, once a leader in the smartphone as well as the traditional mobile phone market, saw its lead at the top end
toppled by Apple and Samsung and at the low end by Asian manufacturers. Sales for the 10 years ended 2014
shrank 9 percent compounded annually. Nokia’s sales in 2008 were more than four times those of 2014, with
divestitures again playing a role.
Exhibit 12 shows the sales and gross profit margin for Kodak and Nokia from 2004 through 2014. These cases show
how once strong and proud companies can stumble, and ultimately shrink. While the distribution of sales growth rates
is skewed to the right, it’s important to recognize that plenty of businesses also shrink.

May 4, 2015
Exhibit 12: Sales and Gross Margins for Eastman Kodak and Nokia, 2004-14
Eastman Kodak Sales Nokia Sales
Eastman Kodak Gross Margin Nokia Gross Margin
1,000 120
100

100 80
60
10 40
20
1 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Years
Source: FactSet.
Current Expectations
Exhibit 1 showed the current expectations for sales growth over three years for more than a thousand public
companies in the U.S. The median expected growth rate is 2.7 percent, which is consistent with GDP growth
of 2-3 percent.
Exhibit 13 shows the three-year sales growth rates, adjusted for inflation, which analysts expect for ten
companies with sales in excess of $50 billion. We superimposed the expected growth rates on the distribution
of historical sales growth rates for the reference class of mega companies.

May 4, 2015
Exhibit 13: Three-Year Expected Sales Growth Rates for Ten Mega Companies
30 Wells Fargo
Wal-Mart JP Morgan
25 J&J Microsoft
Exxon
Frequency (Percent)
20 P&G
15 GE
10 Apple
Google
5
5-10
(10)-(5)
(5)-0
40-45
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
0-5
<(25)
(20)-(15)
>45
(25)-(20)
(15)-(10)
Sales CAGR (Percent)

Source: FactSet.
Note: I/B/E/S consensus estimates as of May 4, 2015; Growth rates are annualized; J&J = Johnson & Johnson, GE = General Electric, Exxon =
ExxonMobil, and P&G = Procter & Gamble.
Analysts expect negative sales growth for four of the ten, which corporate actions or commodity prices can
largely explain. The standard deviation of growth rates for this small sample is 5.7 percent.
Summary
Active investing requires having a point of view that is different than that of the stock market. Implicit in such a
variant perception is a forecast of outcomes that is at odds with what the market implies.
Research shows that optimism and overconfidence can creep into our forecasts, thus distorting them. This is
especially true when the outcomes have personal relevance. Research also shows that incorporating a base
rate can improve the quality of our forecasts. Notwithstanding the utility of this method, it remains substantially
underutilized.
In this piece we provide the base rates for sales growth rates for a large sample of U.S. companies over a
span of more than two decades. We start with sales growth because it is the most important value driver. We
then provide a method to integrate our views, as well as results from the past, with base rates to sharpen the
quality of our forecasts. We also share a few case studies to show what happened to some outliers.

May 4, 2015
Appendix: Observations for Each Base Rate by Decile for S&P 1500 (1994-2014)
$0-250 Mn Observations $250-450 Mn Observations $450-700 Mn Observations
Sales CAGR (%) 1-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 20-Yr Sales CAGR (%) 1-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 20-Yr Sales CAGR (%) 1-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 20-Yr
<(25) 158 78 61 22 1 <(25) 108 34 15 2 0 <(25) 111 31 8 2 0
(25)-(20) 52 26 10 2 0 (25)-(20) 42 17 9 1 0 (25)-(20) 46 26 4 0 0
(20)-(15) 63 35 20 15 0 (20)-(15) 77 41 17 2 0 (20)-(15) 79 47 37 2 0
(15)-(10) 92 62 33 8 0 (15)-(10) 87 67 49 7 0 (15)-(10) 128 84 60 19 0
(10)-(5) 145 124 70 16 2 (10)-(5) 162 118 89 33 0 (10)-(5) 185 178 107 66 0
(5)-0 213 176 158 60 5 (5)-0 285 208 179 131 4 (5)-0 294 243 227 133 8
0-5 266 249 221 146 22 0-5 354 362 315 184 30 0-5 411 395 344 251 38
5-10 251 240 234 169 33 5-10 333 352 314 198 26 5-10 427 414 353 255 32
10-15 225 215 183 128 31 10-15 306 309 266 137 20 10-15 319 299 285 157 26
15-20 178 157 170 89 18 15-20 223 180 150 81 6 15-20 219 218 160 59 4
20-25 123 143 84 62 3 20-25 165 153 92 37 1 20-25 156 147 79 20 0
25-30 110 102 72 27 6 25-30 118 93 58 9 0 25-30 129 58 55 7 1
30-35 90 63 49 18 1 30-35 69 49 26 2 0 30-35 89 39 14 6 0
35-40 71 57 34 9 2 35-40 74 36 18 4 0 35-40 54 30 14 3 0
40-45 61 39 21 12 0 40-45 62 34 16 4 0 40-45 43 21 7 1 0
>45 312 158 87 25 0 >45 182 67 16 1 0 >45 161 48 15 1 0
Total 2,410 1,924 1,507 808 124 Total 2,647 2,120 1,629 833 87 Total 2,851 2,278 1,769 982 109
$700-1,000 Mn Observations $1,000-1,500 Mn Observations $1,500-2,250 Mn Observations
<(25) 98 31 4 3 0 <(25) 108 29 17 8 0 <(25) 99 31 11 2 0
(25)-(20) 46 32 18 0 0 (25)-(20) 53 19 9 1 0 (25)-(20) 57 24 12 4 0
(20)-(15) 74 27 19 11 0 (20)-(15) 85 50 20 6 1 (20)-(15) 73 48 24 3 0
(15)-(10) 120 92 48 14 2 (15)-(10) 125 89 53 7 0 (15)-(10) 124 94 58 10 1
(10)-(5) 211 199 135 32 2 (10)-(5) 223 215 169 35 0 (10)-(5) 205 183 135 90 3
(5)-0 368 317 285 128 7 (5)-0 377 391 362 204 8 (5)-0 387 372 352 170 13
0-5 464 484 460 308 44 0-5 520 531 472 339 54 0-5 558 572 515 409 57
5-10 442 373 322 221 38 42134 485 405 402 331 27 5-10 473 483 440 278 23
10-15 284 283 242 154 11 15-Oct 353 332 282 139 9 10-15 369 307 237 120 16
15-20 237 202 153 79 6 15-20 213 204 158 64 2 15-20 210 169 128 56 3
20-25 144 108 75 24 1 20-25 163 107 68 13 0 20-25 139 87 65 14 1
25-30 101 68 38 10 0 25-30 104 59 34 9 0 25-30 84 59 28 6 0
30-35 72 48 15 8 0 30-35 62 38 19 2 0 30-35 57 25 12 3 0
35-40 51 32 12 2 0 35-40 39 24 8 1 0 35-40 51 20 6 1 0
40-45 32 8 6 0 0 40-45 32 18 8 0 0 40-45 29 13 7 1 0
>45 125 30 17 0 0 >45 132 37 13 0 0 >45 119 37 8 0 0
Total 2,869 2,334 1,849 994 111 Total 3,074 2,548 2,094 1,159 101 Total 3,034 2,524 2,038 1,167 117

May 4, 2015
$2,250-3,500 Mn Observations $3,500-6,000 Mn Observations $6,000-13,000 Mn Observations

<(25) 112 38 12 8 0 <(25) 110 33 17 3 0 <(25) 124 40 27 3 0
(25)-(20) 45 23 8 3 1 (25)-(20) 37 24 15 1 0 (25)-(20) 51 30 14 0 0
(20)-(15) 83 49 39 4 0 (20)-(15) 64 36 27 7 0 (20)-(15) 78 44 23 12 0
(15)-(10) 112 97 68 21 1 (15)-(10) 128 95 61 11 0 (15)-(10) 111 103 68 18 0
(10)-(5) 190 183 168 73 3 (10)-(5) 216 186 135 68 2 (10)-(5) 228 230 173 75 3
(5)-0 373 367 333 216 14 (5)-0 405 403 351 204 18 (5)-0 425 458 455 271 19
0-5 597 600 532 349 55 0-5 602 596 565 387 47 0-5 618 615 582 460 84
5-10 473 408 358 246 17 5-10 512 460 367 217 35 5-10 522 443 393 279 28
10-15 317 267 235 98 5 10-15 307 238 162 126 2 10-15 327 231 185 82 8
15-20 203 158 117 59 3 15-20 185 138 120 35 2 15-20 168 137 95 33 0
20-25 123 83 58 18 1 20-25 119 78 73 4 0 20-25 117 83 35 11 0
25-30 83 59 29 4 0 25-30 66 39 34 4 0 25-30 69 48 36 1 0
30-35 45 31 17 1 0 30-35 42 41 14 0 0 30-35 47 20 9 4 0
35-40 40 21 7 3 0 35-40 33 26 6 1 0 35-40 29 20 6 2 0
40-45 25 10 9 0 0 40-45 24 20 4 0 0 40-45 21 6 4 0 0
>45 98 22 7 0 0 >45 106 25 8 0 0 >45 103 20 5 0 0
Total 2,919 2,416 1,997 1,103 100 Total 2,956 2,438 1,959 1,068 106 Total 3,038 2,528 2,110 1,251 142
>$13,000 Mn Observations >$50,000 Mn Observations Full Universe Observations
Sales CAGR (%) 1-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 20-Yr Sales CAGR (%) 1-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 20-Yr CAGR (%) 1-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 20-Yr
<(25) 125 61 33 3 0 <(25) 29 17 16 1 0 <(25) 1,153 406 205 56 1
(25)-(20) 42 25 27 2 0 (25)-(20) 7 5 4 1 0 (25)-(20) 471 246 126 14 1
(20)-(15) 72 48 35 13 0 (20)-(15) 13 9 5 2 0 (20)-(15) 748 425 261 75 1
(15)-(10) 120 92 66 34 0 (15)-(10) 27 20 10 12 0 (15)-(10) 1,147 875 564 149 4
(10)-(5) 285 226 174 86 6 (10)-(5) 66 52 34 10 2 (10)-(5) 2,050 1,842 1,355 574 21
(5)-0 568 573 482 279 35 (5)-0 110 115 97 49 4 (5)-0 3,695 3,508 3,184 1,796 131
0-5 739 744 733 443 48 0-5 155 155 148 74 7 0-5 5,138 5,157 4,748 3,285 488
5-10 571 526 423 291 35 5-10 120 107 79 55 3 5-10 4,489 4,104 3,606 2,485 294
10-15 287 208 183 110 6 10-15 51 36 34 7 0 10-15 3,094 2,689 2,260 1,251 134
15-20 168 109 81 34 0 15-20 30 16 8 1 0 15-20 2,004 1,672 1,332 589 44
20-25 109 71 48 8 0 20-25 23 9 4 0 0 20-25 1,358 1,060 677 211 7
25-30 65 40 13 3 0 25-30 11 3 2 0 0 25-30 929 625 397 80 7
30-35 37 26 17 1 0 30-35 5 1 0 0 0 30-35 610 380 192 45 1
35-40 27 16 5 0 0 35-40 4 2 0 0 0 35-40 469 282 116 26 2
40-45 20 11 2 0 0 40-45 1 1 0 0 0 40-45 349 180 84 18 0
>45 78 19 5 0 0 >45 13 1 0 0 0 >45 1,416 463 181 27 0
Total 3,313 2,795 2,327 1,307 130 Total 665 549 441 212 16 Total 29,120 23,914 19,288 10,681 1,136
Source: FactSet.

May 4, 2015
Endnotes
1
Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011), 249.
2
Tesla Motors, Inc. Q4 2014 Earnings Call, February 11, 2015. See FactSet: callstreet Transcript, page 7.
3
Kahneman, 257.
4
See Small Business Association, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions,” January 2011
(https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/sbfaq.pdf) and Arnold C. Cooper, Carolyn Y. Woo, and William C.
Dunkelberg, “Entrepreneurs’ Perceived Chances for Success,” Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 3, No. 2,
Spring 1988, 97-108.
5
Cade Massey, Joseph P. Simmons, and David A. Armor, “Hope Over Experience: Desirability and the
Persistence of Optimism,” Psychological Science, Vol. 22, No. 2, February 2011, 274-281. Also, David A.
Armor, Cade Massey, and Aaron M. Sackett, “Prescribed Optimism: Is It Right to Be Wrong About the
Future?” Psychological Science, Vol. 19, No. 4, April 2008, 329-331. For a more detailed discussion of
optimism, see Tali Sharot, The Optimism Bias: A Tour of the Irrationally Positive Brain (New York: Pantheon
Books, 2011).
6
To try the test, see http://confidence.success-equation.com/.
7
Geoffrey Friesen and Paul A. Weller, “Quantifying Cognitive Biases in Analyst Earnings Forecasts,” Journal
of Financial Markets, Vol. 9, No. 4, November 2006, 333-365.
8
Itzhak Ben-David, John R. Graham, and Campbell R. Harvey, “Managerial Miscalibration,” Quarterly Journal
of Economics, Vol. 128, No. 4, August 2013, 1547-1584.
9
The estimates only include about 1,200 companies, but we believe it remains representative of the S&P
1500.
10
Bent Flyvbjerg, Massimo Garbuio, Dan Lovallo, “Better Forecasting for Large Capital Projects,” McKinsey
on Finance, Autumn 2014, 7-13. Also, Bent Flyvbjerg, “Truth and Lies about Megaprojects,” Speech at Delft
University of Technology, September 26, 2007.
11
Kahneman, 249.
12
Berkeley J. Dietvorst, Joseph P. Simmons, and Cade Massey, “Algorithm Aversion: People Erroneously
Avoid Algorithms After Seeing Them Err,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 144, No. 1,
February 2015, 114-126.
13
Alfred Rappaport and Michael J. Mauboussin, Expectations Investing: Reading Stock Prices for Better Returns
(Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2001).
14
Rappaport and Mauboussin, 46. Growth only creates value when a company earns in excess of the cost of capital.
Growth at a negative spread destroys value.
15
Most public companies “die” as the result of mergers and acquisitions. See Michael J. Mauboussin and Dan
Callahan, “Why Corporate Longevity Matters: What Index Turnover Tells Us about Corporate Results,” Credit
Suisse Global Financial Strategies, April 16, 2014. Also, Madeleine I. G. Daepp, Marcus J. Hamilton,
Geoffrey B. West, and Luís M. A. Bettencourt, “The mortality of companies,” The Royal Society Publishing,
Vol. 12, No. 106, April 1, 2015.
16
Michael H. R. Stanley, Luís A. N. Amaral, Sergey V. Buldyrev, Shlomo Havlin, Heiko Leschhorn,
Philipp Maass, Michael A. Salinger, and H. Eugene Stanley, “Scaling Behaviour in the Growth of Companies,”
Nature, Vol. 379, February 29, 1996, 804-806. Also, Rich Perline, Robert Axtell, and Daniel Teitelbaum,
“Volatility and Asymmetry of Small Firm Growth Rates Over Increasing Time Frames,” Small Business
Research Summary, No. 285, December 2006.
17
Tim Koller, Marc Goedhart, and David Wessels, Valuation: Measuring and Managing the Value of
Companies, 5th Edition (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2010). Also, Patrick Viguerie, Sven Smit, and
Mehrdad Baghai, The Granularity of Growth: How to Identify the Sources of Growth and Drive Enduring
Company Performance (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2008).
18
Sheridan Titman, K. C. John Wei, and Feixue Xie, “Capital Investments and Stock Returns,” The Journal of
Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 39, No. 4, December 2004, 677-700.

May 4, 2015
19
William M. K. Trochim and James P. Donnelly, The Research Methods Knowledge Base, Third Edition
(Mason, OH: Atomic Dog, 2008), 166. See http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/regrmean.php.
20
Michael J. Mauboussin, Dan Callahan, Bryant Matthews, and David A. Holland, “How to Model Reversion to
the Mean: Determining How Fast, and to What Mean, Results Revert,” Credit Suisse Global Financial
Strategies, September 17, 2013.
21
“Credit Suisse Global Investment Returns Yearbook 2014,” Credit Suisse Research Institute, February 2014, 31-35.
22
Louis K.C. Chan, Jason Karceski, and Josef Lakonishok, “The Level and Persistence of Growth Rates,”
Journal of Finance, Vol. 58, No. 2, April 2003, 643-684. Also, Michael J. Mauboussin, “The True Measures
of Success,” Harvard Business Review, October 2012, 46-56.
23
The calculations actually capture each company as long as it remains in existence, even if it leaves the S&P 1500
Index. We also trim the top and bottom five percent of the growth rates. Companies with growth rates in the top five
percent are generally extremely small firms or firms that engaged in a significant merger and acquisition activity.
24
See http://www.imore.com/tim-cook-goldman-sachs-conference.
25
Dan Lovallo and Daniel Kahneman, “Delusions of Success: How Optimism Undermines Executives’
Decisions,” Harvard Business Review, July 2003, 56-63.
26
Warren E. Buffett, “Letter to Shareholders,” Berkshire Hathaway Annual Report, 2000. See
http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2000ar/2000letter.html.

The Base Rate Book – Earnings Growth

December 16, 2015
20
Authors
18 Base Rates
Michael J. Mauboussin 16 Current Estimates
Frequency (Percent)
michael.mauboussin@credit-suisse.com 14
12
Dan Callahan, CFA
daniel.callahan@credit-suisse.com 10
8
Darius Majd 6
darius.majd@credit-suisse.com
4
2
0
25-30
10-15
15-20
20-25
30-35
35-40
40-45
5-10
(5)-0
(10)-(5)
0-5
<(25)
>45
(25)-(20)
(20)-(15)
(15)-(10)
3-Year Net Income CAGR (Percent)

Daniel Kahneman1
Executives and investors perceive that earnings are the best indicator of
corporate results.
Earnings announcements convey information to the market, as measured
by a rise in stock price volume and volatility, and the impact of that
information has risen since 2001.
Earnings have severe limitations as a measure of shareholder value. As a
result, it is possible to increase earnings without creating value.
This report shows the base rate of net income growth rates for the 1,000
largest global companies since 1950. We sort the companies into deciles,
allowing for easy identification of an appropriate reference class.
We provide a method to integrate company-specific views with the base
rates to sharpen the quality of forecasts.
December 16, 2015
Introduction
Executives and investors perceive that earnings are the best indicator of corporate results. In a survey of
financial executives, nearly two-thirds said that earnings are the most important measure that they report to
outsiders and gave it a vastly higher rating than other financial metrics such as revenue growth and cash flow
from operations.2 In a separate survey, a majority of investors indicated that quarterly earnings is the disclosure
that is most significant.3 Consistent with these views, many companies provide some form of earnings
guidance, and the price-earnings multiple is the most popular way to assign a value to a company’s stock.4
Yet earnings have severe limitations as a measure of shareholder value. The main reasons include the fact
that management can use alternative accounting methods to calculate earnings, that earnings fail to capture
the capital needs of the business, and that earnings don’t reflect the cost of capital. As a result, it is possible
to increase earnings without creating value.5
The popularity of earnings has spawned extensive research on the link between earnings per share (EPS) and
stock prices.6 Studies from the late 1960s show that annual earnings announcements convey information to
the market, as measured by a rise in trading volume and stock price volatility.7 Public companies in the United
States were not required to file quarterly income statements, through Form 10-Q, until 1970. Further,
companies outside the U.S. realized an increase in the information content of their earnings announcements
following the adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards.8
Recent work on the impact of earnings not only confirms the original finding, but also shows that the
information content of earnings has risen since 2001.9 One plausible explanation is that since the adoption of
Regulation Fair Disclosure in 2000, which ensures that all investors receive financial information at the same
time, companies convey less information between earnings reports. To add context to this discussion,
researchers estimate that each quarterly earnings announcement reflects one to two percent of the total new
information available in each year.10
Companies can increase the information content of their earnings disclosure and guidance by providing more
detail about the components of earnings. That detail leads to more timely revisions by analysts, more frequent
revisions, and a lower dispersion of forecasts among the analysts. Academics have found that about 40
percent of large companies in the U.S. provide no earnings guidance and less than a quarter provide revenue,
expense, and earnings forecasts.11
Further, studies show that there has been a growing rift between “Street” earnings and earnings based on
generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). In recent decades, companies have been more liberal in
excluding “special” or “non-cash items” from GAAP earnings to come up with Street earnings. Potential
motivations for emphasizing Street earnings include an effort by managers and investors to boost corporate
value and an attempt to remove transitory elements from earnings so as to improve the ability to estimate
future cash flows. While it is unclear which motivation is dominant, the research does demonstrate that Street
EPS have a higher correlation with stock price movement than GAAP EPS do.12
EPS are ubiquitous and provide some information that affect stock prices. Growth in EPS creates shareholder
value when a company makes investments that earn a return in excess of the cost of capital. In general, there
is a positive correlation between EPS growth and total shareholder return. Indeed, investors who can anticipate
earnings in 12 months that are substantially different than today’s forecast stand to earn substantial excess
returns.13
The Base Rate Book – Earnings Growth 2

December 16, 2015
However, earnings growth rates are not very persistent.14 This suggests that it is hard to predict future growth
rates based on the past. You can improve your earnings forecasts by carefully considering accruals. Accruals
that are less reliable, such as an estimate for the collection of accounts receivable, are associated with lower
earnings persistence than accruals with more persistence such as accounts payable.15
The goal of this report is to help guide thinking with regard to earnings growth.16 Consistent with prior research,
we believe that the use of base rates improves the quality of forecasts.17 This is especially true for growth
companies, where analysts tend to be optimistic about the future. Indeed, when sentiment is bullish, earnings
forecasts by analysts tend to be optimistic, especially for firms that are difficult to value using conventional
measures.18
Analysts tend to be too sanguine when they forecast net income growth.19 The current mean estimate for
companies in the S&P 1500 is 13.3 percent annual net income growth over the next three years. That rate
almost one-third higher than the average growth rate of 10.4 percent for the largest 1,000 global companies
since 1950. All figures are adjusted for inflation. The median estimate is for 8.0 percent annual growth, which
is almost one-fifth higher than the historical median of 6.9 percent. (See Exhibit 1.) Of particular note is the
optimism on the left side of the distribution: few companies or analysts think that earnings will decline at the
rate that is consistent with the past.
Exhibit 1: Overconfidence—Range of Net Income Growth Rates Too Narrow

20
18 Base Rates
Frequency (Percent)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
5-10
15-20
(5)-0
10-15
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-45
(10)-(5)
<(25)
0-5
>45
(25)-(20)
(20)-(15)
(15)-(10)

®
Source: Credit Suisse HOLT and FactSet Estimates.
Note: FactSet consensus estimates as of December 4, 2015; S&P 1500 sample includes 1,211 companies after excluding companies with negative
beginning or ending net income and companies for which 3-year estimates are not available.
Base Rates of Earnings Growth

December 16, 2015
Sales are the most important driver of corporate value, while earnings are the most common metric to
communicate results and to establish value. Sales growth is more persistent than earnings growth, but less
predictive of total shareholder return.21 The sample throughout this report includes the net income growth of
the top 1,000 global companies by market capitalization since 1950. These companies currently represent
about 60 percent of the global market capitalization. The data include all sectors. The sample size is
somewhat smaller than 1,000 in the early years but reaches 1,000 by the late 1960s. The population includes
companies that are now dead.
We use a definition of net income that is before extraordinary items. We calculate the compound annual
growth rates (CAGR) of net income for 1, 3, 5, and 10 years for each firm. We adjust all of the figures to
remove the effects of inflation, which translates all of the numbers to 2014 dollars.
Exhibit 2 shows the results for the full sample. In the panel on the left, the rows show net income growth rates
and the columns reflect time periods. Say you want to know what percent of the universe grew net income at
a CAGR of 15-20 percent for five years. You start with the row marked “15-20” and slide to the right to find
the column “5-Yr.” There, you’ll see that 8.0 percent of the companies achieved that rate of growth. The
panel on the right shows the sample sizes for each growth rate and time period, allowing us to see where the
8.0 percent comes from: 3,537 instances out of the total of 44,062 (3,537/44,062 = 8.0 percent).
Exhibit 2: Base Rates of Net Income Growth (1950-2014)

Net Income CAGR (%) 1-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr Net Income CAGR (%) 1-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr
<(25) 11.5% 5.9% 3.2% 0.7% <(25) 5,985 2,810 1,423 242
(25)-(20) 2.5% 2.1% 1.6% 0.6% (25)-(20) 1,277 985 700 229
(20)-(15) 3.1% 2.9% 2.5% 1.4% (20)-(15) 1,588 1,398 1,081 519
(15)-(10) 3.8% 4.2% 3.9% 2.8% (15)-(10) 1,993 2,016 1,710 1,008
(10)-(5) 4.9% 6.4% 6.5% 5.7% (10)-(5) 2,547 3,052 2,855 2,089
(5)-0 7.0% 9.8% 11.3% 12.7% (5)-0 3,612 4,648 4,981 4,637
0-5 9.0% 13.2% 17.5% 24.5% 0-5 4,697 6,288 7,724 8,944
5-10 9.5% 13.7% 16.8% 23.3% 5-10 4,934 6,508 7,385 8,530
10-15 8.5% 10.7% 12.3% 13.9% 10-15 4,405 5,083 5,415 5,075
15-20 6.6% 7.9% 8.0% 6.8% 15-20 3,432 3,747 3,537 2,491
20-25 5.0% 5.6% 5.4% 3.4% 20-25 2,614 2,652 2,369 1,253
25-30 4.0% 4.0% 3.5% 1.7% 25-30 2,082 1,897 1,528 617
30-35 3.2% 2.9% 2.2% 0.9% 30-35 1,680 1,385 950 338
35-40 2.7% 2.3% 1.3% 0.6% 35-40 1,410 1,093 565 214
40-45 2.1% 1.5% 0.9% 0.4% 40-45 1,095 737 412 135
>45 16.5% 7.0% 3.2% 0.6% >45 8,560 3,356 1,427 212
Mean 56.8% 10.4% 7.5% 5.9% Total 51,911 47,655 44,062 36,533
Median 9.3% 6.9% 6.0% 5.3%
StDev 2,540.8% 34.6% 20.2% 10.9%
Source: Credit Suisse HOLT®.

Exhibit 3 is the distribution for the five-year net income growth rate. This shows, in a graph, what the numbers
say in exhibit 2. The mean, or average, growth rate was 7.5 percent per year and the median growth rate was
6.0 percent. The median is a better indicator of the central location of the results because the distribution is

December 16, 2015
Exhibit 3: Five-Year CAGR of Net Income (1950-2014)

20
18
Frequency (Percent) 16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
5-10
(5)-0
40-45
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
(10)-(5)
<(25)
(15)-(10)
0-5
>45
(25)-(20)
(20)-(15)
CAGR (Percent)
the results more relevant and applicable. One way to do that is to break the universe into deciles based on a
company’s starting annual sales. Within each size decile, we sort the observations of growth rates into bins in
increments of 5 percentage points (except for the tails).
Let’s use Alphabet Inc. as an example. As of early December 2015, the consensus for net income growth
over the next three years, according to FactSet’s consolidated estimate of analysts, is about 24 percent per
year. Growth in non-GAAP earnings per share is expected to be close to 15 percent. We first find the correct
reference class. In this case, it’s the bin that has a sales base in excess of $50 billion. Next we examine the
row of growth that is marked “20-25,” representing a net income growth rate of between 20 and 25 percent.
Going out to the column under “3-Yr,” we see that 5.2 percent of companies achieved this feat.
cover the vast majority of possible outcomes for net income growth. The appendix contains the sample sizes
for each of the reference classes. We will show how to incorporate these base rates into your forecasts for
net income growth in a moment, but for now it’s useful to acknowledge the utility of these data as an
analytical guide and a valuable reality check.

December 16, 2015
Exhibit 4: Base Rates by Decile (1950-2014)

Sales: $0-325 Mn Base Rates Sales: $325-700 Mn Base Rates Sales: $700-1,250 Mn Base Rates
Net Income CAGR (%) 1-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr Net Income CAGR (%) 1-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr Net Income CAGR (%) 1-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr
<(25) 8.4% 3.4% 1.7% 0.4% <(25) 8.8% 3.8% 1.9% 0.5% <(25) 8.9% 4.4% 2.5% 0.8%
(25)-(20) 1.8% 1.1% 1.0% 0.3% (25)-(20) 1.9% 1.5% 0.9% 0.3% (25)-(20) 2.5% 2.1% 1.3% 0.4%
(20)-(15) 2.5% 1.9% 1.1% 0.9% (20)-(15) 2.7% 2.2% 1.4% 0.9% (20)-(15) 2.8% 2.5% 1.9% 1.5%
(15)-(10) 3.2% 3.2% 2.5% 1.7% (15)-(10) 3.6% 3.7% 3.0% 1.9% (15)-(10) 3.4% 4.2% 3.6% 2.3%
(10)-(5) 4.1% 4.7% 3.7% 3.1% (10)-(5) 5.0% 5.5% 4.8% 4.4% (10)-(5) 4.4% 5.8% 6.0% 5.5%
(5)-0 6.4% 8.5% 9.3% 8.4% (5)-0 7.8% 10.2% 11.4% 9.8% (5)-0 7.7% 9.9% 10.5% 11.8%
0-5 9.9% 11.8% 15.4% 19.8% 0-5 11.1% 15.4% 19.0% 26.5% 0-5 10.8% 14.3% 18.8% 25.7%
5-10 10.2% 14.0% 15.5% 22.6% 5-10 10.8% 15.0% 18.7% 25.0% 5-10 10.8% 15.0% 18.9% 25.4%
10-15 9.0% 10.6% 13.4% 15.5% 10-15 9.6% 11.6% 13.7% 15.9% 10-15 9.2% 11.2% 13.0% 13.6%
15-20 6.1% 8.0% 9.8% 10.4% 15-20 7.7% 8.9% 9.4% 8.0% 15-20 7.1% 8.5% 8.7% 6.8%
20-25 5.1% 6.4% 6.8% 6.6% 20-25 5.3% 6.1% 6.1% 3.0% 20-25 4.9% 5.9% 5.0% 2.8%
25-30 4.2% 5.2% 5.1% 3.5% 25-30 4.1% 4.0% 3.4% 1.9% 25-30 3.9% 3.8% 3.3% 1.7%
30-35 4.0% 3.7% 3.4% 2.1% 30-35 3.4% 2.8% 2.0% 0.8% 30-35 3.8% 2.9% 1.9% 0.6%
35-40 3.4% 3.2% 2.0% 1.7% 35-40 2.7% 1.9% 1.1% 0.4% 35-40 2.5% 2.3% 1.1% 0.5%
40-45 2.8% 2.1% 1.7% 1.3% 40-45 2.1% 1.3% 0.6% 0.2% 40-45 2.3% 1.6% 0.9% 0.3%
>45 18.9% 12.2% 7.7% 2.0% >45 13.3% 6.2% 2.6% 0.5% >45 15.0% 5.8% 2.7% 0.3%
Mean 42.3% 17.9% 14.1% 10.5% Mean 45.3% 11.1% 8.5% 6.8% Mean 137.3% 10.5% 7.7% 5.6%
Median 11.7% 10.5% 9.9% 8.3% Median 9.0% 7.3% 6.8% 6.0% Median 9.5% 7.2% 6.4% 5.3%
StDev 284.2% 35.6% 23.3% 13.2% StDev 1,314.6% 29.6% 17.3% 9.9% StDev 7,627.5% 38.7% 18.9% 10.2%
Sales: $1,250-2,000 Mn Base Rates Sales: $2,000-3,000 Mn Base Rates Sales: $3,000-4,500 Mn Base Rates
<(25) 9.9% 5.3% 3.1% 0.5% <(25) 9.6% 5.8% 3.0% 0.7% <(25) 11.6% 5.7% 3.1% 0.6%
(25)-(20) 2.4% 2.0% 1.2% 0.5% (25)-(20) 2.3% 1.7% 2.1% 0.7% (25)-(20) 2.3% 2.1% 1.6% 0.8%
(20)-(15) 3.6% 2.9% 2.7% 1.3% (20)-(15) 3.1% 2.7% 2.3% 1.6% (20)-(15) 2.9% 3.0% 2.8% 1.3%
(15)-(10) 4.1% 4.4% 3.5% 2.5% (15)-(10) 4.2% 3.9% 4.1% 3.1% (15)-(10) 4.4% 4.3% 4.2% 3.2%
(10)-(5) 5.1% 6.1% 7.0% 5.9% (10)-(5) 5.0% 6.4% 6.6% 6.0% (10)-(5) 4.9% 7.4% 7.1% 6.3%
(5)-0 7.1% 10.0% 10.2% 12.6% (5)-0 7.5% 10.4% 11.3% 14.2% (5)-0 7.0% 10.7% 12.8% 14.1%
0-5 9.9% 13.7% 18.7% 25.7% 0-5 10.0% 14.1% 19.0% 28.0% 0-5 9.3% 13.1% 18.0% 26.4%
5-10 10.0% 14.6% 18.1% 25.5% 5-10 9.8% 14.7% 17.9% 23.1% 5-10 9.5% 13.7% 16.8% 23.8%
10-15 9.1% 12.0% 12.5% 14.2% 10-15 8.6% 10.8% 12.6% 11.8% 10-15 8.2% 10.0% 12.4% 13.4%
15-20 7.1% 7.8% 8.2% 5.6% 15-20 7.4% 8.4% 6.5% 6.2% 15-20 6.7% 7.6% 7.2% 5.3%
20-25 4.8% 5.2% 5.3% 3.3% 20-25 5.2% 4.8% 5.2% 2.5% 20-25 5.2% 5.8% 5.3% 2.5%
25-30 3.9% 4.0% 3.3% 1.1% 25-30 4.4% 3.9% 3.5% 1.1% 25-30 4.3% 3.7% 3.0% 0.9%
30-35 3.4% 2.4% 2.1% 0.6% 30-35 2.8% 3.0% 2.2% 0.5% 30-35 2.9% 3.2% 2.0% 0.4%
35-40 2.9% 2.1% 1.1% 0.4% 35-40 2.9% 2.3% 0.9% 0.2% 35-40 2.6% 2.4% 1.0% 0.3%
40-45 2.0% 1.3% 0.8% 0.1% 40-45 2.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.2% 40-45 2.2% 1.6% 0.7% 0.2%
>45 14.7% 6.4% 2.3% 0.1% >45 15.2% 6.0% 2.0% 0.2% >45 15.9% 5.8% 2.1% 0.3%
Mean 27.6% 9.1% 6.9% 5.3% Mean 33.6% 9.4% 6.3% 4.5% Mean 42.2% 9.4% 6.0% 4.6%
StDev 433.6% 26.1% 23.5% 9.4% StDev 301.1% 29.1% 17.5% 9.8% StDev 994.6% 37.3% 18.0% 9.8%

December 16, 2015
<(25) 12.1% 6.2% 3.6% 1.0% <(25) 13.3% 7.3% 4.1% 0.7% <(25) 14.8% 7.6% 4.4% 1.0%
(25)-(20) 2.8% 2.2% 1.6% 0.9% (25)-(20) 2.6% 2.4% 1.9% 0.8% (25)-(20) 2.8% 2.4% 2.0% 0.9%
(20)-(15) 3.9% 3.1% 3.2% 1.4% (20)-(15) 3.0% 3.6% 2.8% 1.4% (20)-(15) 3.2% 3.5% 3.3% 2.2%
(15)-(10) 3.9% 4.6% 4.1% 3.3% (15)-(10) 4.0% 4.2% 4.5% 3.6% (15)-(10) 3.5% 4.6% 4.3% 3.3%
(10)-(5) 4.9% 6.9% 7.7% 7.4% (10)-(5) 5.4% 7.2% 6.8% 6.2% (10)-(5) 5.3% 6.9% 7.8% 6.7%
(5)-0 6.5% 10.1% 12.5% 15.8% (5)-0 6.9% 9.4% 11.8% 14.9% (5)-0 6.8% 9.7% 11.7% 14.2%
0-5 8.5% 13.3% 17.6% 23.6% 0-5 7.9% 12.6% 17.9% 24.9% 0-5 7.3% 12.8% 16.5% 23.1%
5-10 9.5% 14.0% 16.9% 22.9% 5-10 8.6% 13.3% 16.1% 22.1% 5-10 8.8% 11.8% 14.3% 20.2%
10-15 8.6% 10.9% 11.7% 12.7% 10-15 7.8% 9.8% 11.2% 12.8% 10-15 7.8% 9.9% 11.3% 14.5%
15-20 6.2% 7.6% 7.4% 5.5% 15-20 6.6% 6.9% 7.4% 5.9% 15-20 5.1% 7.8% 7.9% 6.1%
20-25 5.4% 5.3% 4.3% 2.6% 20-25 4.9% 5.5% 4.9% 3.1% 20-25 4.8% 4.9% 5.3% 3.7%
25-30 4.0% 3.7% 2.9% 1.1% 25-30 3.9% 4.1% 3.1% 1.5% 25-30 3.9% 3.7% 3.4% 1.4%
30-35 2.9% 2.4% 1.9% 0.8% 30-35 3.5% 2.8% 2.0% 0.9% 30-35 2.5% 2.9% 2.0% 1.1%
35-40 2.4% 2.1% 1.2% 0.4% 35-40 2.5% 2.4% 1.7% 0.4% 35-40 2.8% 2.1% 1.3% 0.7%
40-45 1.9% 1.6% 0.8% 0.2% 40-45 2.0% 1.6% 1.0% 0.3% 40-45 1.8% 1.6% 1.0% 0.4%
>45 16.6% 6.0% 2.6% 0.4% >45 17.0% 6.7% 2.8% 0.6% >45 18.7% 7.5% 3.4% 0.6%
Mean 74.6% 9.2% 5.8% 4.3% Mean 47.0% 9.4% 6.3% 5.0% Mean 66.3% 9.7% 6.6% 5.2%
StDev 2,176.8% 36.6% 18.8% 10.6% StDev 751.8% 35.4% 19.9% 11.1% StDev 821.4% 37.2% 21.5% 11.7%
Sales: >$25,000 Mn Base Rates Sales: >$50,000 Mn Base Rates Full Universe Base Rates
<(25) 16.2% 9.4% 5.3% 0.7% <(25) 17.6% 11.1% 5.5% 0.6% <(25) 11.5% 5.9% 3.2% 0.7%
(25)-(20) 2.9% 3.1% 2.4% 1.0% (25)-(20) 3.2% 3.0% 2.7% 1.3% (25)-(20) 2.5% 2.1% 1.6% 0.6%
(20)-(15) 3.0% 3.8% 3.3% 2.3% (20)-(15) 3.4% 4.2% 3.5% 1.8% (20)-(15) 3.1% 2.9% 2.5% 1.4%
(15)-(10) 4.1% 5.1% 5.4% 3.6% (15)-(10) 4.1% 5.4% 5.8% 3.9% (15)-(10) 3.8% 4.2% 3.9% 2.8%
(10)-(5) 4.8% 7.2% 8.0% 7.6% (10)-(5) 4.2% 7.3% 8.7% 9.3% (10)-(5) 4.9% 6.4% 6.5% 5.7%
(5)-0 6.0% 8.7% 11.7% 14.2% (5)-0 6.1% 9.6% 12.5% 15.3% (5)-0 7.0% 9.8% 11.3% 12.7%
0-5 6.6% 10.8% 14.3% 21.0% 0-5 6.5% 10.9% 16.3% 22.0% 0-5 9.0% 13.2% 17.5% 24.5%
5-10 7.6% 10.7% 14.4% 21.7% 5-10 8.3% 10.3% 14.2% 21.1% 5-10 9.5% 13.7% 16.8% 23.3%
10-15 7.5% 9.9% 11.0% 13.0% 10-15 7.3% 9.2% 9.3% 9.5% 10-15 8.5% 10.7% 12.3% 13.9%
15-20 6.4% 7.2% 7.3% 7.2% 15-20 6.1% 6.7% 6.7% 6.3% 15-20 6.6% 7.9% 8.0% 6.8%
20-25 4.7% 5.7% 5.4% 3.6% 20-25 4.5% 5.2% 3.7% 4.0% 20-25 5.0% 5.6% 5.4% 3.4%
25-30 3.5% 3.8% 3.6% 2.0% 25-30 3.2% 3.0% 3.2% 2.7% 25-30 4.0% 4.0% 3.5% 1.7%
30-35 3.3% 3.1% 2.0% 1.2% 30-35 3.2% 2.4% 1.9% 1.6% 30-35 3.2% 2.9% 2.2% 0.9%
35-40 2.6% 2.2% 1.2% 0.5% 35-40 2.1% 2.0% 1.2% 0.4% 35-40 2.7% 2.3% 1.3% 0.6%
40-45 2.0% 1.6% 1.0% 0.1% 40-45 1.9% 1.7% 1.0% 0.1% 40-45 2.1% 1.5% 0.9% 0.4%
>45 18.6% 7.5% 3.6% 0.2% >45 18.2% 7.8% 3.9% 0.2% >45 16.5% 7.0% 3.2% 0.6%
Mean 47.6% 8.4% 5.8% 5.0% Mean 37.1% 6.3% 4.6% 4.6% Mean 56.8% 10.4% 7.5% 5.9%
StDev 507.7% 36.0% 21.0% 11.1% StDev 334.5% 30.9% 19.8% 11.2% StDev 2,540.8% 34.6% 20.2% 10.9%

December 16, 2015
worth keeping in mind. The first is that the median growth rates tend to decline as firm size increases, as does
the standard deviation of the growth rates. This point has been well established empirically. 22 Exhibit 5 shows
this pattern for annualized net income growth rates over three years. Exhibit 6 reveals that the variance in net
income growth rates for ten years declines with size, underscoring that it is sensible to temper expectations
about net income growth for large companies.
Exhibit 5: Three-Year Median Net Income Growth Rates Decline with Size
20 Mean Median
18
Net Income 3-Year CAGR (Percent)
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mega Full Universe
Decile (Smallest to Largest by Sales)
Note: Growth rates are annualized over three years; mega companies have sales in excess of $50 billion (2014 USD) in the base year.
Exhibit 6: Variances in Ten-Year Net Income Growth Rates Decline with Size
150
100
50
-50
-100
0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000
Sales Base Year ($ Millions)
®
Source: Credit Suisse HOLT .
Note: Base year sales are in 2014 U.S. Dollars.

December 16, 2015
Next, net income growth follows gross domestic product (GDP) growth reasonably closely in the U.S. (see
Exhibit 7). The correlation coefficient is 0.45 between annual GDP growth and after-tax corporate profit from
the national income and product accounts (NIPA). Over the 67-year period from 1948 to 2014, U.S. GDP
grew 3.2 percent per year, adjusted for inflation, with a standard deviation of 2.4 percent. Net income, also
adjusted for inflation, grew at 3.4 percent with a standard deviation of 13.2 percent.
Exhibit 7: Net Income Growth Rate Is Correlated with GDP Growth

r = 0.45
30
Annual Real After-Tax Corporate Profit Growth (Percent)
20
10
0
-10 -5 0 5 10
-10
-20
-30
Annual Real GDP Growth (Percent)
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Warren Buffett, the chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, admonishes companies to avoid predicting
rapid growth. Here’s what he wrote in his letter to shareholders in 2000:23
Charlie [Munger] and I think it is both deceptive and dangerous for CEOs to predict growth rates for
their companies. They are, of course, frequently egged on to do so by both analysts and their own
investor relations departments. They should resist, however, because too often these predictions lead
to trouble.
percentage of large businesses. Here’s a test: Examine the record of, say, the 200 highest earning
companies from 1970 or 1980 and tabulate how many have increased per-share earnings by 15%
annually since those dates. You will find that only a handful have. I would wager you a very significant
sum that fewer than 10 of the 200 most profitable companies in 2000 will attain 15% annual growth
in earnings-per-share over the next 20 years.

December 16, 2015
We ran a version of Buffett’s test. We started by identifying the 200 companies with the highest net income in
1990. By 2000, only 162 of those companies were still around (mergers and acquisitions claimed most of the
others). Of those, less than 9 percent (14 of 162) grew net income at a rate of 15 percent or more from
1990-1999. None of those 14 companies grew at higher than a 15 percent rate for the decade ended in
2009. Buffett’s sense of the base rate is accurate.
The reason that unrealistic expectations are worrisome is that executives may start to change their behavior
for the worse. His letter continues:
Charlie and I tend to be leery of companies run by CEOs who woo investors with fancy predictions. A
few of these managers will prove prophetic — but others will turn out to be congenital optimists, or
even charlatans. Unfortunately, it’s not easy for investors to know in advance which species they are
dealing with.
Finally, notwithstanding our natural tendency to anticipate growth, 33 percent of the companies in the sample
had a negative growth rate in net income year over year, after an adjustment for inflation. Further, 31 percent
of the firms realized lower net income for 3 years, 29 percent for 5 years, and 24 percent for 10 years.
Two common ways of making a forecast are to do bottom-up research (known as the “inside view”), which is
the most natural approach, or to turn to a base rate (“outside view”) to see what the results have been for an
appropriate reference class. The research in decision making shows that the bottom-up approach is subject to
biases and that incorporating the base rate generally improves the accuracy of the forecast.24 Yet we don’t
want to lean too much on either our own analysis or the base rate. We want to combine the two intelligently.
There is a technique to blend the two approaches, which we will apply to our sales growth data.25 Correlation
is the key to the method. Correlation measures the degree of the linear relationship between variables in a pair
of distributions. The value of a correlation coefficient can fall between -1.0 (the rise in one variable perfectly
correlates with the fall of the other) to 1.0 (both variables move in tandem). A zero correlation indicates
randomness. We will examine net income growth over time. All of the correlations are negative.
If the correlation between two distributions is high, then what happened before gives you a really good sense
of what will follow. For example, the correlation for cash flow return on investment (CFROI ®) for companies in
the consumer staples sector is about 0.90 from one year to the next. That means if you know Nestlé’s
CFROI® from last year, you can forecast it this year with a great deal of accuracy. The bottom-up work is
highly relevant.

December 16, 2015
If the correlation is low, what happened before provides little inkling of what will happen next. Take the annual
total shareholder returns for the S&P 500 as a case. The correlation from year to year, from 1928 to 2014, is
essentially zero. Telling you last year’s return provides no help in forecasting the return for this year. Your best
forecast is the average of the reference class.
The basic idea is that the correlation determines how you should weight the bottom-up analysis and the base
rate. For Nestlé, a sensible forecast is nine parts last year’s CFROI® and one part last year’s average CFROI®
for the sector, the base rate. For your S&P 500 forecast, you should place minimal weight on what happened
last year, or your own view, and rely largely on the base rate.
Studying base rates for net income growth is logical for three reasons. First, net income growth, despite its
flaws, is the most popular measure of corporate results. Second, net income growth does have a decent
correlation with total shareholder return. Net income growth is not persistent, but it is predictive of changes in
stock price. Finally, earnings are a significant component of many incentive compensation programs.
Exhibit 8 shows that the correlation coefficient is -0.05 for the year-to-year net income growth rate. This
includes the top 1,000 global companies by market capitalization from 1950 to 2014. More than 48,000
company years are in the data, and all of the figures are adjusted for inflation. You can interpret this result as
follows: for a population of companies with net income growth that is far from average in a particular year, the
expected value of the next year’s net income growth is close to the average. For companies with high growth,
the expected value is actually slightly below the average growth rate, and for companies with low growth the
expected value is slightly above the average growth rate. You can refine this analysis by examining sectors
and industries, which shrinks the sample size but increases its relevance.
Exhibit 8: Correlation of One-Year Net Income Growth Rates

r = -0.05
300
250
Net Income Growth Next Year (Percent)
200
150
100
50
0
-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
-50
-100
Net Income Growth 1 Year (Percent)

Note: Data winsorized at 2nd and 98th percentiles.

December 16, 2015
The correlations decline as we consider longer time periods, which is not surprising. Exhibit 9 shows the
correlation coefficients for 1-, 3-, and 5-year horizons for the full population of companies. The lesson is that
the base rate for the reference classes, the median net income growth rate, should receive the majority of the
weight for forecasts of three years or longer. In fact, you might start with the base rate and seek reasons to
move away from it. In addition, companies with net income growth above the average have a slight tendency
to swing to growth below the average, and vice versa.
Exhibit 9: Correlation of Net Income Growth Rates for 1-, 3-, and 5-Year Horizons
Period
1-Year 3-Year 5-Year
0.00
-0.05
Correlation (r)
-0.17
-0.19
-0.30
®
Earnings and Total Shareholder Returns
Net income is hard to forecast but there is a solid positive correlation between net income growth and total
shareholder return. Exhibit 10 shows that the correlation coefficient is 0.18 for 1 year, 0.40 for 3 years, and
0.43 for 5 years. So there is a potential payoff from successfully predicting net income growth, but the ability
to do so is challenging.
Exhibit 10: Correlation between Net Income Growth Rates and Total Shareholder Returns over 1-,
3-, and 5-Year Horizons
0.5
0.43
0.40
Correlation (r)
0.18
0
Period

December 16, 2015
Exhibit 1 showed the current expectations for net income growth over three years for more than a thousand
public companies in the U.S. The median expected growth rate is eight percent, which is roughly consistent
with GDP growth of two to three percent.
Exhibit 11 shows the three-year net income growth rates, adjusted for inflation, which analysts expect for ten
of historical sales growth rates for mega companies.
Exhibit 11: Three-Year Expected Net Income Growth Rates for Ten Mega Companies
14
12
J&JJP Morgan
Apple
Frequency (Percent)
10 Wells Fargo P&G

GE
8
Wal-Mart
6
Exxon
4 Alphabet
Microsoft
2
0
(10)-(5)
5-10
(5)-0
15-20
10-15
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-45
0-5
<(25)
(20)-(15)
>45
(25)-(20)
(15)-(10)
CAGR (Percent)
®
Source: Credit Suisse HOLT , FactSet Estimates.
Note: FactSet consensus estimates as of December 4, 2015; Growth rates are annualized; J&J = Johnson & Johnson, GE = General Electric, Exxon =
ExxonMobil, and P&G = Procter & Gamble.
Summary
Despite substantial limitations, earnings are the most common measure of corporate performance. Research
shows that earnings announcements do contain information and that “Street” earnings forecasts correlate
more highly with stock prices than GAAP earnings do. Further, anticipating earnings growth substantially
above or below the prevailing consensus yields substantial excess returns in the stock market.
The good news is that earnings growth has a reasonably good correlation with total shareholder return over
periods of three to five years. The bad news is that net income growth is hard to predict. The challenge in
forecasting earnings prompted leading researchers to suggest that there “is no persistence in long-term
earnings growth beyond chance.”26
Optimism and overconfidence commonly creep into our forecasts, creating distortions. Research shows that
incorporating a base rate can improve the quality of our forecasts. In this piece we provide the base rates for
net income growth for 1,000 global companies from 1950-2014.

December 16, 2015
Appendix: Observations for Each Base Rate by Decile (1950-2014)

Sales: $0-325 Mn Observations Sales: $325-700 Mn Observations Sales: $700-1,250 Mn Observations
<(25) 415 164 79 16 <(25) 459 194 94 21 <(25) 438 205 113 34
(25)-(20) 91 53 49 15 (25)-(20) 98 75 46 15 (25)-(20) 121 99 59 17
(20)-(15) 121 92 53 40 (20)-(15) 144 111 71 43 (20)-(15) 135 116 87 59
(15)-(10) 160 155 120 76 (15)-(10) 189 190 149 88 (15)-(10) 167 198 161 93
(10)-(5) 204 225 176 142 (10)-(5) 263 279 239 202 (10)-(5) 218 271 270 223
(5)-0 315 409 441 382 (5)-0 411 520 568 451 (5)-0 376 464 474 476
0-5 488 566 728 903 0-5 583 787 945 1,221 0-5 529 673 848 1,038
5-10 504 673 734 1,031 5-10 568 767 932 1,153 5-10 531 706 853 1,025
10-15 441 512 633 708 10-15 501 592 681 734 10-15 453 528 587 549
15-20 302 385 465 473 15-20 404 455 465 368 15-20 346 398 393 274
20-25 252 310 321 300 20-25 278 311 301 140 20-25 241 277 225 112
25-30 206 249 242 161 25-30 215 202 169 86 25-30 191 177 149 69
30-35 195 176 159 95 30-35 180 143 97 37 30-35 186 137 85 25
35-40 166 152 97 78 35-40 139 96 57 18 35-40 123 108 49 21
40-45 136 99 80 59 40-45 111 66 29 11 40-45 114 77 41 14
>45 931 588 363 91 >45 698 314 129 25 >45 738 274 123 12
Total 4,927 4,808 4,740 4,570 Total 5,241 5,102 4,972 4,613 Total 4,907 4,708 4,517 4,041
Sales: $1,250-2,000 Mn Observations Sales: $2,000-3,000 Mn Observations Sales: $3,000-4,500 Mn Observations

<(25) 444 226 128 19 <(25) 436 244 117 22 <(25) 562 254 127 20
(25)-(20) 109 85 48 19 (25)-(20) 104 70 84 23 (25)-(20) 113 94 66 27
(20)-(15) 162 124 111 48 (20)-(15) 141 115 91 53 (20)-(15) 140 131 113 45
(15)-(10) 185 190 141 89 (15)-(10) 189 165 161 103 (15)-(10) 212 192 173 109
(10)-(5) 230 260 285 212 (10)-(5) 227 273 260 199 (10)-(5) 238 327 289 214
(5)-0 322 427 415 456 (5)-0 343 442 448 472 (5)-0 340 472 524 479
0-5 445 586 762 929 0-5 455 599 752 932 0-5 452 578 735 895
5-10 450 623 738 922 5-10 444 624 709 769 5-10 463 605 686 808
10-15 408 515 509 515 10-15 393 458 499 394 10-15 398 443 506 455
15-20 322 333 333 203 15-20 335 358 256 205 15-20 327 335 296 180
20-25 218 222 217 118 20-25 238 204 206 83 20-25 252 257 219 86
25-30 177 170 135 41 25-30 202 166 137 38 25-30 208 164 124 29
30-35 151 103 84 22 30-35 127 126 89 15 30-35 141 140 81 15
35-40 129 90 46 13 35-40 131 96 37 7 35-40 128 108 40 10
40-45 89 55 33 5 40-45 89 44 37 6 40-45 109 69 29 7
>45 663 272 95 5 >45 693 256 81 8 >45 771 259 86 10

December 16, 2015

<(25) 640 295 155 36 <(25) 806 393 198 24 <(25) 912 408 206 33
(25)-(20) 148 107 69 31 (25)-(20) 160 132 92 29 (25)-(20) 176 129 95 29
(20)-(15) 207 149 136 49 (20)-(15) 179 197 134 51 (20)-(15) 196 188 156 73
(15)-(10) 209 218 177 116 (15)-(10) 241 227 217 133 (15)-(10) 218 246 201 111
(10)-(5) 260 330 334 256 (10)-(5) 326 389 328 226 (10)-(5) 325 371 366 225
(5)-0 343 485 541 547 (5)-0 416 510 567 545 (5)-0 420 520 552 475
0-5 453 635 760 817 0-5 481 683 865 910 0-5 453 686 775 775
5-10 502 670 728 794 5-10 519 720 778 810 5-10 544 631 671 676
10-15 455 523 503 440 10-15 472 529 540 468 10-15 480 530 533 488
15-20 330 363 319 189 15-20 402 375 359 215 15-20 318 414 369 205
20-25 285 252 185 89 20-25 297 297 236 112 20-25 298 263 249 123
25-30 213 177 123 38 25-30 238 219 148 56 25-30 243 198 161 48
30-35 156 113 84 29 30-35 212 153 96 33 30-35 155 154 96 37
35-40 125 99 50 13 35-40 151 129 80 16 35-40 176 114 62 25
40-45 100 75 33 8 40-45 124 89 48 10 40-45 114 88 45 12
>45 882 288 114 13 >45 1,027 360 136 23 >45 1,155 401 161 19
Sales: >$25,000 Mn Observations Sales: >$50,000 Mn Observations Full Universe Observations

<(25) 873 427 206 17 <(25) 404 212 87 6 <(25) 5,985 2,810 1,423 242
(25)-(20) 157 141 92 24 (25)-(20) 73 58 43 12 (25)-(20) 1,277 985 700 229
(20)-(15) 163 175 129 58 (20)-(15) 77 80 55 17 (20)-(15) 1,588 1,398 1,081 519
(15)-(10) 223 235 210 90 (15)-(10) 95 103 91 37 (15)-(10) 1,993 2,016 1,710 1,008
(10)-(5) 256 327 308 190 (10)-(5) 97 139 138 89 (10)-(5) 2,547 3,052 2,855 2,089
(5)-0 326 399 451 354 (5)-0 139 184 197 146 (5)-0 3,612 4,648 4,981 4,637
0-5 358 495 554 524 0-5 149 208 257 210 0-5 4,697 6,288 7,724 8,944
5-10 409 489 556 542 5-10 191 196 224 202 5-10 4,934 6,508 7,385 8,530
10-15 404 453 424 324 10-15 167 176 147 91 10-15 4,405 5,083 5,415 5,075
15-20 346 331 282 179 15-20 140 128 106 60 15-20 3,432 3,747 3,537 2,491
20-25 255 259 210 90 20-25 104 100 59 38 20-25 2,614 2,652 2,369 1,253
25-30 189 175 140 51 25-30 73 57 50 26 25-30 2,082 1,897 1,528 617
30-35 177 140 79 30 30-35 74 46 30 15 30-35 1,680 1,385 950 338
35-40 142 101 47 13 35-40 49 39 19 4 35-40 1,410 1,093 565 214
40-45 109 75 37 3 40-45 44 32 16 1 40-45 1,095 737 412 135
>45 1,002 344 139 6 >45 416 149 62 2 >45 8,560 3,356 1,427 212
Total 5,389 4,566 3,864 2,495 Total 2,292 1,907 1,581 956 Total 51,911 47,655 44,062 36,533

December 16, 2015
Endnotes
1
2
John R. Graham, Campbell R. Harvey, and Shiva Rajgopal, “Value Destruction and Financial Reporting
Decisions,” Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 62, No. 6, November/December 2006, 27-39.
3
Shreenivas Kunte, CFA, “Earnings Confessions: What Disclosures Do Investors Prefer?” CFA Institute:
Enterprising Investor, November 19, 2015.
4
Benjamin Lansford, Baruch Lev, and Jennifer Wu Tucker, “Causes and Consequences of Disaggregating
Earnings Guidance,” Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Vol. 40, No. 1-2, January/February 2013,
26–54 and Stanley Block, “Methods of Valuation: Myths vs. Reality,” The Journal of Investing, Winter 2010,
7-14.
5
Alfred Rappaport, Creating Shareholder Value: A Guide for Managers and Investors (New York: Free Press,
1998), 13-31.
6
Patricia M. Dechow, Richard G. Sloan, and Jenny Zha, “Stock Prices and Earnings: A History of Research,”
Annual Review of Financial Economics, Vol. 6, December 2014, 343-363.
7
William H. Beaver, “The Information Content of Annual Earnings Announcements,” Journal of Accounting
Research, Vol. 6, 1968, 67-92.
8
Wayne R. Landsman, Edward L. Maydew, and Jacob R. Thornock, “The Information Content of Annual
Earnings Announcements and Mandatory Adoption of IFRS,” Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 53,
No. 1-2, February-April 2012, 34-54.
9
William H. Beaver, Maureen F. McNichols, Zach Z. Wang, “The Information Content of Earnings
Announcements: New Insights from Intertemporal and Cross-Sectional Behavior,” Stanford Graduate School
of Business Working Paper No. 3338, March 14, 2015.
10
Ray Ball and Lakshmanan Shivakumar, “How Much New Information Is There in Earnings?” Journal of
Accounting Research, Vol. 46, No. 5, December 2008, 975-1016.
11
Lansford, Lev, and Tucker.
12
Mark T. Bradshaw and Richard G. Sloan, “GAAP versus The Street: An Empirical Assessment of Two
Alternative Definitions of Earnings,” Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 40, No. 1, March 2002, 41-66;
Theo Francis and Kate Linebaugh, “U.S. Corporations Increasingly Adjust to Mind the GAAP,” Wall Street
Journal, December 14, 2015; and Dechow, Sloan, and Zha.
13
Robert L. Hagin, Investment Management: Portfolio Diversification, Risk, and Timing—Fact and Fiction
(Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2004), 75-78.
14
Journal of Finance, Vol. 58, No. 2, April 2003, 643-684.
15
Scott A. Richardson, Richard G. Sloan, Mark T. Soliman, and Irem Tuna, “Accrual Reliability, Earnings
Persistence and Stock Prices,” Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 39, No. 3, September 2005,
437-485.
16
The sample throughout the report includes the top 1,000 global companies by market capitalization,
including all sectors, since 1950. (The sample is somewhat smaller in the early years but reaches 1,000 by
the late 1960s.) When calculating growth rates, we exclude companies with negative net income. “Net
Income” is defined as “Income Before Extraordinary Items.” The Compustat annual data item number is 18.
Here’s the description: “This item represents the income of a company after all expenses, including special
items, income taxes, and minority interest – but before provisions for common and/or preferred dividends.
This item does not reflect discontinued operations or extraordinary items presented after taxes. This item, for
banks, includes net profit or loss on securities sold or redeemed after applicable deductions for tax and
minority interest.”
17
Michael J. Mauboussin and Dan Callahan, “The Base Rate Book – Sales Growth: Integrating the Past to
Better Anticipate the Future,” Credit Suisse Global Financial Strategies, May 4, 2015.

December 16, 2015
18
Paul Hribar and John McInnis, “Investor Sentiment and Analysts’ Earnings Forecast Errors,” Management
Science, Vol. 58, No. 2, February 2012, 293-307.
19
Vijay Kumar Chopra, “Why So Much Error in Analysts’ Earnings Forecasts?” Financial Analysts Journal, Vol.
54, No. 6, November/December 1998, 35-42 and Andrew Stotz and Wei Lu, “Financial Analysts Were Only
Wrong by 25%,” SSRN Working Paper, November 25, 2015. See: www.ssrn.com/abstract=2695216.
20
21
Michael J. Mauboussin, “The True Measure of Success,” Harvard Business Review, October 2012, 46-56.
22
23
24
25
26
Chan, Karceski, and Lakonishok.

The Base Rate Book – Sales Growth

February 23, 2016
40
Authors
35 Base Rates
Michael J. Mauboussin Current Estimates
Frequency (Percent)
30
michael.mauboussin@credit-suisse.com
25
Dan Callahan, CFA
20
15
Darius Majd
10
darius.majd@credit-suisse.com
5
0
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-45
5-10
(10)-(5)
(5)-0
0-5
<(25)
(25)-(20)
(20)-(15)
(15)-(10)
>45
Source: Credit Suisse HOLT® and FactSet Estimates.

Daniel Kahneman1

Forecasts about outcomes relevant to us commonly suffer from biases of
optimism and overconfidence.
Research reveals that consideration of the results for an appropriate
reference class can enhance the quality of forecasts.
Sales growth is the most important value driver for most companies.
This report shows the base rate of sales growth rates for a large sample of
companies over more than six decades. We sort the companies into
deciles, allowing for easy identification of an appropriate reference class.
We provide a method to integrate individual views with base rates in order
to improve forecasts.
February 23, 2016
Introduction
other words, the intelligent investor seeks gaps between expectations and fundamentals.2 This approach does
not require forecasts of pinpoint accuracy, but rather only judgments as to whether the expectations
Sales growth is the most important driver of corporate value.3 For companies that earn a return on invested
capital in excess of the cost of capital, growth amplifies value creation. For those that earn a return below the
opportunity cost, growth destroys value. Sales growth ripples through the income statement by determining
operating leverage and the degree of economies of scale a company can realize.
Naturally, executives want their companies to generate healthy rates of sales growth, and more than a third of
the companies in the S&P 500 Index provide guidance for sales growth.4 Researchers who study forecasts
find two common biases: optimism and overconfidence.
Optimism about predictions that are personally important encourages perseverance in the face of adversity but
also offers a distorted view of likely outcomes.5 Consider that only about one-half of new businesses survive
five or more years. Notwithstanding that fact, a survey of thousands of entrepreneurs found that more than 8
of 10 of them rated their odds of success at 70 percent or higher, and fully one-third did not allow for any
probability of failure at all.6 The bottom line on optimism: “People frequently believe that their preferred
Overconfidence also distorts the ability to make sound predictions. This bias reveals itself when an individual’s
confidence in his or her subjective judgments is higher than the objective outcomes warrant. For instance,
more than five thousand people answered 50 true-false questions and provided a confidence level for each.
On average, they were 60 percent correct but were 70 percent confident in their answers. When these
subjects were 100 percent confident in their response, they were correct only 77 percent of the time.8 Most
people, including financial analysts, place too much weight on their own information.9
Overconfidence shows up in forecasts as ranges of outcomes that are too narrow.10 As a case in point,
researchers asked chief financial officers to predict the results for the stock market, including high and low
growth rates of return within which the executives were 80 percent sure the results would land. They were
Exhibit 1 shows how this bias manifests in forecasts of revenue growth. The solid line is the distribution of
sales growth rates, annualized over three years and adjusted for inflation, for the 1,000 largest companies in
the world by market capitalization. These base rates reflect results from 1950 to 2014. The dashed line is the
distribution of available analyst forecasts for the sales growth rates of the largest 1,000 companies today.

February 23, 2016

40
35 Base Rates
Current Estimates
Frequency (Percent)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
5-10
(5)-0
40-45
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
(10)-(5)
0-5
<(25)
(20)-(15)
>45
(25)-(20)
(15)-(10)

®
Note: FactSet consensus estimates as of February 19, 2016.
Consistent with the overconfidence bias, the range of expected outcomes is narrower than what the results of
the past suggest is reasonable. Specifically, the standard deviation of estimates is 12.2 percent versus a
standard deviation of 18.4 percent for the past growth rates. Forecasts are commonly too optimistic and too
narrow. The best explanations for the pattern of faulty forecasts include behavioral biases and distortions
encouraged by incentives.12
Knowing that we are prone to optimism and overconfidence means we need to adopt techniques to manage
those biases. One useful approach is to examine the experience of many companies over time, or base rates,
and thoughtfully integrate those base rates with our own view. This is not our typical approach. As Daniel
Kahneman, the eminent psychologist, notes bluntly, “People who have information about an individual case
rarely feel the need to know the statistics of the class to which the case belongs.”13
The classic way to make a forecast is to gather information, combine it with our own view, and project an
outcome. Left to our own devices, this is how we naturally go about forecasting. Here’s an example: In
February 2015, Elon Musk, chairman, product architect, and chief executive officer of Tesla Motors, proposed
that the company would be able to grow its sales 50 percent compounded annually for the next decade.14
How would you assess that proposition?
The natural way would be to open a spreadsheet and start counting. How big is the global automobile market?
What share of total auto sales do electric cars have? Where will the market share of electric cars go? What
share will Tesla have? And so forth. Combine this assessment with some knowledge of the company’s current
and future offerings and you can come up with a forecast. You can do a similar exercise for the battery
business. You would then compare the results of your analysis to Musk’s aspired growth rate.
Using Kahneman’s language, you have collected “information about an individual case.” But what you haven’t
considered is “the statistics of the class to which the case belongs.” We don’t use base rates as much as we
should for a couple of reasons. First, you trust and value the work you’ve done and hence are inclined to place

February 23, 2016
a lot of weight on it. Second, base rates are rarely at your fingertips. You have to find a suitable reference
class and incorporate the information appropriately.
Though decision scientists have known for a long time that the proper integration of base rates improves the
quality of forecasts, the technique remains remarkably underused.15 We believe this reflects the human desire
for a narrative. Causality is clear in stories about the specifics, which makes those scenarios vivid. Base rates,
on the other hand, are largely antiseptic and hence less appealing to the mind.
We analyze the distribution of sales growth rates for the top 1,000 global companies by market capitalization
since 1950.16 This sample represents roughly 60 percent of the global market capitalization and includes all
sectors. The population includes companies that are now “dead.” The main reason public companies cease to
exist is they merge or are acquired.17
We calculate the compound annual growth rates (CAGR) of sales for 1, 3, 5, and 10 years for each firm. We
adjust all of the figures to remove the effects of inflation, which translates all of the numbers to 2014 dollars.
15-20 percent for three years. You start with the row marked “15-20” and slide to the right to find the column
“3-Yr.” There, you’ll see that 6.8 percent of the companies achieved that rate of growth. The panel on the
right shows the sample sizes for each growth rate and time period, allowing us to see where that percentage
comes from: 3,261 instances out of the total of 48,136 (3,261/48,136 = 6.8 percent).
Exhibit 2: Base Rates of Sales Growth (1950-2014)

Sales CAGR (%) 1-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr Sales CAGR (%) 1-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr
<(25) 1.8% 0.6% 0.3% 0.0% <(25) 947 273 152 14
(25)-(20) 1.0% 0.5% 0.3% 0.1% (25)-(20) 524 221 113 30
(20)-(15) 1.7% 1.1% 0.7% 0.3% (20)-(15) 859 515 307 110
(15)-(10) 3.1% 2.2% 1.7% 0.9% (15)-(10) 1,608 1,053 758 334
(10)-(5) 6.2% 5.2% 4.3% 3.4% (10)-(5) 3,174 2,509 1,925 1,235
(5)-0 12.1% 13.1% 13.0% 13.1% (5)-0 6,236 6,319 5,842 4,785
0-5 20.6% 25.1% 28.8% 34.6% 0-5 10,597 12,079 12,897 12,668
5-10 18.0% 21.4% 24.2% 28.2% 5-10 9,272 10,300 10,828 10,321
10-15 11.4% 12.3% 12.5% 11.2% 10-15 5,899 5,916 5,607 4,120
15-20 6.8% 6.8% 6.0% 4.3% 15-20 3,520 3,261 2,666 1,580
20-25 4.5% 3.9% 3.1% 1.9% 20-25 2,322 1,874 1,393 679
25-30 3.0% 2.4% 1.9% 1.0% 25-30 1,541 1,145 845 359
30-35 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 30-35 1,031 739 441 178
35-40 1.3% 1.0% 0.7% 0.3% 35-40 695 495 301 96
40-45 1.0% 0.7% 0.4% 0.2% 40-45 523 317 191 62
>45 5.4% 2.3% 1.1% 0.3% >45 2,799 1,120 509 92
Mean 15.0% 8.0% 6.7% 5.5% Total 51,547 48,136 44,775 36,663
Median 5.8% 5.5% 5.2% 4.7%
StDev 287.0% 18.4% 12.0% 7.8%

February 23, 2016
Exhibit 3 is the distribution for the three-year sales growth rate. This represents, in a graph, the corresponding
column in exhibit 2. The mean, or average, growth rate was 8.0 percent per year and the median growth rate
was 5.5 percent. The median is a better indicator of the central location of the results because the distribution
is skewed to the right. The standard deviation, 18.4 percent, gives an indication of the width of the bell curve.
Exhibit 3: Three-Year CAGR of Sales (1950-2014)

30
25
Frequency (Percent)
20
15
10
0
5-10
(5)-0
0-5
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-45
(10)-(5)
<(25)
>45
(25)-(20)
(20)-(15)
(15)-(10)
CAGR (Percent)
®
While the data for the full sample are a start, you want to hone the reference class of base rates to make the
results more relevant and applicable. One approach is to break the universe into deciles based on a
company’s sales in the prior year. Within each size decile, we sort the observations of growth rates into bins in
increments of five percentage points (except for the tails).
There is a modest survivorship bias because each sample includes only the firms that survived for that
specified period. For example, a company in our 10-year sample would have had to have survived for 10 years.
About one-half of all public companies cease to exist within ten years of being listed.18
You now have the proper reference class and the distribution of growth rates over the various horizons.
Let’s use Tesla as an example. Musk said he hoped to grow sales 50 percent per year for the next decade
from a sales base of $6 billion (actual sales for 2015 were $4 billion). You first find the correct reference class,
which is the decile that has a sales base of $4.5 - $7 billion. Next you examine the row of growth that is
marked “>45,” representing sales growth of 45 percent or more. Going to the column “10-Yr,” you will see
that no companies achieved this feat. Indeed, you have to go down to 30-35 percent growth to see any
companies, and even there it is only one-fifth of 1 percent of the sample.

February 23, 2016
Exhibit 4: Base Rates by Decile (1950-2014)

Sales CAGR (%) 1-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr Sales CAGR (%) 1-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr Sales CAGR (%) 1-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr
<(25) 1.4% 0.5% 0.4% 0.0% <(25) 1.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% <(25) 1.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2%
(25)-(20) 0.6% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% (25)-(20) 0.4% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% (25)-(20) 0.9% 0.3% 0.4% 0.1%
(20)-(15) 1.0% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% (20)-(15) 1.1% 0.7% 0.4% 0.1% (20)-(15) 1.4% 0.8% 0.6% 0.3%
(15)-(10) 1.3% 1.2% 0.5% 0.6% (15)-(10) 2.3% 0.9% 0.9% 0.7% (15)-(10) 2.5% 1.9% 1.3% 0.9%
(10)-(5) 3.2% 1.8% 1.3% 0.7% (10)-(5) 4.0% 2.6% 1.9% 2.3% (10)-(5) 4.5% 3.5% 3.4% 2.3%
(5)-0 6.8% 5.6% 4.4% 3.7% (5)-0 8.6% 7.3% 6.9% 6.8% (5)-0 9.7% 9.4% 9.0% 9.8%
0-5 13.6% 15.2% 16.2% 17.5% 0-5 19.3% 23.7% 24.6% 27.4% 0-5 19.2% 22.9% 25.9% 32.1%
5-10 15.1% 18.9% 22.0% 30.8% 5-10 18.3% 23.5% 29.2% 35.4% 5-10 18.7% 23.3% 25.9% 31.0%
10-15 12.2% 14.9% 18.1% 19.5% 10-15 13.6% 16.3% 16.5% 16.1% 10-15 12.5% 14.8% 15.6% 14.5%
15-20 9.1% 10.6% 10.1% 9.7% 15-20 8.2% 8.3% 7.8% 5.8% 15-20 8.2% 8.3% 7.4% 5.1%
20-25 6.6% 6.3% 6.6% 6.1% 20-25 6.5% 4.9% 4.1% 2.9% 20-25 5.1% 4.5% 4.4% 2.2%
25-30 4.4% 4.8% 5.1% 3.8% 25-30 3.6% 2.9% 2.5% 1.2% 25-30 3.3% 3.2% 2.4% 1.0%
30-35 3.8% 3.4% 3.2% 2.6% 30-35 2.2% 2.1% 1.8% 0.7% 30-35 2.8% 2.1% 1.1% 0.3%
35-40 2.6% 2.9% 2.8% 1.6% 35-40 1.8% 1.6% 0.9% 0.3% 35-40 2.0% 1.6% 1.0% 0.1%
40-45 2.1% 2.0% 1.8% 1.1% 40-45 1.4% 1.1% 0.8% 0.1% 40-45 1.4% 0.8% 0.4% 0.1%
>45 16.0% 11.5% 7.1% 2.0% >45 7.8% 3.5% 1.4% 0.1% >45 6.3% 2.3% 0.9% 0.0%
Mean 73.7% 21.9% 16.8% 12.2% Mean 16.7% 11.2% 9.4% 7.3% Mean 12.9% 9.4% 8.0% 6.1%
<(25) 1.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% <(25) 1.5% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% <(25) 1.6% 0.5% 0.2% 0.0%
(25)-(20) 0.9% 0.4% 0.1% 0.1% (25)-(20) 1.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% (25)-(20) 1.1% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0%
(20)-(15) 1.2% 0.8% 0.4% 0.4% (20)-(15) 1.5% 1.0% 0.4% 0.1% (20)-(15) 1.9% 0.9% 0.7% 0.0%
(15)-(10) 2.5% 1.7% 1.1% 0.8% (15)-(10) 2.7% 1.8% 1.2% 0.3% (15)-(10) 3.5% 2.0% 1.9% 0.6%
(10)-(5) 4.9% 3.9% 3.2% 2.1% (10)-(5) 5.1% 4.8% 3.7% 2.7% (10)-(5) 6.5% 5.2% 3.9% 2.8%
(5)-0 9.4% 10.6% 10.2% 10.3% (5)-0 11.3% 12.0% 11.6% 13.1% (5)-0 12.1% 14.4% 14.7% 15.2%
0-5 20.4% 24.7% 29.0% 36.6% 0-5 21.5% 26.5% 31.1% 38.1% 0-5 21.8% 26.1% 30.6% 40.5%
5-10 19.7% 23.9% 27.0% 30.2% 5-10 18.9% 22.5% 26.5% 28.7% 5-10 17.6% 22.5% 25.0% 27.7%
10-15 12.9% 13.3% 13.5% 12.3% 10-15 11.9% 12.8% 12.6% 10.3% 10-15 11.6% 11.8% 12.2% 8.6%
15-20 7.3% 7.3% 6.5% 4.1% 15-20 7.6% 6.8% 5.6% 4.5% 15-20 7.0% 7.1% 5.5% 3.1%
20-25 4.2% 4.1% 3.5% 1.5% 20-25 5.0% 4.4% 3.4% 1.1% 20-25 4.6% 3.6% 2.7% 0.8%
25-30 3.6% 3.0% 2.2% 0.8% 25-30 2.8% 2.4% 1.8% 0.8% 25-30 2.9% 2.2% 1.4% 0.4%
30-35 2.3% 1.9% 1.0% 0.3% 30-35 2.1% 1.4% 0.6% 0.1% 30-35 1.7% 1.3% 0.5% 0.1%
35-40 1.6% 1.0% 0.7% 0.1% 35-40 1.4% 1.0% 0.4% 0.1% 35-40 1.2% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0%
40-45 1.5% 0.6% 0.5% 0.2% 40-45 0.8% 0.7% 0.2% 0.1% 40-45 0.8% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0%
>45 6.2% 2.4% 0.8% 0.1% >45 4.9% 1.3% 0.4% 0.0% >45 4.1% 0.8% 0.2% 0.0%
Mean 12.8% 8.8% 7.3% 5.6% Mean 10.2% 7.4% 6.3% 5.1% Mean 8.7% 6.4% 5.4% 4.4%

February 23, 2016
<(25) 1.7% 0.5% 0.3% 0.0% <(25) 2.0% 0.5% 0.4% 0.0% <(25) 2.5% 0.9% 0.3% 0.0%
(25)-(20) 1.1% 0.7% 0.2% 0.2% (25)-(20) 1.2% 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% (25)-(20) 1.3% 0.6% 0.6% 0.1%
(20)-(15) 1.7% 1.0% 0.7% 0.1% (20)-(15) 1.8% 1.2% 0.7% 0.6% (20)-(15) 2.3% 1.8% 1.3% 0.5%
(15)-(10) 3.8% 2.8% 1.9% 1.1% (15)-(10) 3.4% 2.9% 2.4% 1.0% (15)-(10) 3.7% 2.9% 2.5% 1.4%
(10)-(5) 6.6% 5.5% 4.4% 4.1% (10)-(5) 8.0% 7.2% 6.2% 4.5% (10)-(5) 8.0% 7.4% 6.6% 5.8%
(5)-0 12.7% 14.6% 15.3% 15.3% (5)-0 14.4% 16.8% 17.6% 18.5% (5)-0 16.2% 18.8% 18.9% 20.4%
0-5 21.8% 27.8% 33.0% 40.5% 0-5 22.0% 27.6% 31.6% 40.4% 0-5 22.6% 27.8% 33.3% 40.5%
5-10 19.2% 21.4% 23.4% 26.6% 5-10 18.4% 20.3% 23.5% 25.1% 5-10 17.9% 20.1% 21.3% 21.2%
10-15 11.3% 10.9% 10.7% 7.8% 10-15 10.9% 10.7% 9.6% 6.5% 10-15 9.6% 9.3% 8.4% 6.7%
15-20 6.4% 6.2% 5.5% 2.7% 15-20 5.4% 5.4% 4.1% 2.2% 15-20 5.0% 4.4% 3.8% 2.6%
20-25 3.8% 3.7% 2.2% 0.8% 20-25 3.8% 3.1% 1.7% 0.7% 20-25 3.1% 2.7% 1.6% 0.7%
25-30 3.0% 1.9% 1.1% 0.5% 25-30 2.2% 1.5% 1.2% 0.3% 25-30 2.3% 1.3% 0.8% 0.1%
30-35 1.8% 1.2% 0.6% 0.2% 30-35 1.6% 1.0% 0.4% 0.1% 30-35 1.4% 0.9% 0.4% 0.0%
35-40 0.9% 0.5% 0.3% 0.0% 35-40 0.9% 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 35-40 0.9% 0.4% 0.3% 0.0%
40-45 0.7% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 40-45 0.8% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 40-45 0.5% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0%
>45 3.7% 1.0% 0.4% 0.0% >45 3.2% 0.6% 0.1% 0.0% >45 2.6% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0%
Mean 8.0% 5.8% 5.0% 4.0% Mean 7.0% 4.8% 4.0% 3.3% Mean 5.1% 3.8% 3.3% 2.9%
<(25) 3.2% 1.4% 1.0% 0.1% <(25) 3.4% 1.5% 1.6% 0.0% <(25) 1.8% 0.6% 0.3% 0.0%
(25)-(20) 1.5% 0.8% 0.5% 0.2% (25)-(20) 1.9% 0.7% 0.5% 0.1% (25)-(20) 1.0% 0.5% 0.3% 0.1%
(20)-(15) 2.3% 1.9% 1.3% 0.7% (20)-(15) 2.3% 1.9% 1.0% 0.5% (20)-(15) 1.7% 1.1% 0.7% 0.3%
(15)-(10) 4.7% 3.4% 3.0% 2.1% (15)-(10) 5.3% 3.9% 2.6% 1.9% (15)-(10) 3.1% 2.2% 1.7% 0.9%
(10)-(5) 8.9% 9.1% 8.1% 8.4% (10)-(5) 9.8% 11.1% 9.3% 7.8% (10)-(5) 6.2% 5.2% 4.3% 3.4%
(5)-0 16.7% 19.4% 21.1% 23.2% (5)-0 17.2% 21.0% 22.9% 28.3% (5)-0 12.1% 13.1% 13.0% 13.1%
0-5 21.8% 27.2% 32.7% 37.3% 0-5 21.9% 27.2% 34.8% 38.7% 0-5 20.6% 25.1% 28.8% 34.6%
5-10 16.1% 18.5% 18.2% 20.6% 5-10 15.5% 17.3% 17.3% 18.6% 5-10 18.0% 21.4% 24.2% 28.2%
10-15 9.2% 9.3% 8.6% 5.9% 10-15 8.8% 9.5% 6.9% 3.5% 10-15 11.4% 12.3% 12.5% 11.2%
15-20 5.5% 4.3% 3.3% 1.3% 15-20 5.3% 3.3% 2.3% 0.6% 15-20 6.8% 6.8% 6.0% 4.3%
20-25 3.4% 2.2% 1.3% 0.2% 20-25 3.4% 1.5% 0.7% 0.0% 20-25 4.5% 3.9% 3.1% 1.9%
25-30 2.4% 1.1% 0.4% 0.0% 25-30 2.3% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% 25-30 3.0% 2.4% 1.9% 1.0%
30-35 1.0% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 30-35 1.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 30-35 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5%
35-40 0.7% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 35-40 0.5% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 35-40 1.3% 1.0% 0.7% 0.3%
40-45 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 40-45 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 40-45 1.0% 0.7% 0.4% 0.2%
>45 2.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% >45 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% >45 5.4% 2.3% 1.1% 0.3%
Mean 4.0% 2.7% 2.2% 1.9% Mean 2.6% 1.5% 1.3% 1.3% Mean 15.0% 8.0% 6.7% 5.5%

February 23, 2016
each of the reference classes. Bear in mind that these data are adjusted for inflation and that most forecasts
reflect inflation expectations. We will show how to incorporate these base rates into your forecasts for sales
growth in a moment. For now, it’s useful to acknowledge the utility of these data as an analytical guide and a
valuable reality check.
Getting to the proper reference class is crucial, but there are some useful observations about the whole that
are worth noting. To begin, as firm size increases the mean and median growth rates decline, as does the
standard deviation of the growth rates. This point has been well established empirically.19 Exhibit 5 shows this
pattern for annualized growth rates over three years. The lesson is to temper expectations about sales growth
as companies get larger.

45
40
Sales 3-Year CAGR (Percent)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >$50B >$100B Full
Decile (Smallest to Largest by Sales) Universe
Mega
Note: Growth rates are annualized over three years.
Exhibit 6 shows that sales growth follows gross domestic product (GDP) reasonably closely. U.S. GDP growth and the
median sales growth in the same year have a correlation coefficient of 0.65. (Positive correlations fall in the range of 0
to 1.0, where 0 is random and 1.0 is a perfect correlation.) From 1950-2014, U.S. GDP grew at 3.2 percent per year,
adjusted for inflation, with a standard deviation of 2.3 percent.
Corporate sales growth was higher than that of the broader economy for a few reasons. First, companies growing
rapidly often need access to capital and hence choose to go public, likely creating a selection bias. Second, some
companies, including contract manufacturers, generate growth that is not captured in the GDP figures. Finally, some
companies grow outside the U.S., which shows up in sales growth but fails to be reflected in GDP.20

February 23, 2016
Exhibit 6: Median Sales Growth Is Correlated with GDP Growth

15 r = 0.65
Annual Real Sales Growth (Percent) 10
0
-5 0 5 10
-5

Source: Credit Suisse HOLT® and Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Note: Sales growth is for the top 1,000 global companies by market capitalization in each year.
Finally, notwithstanding our natural tendency to anticipate growth, 23 percent of the companies in the sample had
negative sales growth rates for 3 years, after an adjustment for inflation, and 20 percent shrank for 5 years. Whereas
a decline in sales need not be bad if it occurs for the right reasons, few analysts or corporate leaders project shrinking
sales unless there is a clear strategy of divestiture.21
We have established that there are two ways of making a forecast. You can do bottom-up research, which is the most
natural method, or you can turn to a base rate. The research in decision making shows that the bottom-up approach is
subject to biases and that incorporating the base rate generally improves the quality of the forecast. Yet we don’t want
to lean too much on either our own analysis or the base rate. We want to combine the two intelligently.
There is a technique to combine the two approaches, which we will apply to our sales growth data.22 Correlation is the
key to the method. The correlation coefficient measures the degree of linear relationship between variables in a pair of
distributions. The value of a correlation coefficient can fall between -1.0 (the rise in one variable perfectly correlates
with the fall of the other) and 1.0 (both variables move in tandem). A zero correlation indicates randomness. We will
examine a single variable, sales growth, measured over time, and all of the correlations are positive.
If the correlation between two distributions is high, then what happened before gives you a really good sense of what
will follow. For example, the correlation for cash flow return on investment (CFROI®*) for companies in the consumer
staples sector is about 0.90 from one year to the next.23 That means if you know Unilever’s CFROI from last year, you
can forecast it this year with a great deal of accuracy. The bottom-up work is highly relevant.
®
*CFROI is a registered trademark in the United States and other countries (excluding the United Kingdom) of Credit Suisse Group AG or its
affiliates.

February 23, 2016
If the correlation is low, what happened before provides no inkling of what will happen next. Take the annual total
shareholder returns for the S&P 500 as a case.24 The correlation from year to year, from 1928 through 2015, is
essentially zero. Telling you last year’s return provides no help in forecasting the return for this year. Your best forecast
is the average of the reference class.
The basic idea is that the correlation determines how you should weight the bottom-up analysis and the base rate. For
Unilever, a sensible forecast is nine parts last year’s CFROI and one part last year’s average sector CFROI, the base
rate. For your S&P 500 forecast, you should place minimal weight on what happened last year and rely largely on the
average return since 1928, the base rate.
Studying base rates for sales growth is logical for two reasons. First, sales growth is the most important driver of value
for most companies. Second, sales growth has a higher correlation from year to year than does earnings growth,
which is the most commonly discussed item on the income statement.25 Sales growth is important and more
predictable than profit growth.
Exhibit 7 shows that the correlation coefficient is 0.30 for the year-to-year sales growth rate.26 This includes the top
1,000 global companies by market capitalization from 1950 to 2014. Roughly 50,000 company years are in the data,
and all of the figures are adjusted for inflation.

r = 0.30
75
60
Sales Growth Next Year (Percent)
45
30
15
0
-30 -15 0 15 30 45 60 75 90
-15
-30
Sales Growth (Percent)

Source: Credit Suisse HOLT® and Credit Suisse.
Not surprisingly, the correlations are lower for longer time periods. Exhibit 8 shows the correlations for one-, three-,
and five-year horizons for the full population of companies. The base rate for the reference classes, the median growth
rate, should receive the majority of the weight for forecasts of three years or longer. In fact, you might start with the
base rate and seek reasons to move away from it.

February 23, 2016
Exhibit 8: Correlation of Sales Growth Rates for 1-, 3-, and 5-Year Horizons
0.40
0.30
Correlation 0.18
(r) 0.16
0.00
Period
This approach to modelling regression toward the mean does not say that some companies will not grow
rapidly and others will not shrink. We know that companies will fill the tails of the distribution. What it does say
is that the best forecast for a large sample of companies is something close to the median, and that
companies that anticipate sales growth well in excess of the median are likely to be disappointed.

February 23, 2016
Exhibit 1 shows the current expectations for sales growth over three years for a thousand public companies
around the world. The median expected growth rate is 1.7 percent. Exhibit 9 represents the three-year sales
growth rates, adjusted for inflation, which analysts expect for ten companies with sales in excess of $50 billion.
We superimposed the expected growth rates on the distribution of historical sales growth rates for the
reference class of mega companies.
30
Unilever
Wells Fargo GE
25 Apple
Frequency (Percent)
Wal-Mart
20 Alphabet
IBM
15 P&G
PetroChina
10
5
Amazon.com
0
(10)-(5)
5-10
(5)-0
40-45
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
0-5
<(25)
>45
(25)-(20)
(20)-(15)
(15)-(10)
CAGR (Percent)
®
Note: FactSet consensus estimates as of February 19, 2016; Growth rates are annualized; P&G = Procter & Gamble, IBM = International Business
Machines, and GE = General Electric.
Analysts expect negative sales growth for four of the ten, which corporate actions or commodity prices can
largely explain. The standard deviation of growth rates for this small sample is 7.0 percent.
Summary
Active investing requires having a point of view that is different than that of the stock market. Implicit in such a
variant perception is a forecast of outcomes that is at odds with what the market price implies.
Research shows that optimism and overconfidence can creep into our forecasts and distort them. This is
especially pronounced when the outcomes have personal relevance. Research also shows that incorporating a
base rate can improve the quality of our forecasts. Notwithstanding the utility of this method, it remains
substantially underutilized.
In this piece we provide the base rates for sales growth rates for a large sample of global companies over a
span of more than six decades. We start with sales growth because it is the most important value driver. We
then provide a method to integrate our views with base rates to sharpen the quality of our forecasts.

February 23, 2016
Appendix: Observations for Each Base Rate by Decile (1950-2014)

<(25) 64 21 16 0 <(25) 49 10 5 0 <(25) 72 20 11 6
(25)-(20) 30 8 5 2 (25)-(20) 18 17 5 1 (25)-(20) 42 13 16 3
(20)-(15) 48 16 15 12 (20)-(15) 52 34 21 6 (20)-(15) 67 35 25 11
(15)-(10) 62 53 22 25 (15)-(10) 112 44 42 30 (15)-(10) 117 85 58 36
(10)-(5) 148 83 57 32 (10)-(5) 194 124 90 100 (10)-(5) 209 158 147 92
(5)-0 317 257 197 157 (5)-0 418 348 324 293 (5)-0 452 426 392 386
0-5 629 692 733 745 0-5 943 1,135 1,149 1,175 0-5 897 1,037 1,134 1,259
5-10 700 864 993 1,314 5-10 896 1,125 1,365 1,519 5-10 873 1,057 1,132 1,218
10-15 565 679 816 834 10-15 664 782 771 692 10-15 586 672 683 569
15-20 420 486 456 412 15-20 402 396 366 249 15-20 381 378 325 199
20-25 306 287 299 260 20-25 318 237 190 125 20-25 237 202 194 87
25-30 206 218 228 164 25-30 177 137 116 53 25-30 153 146 106 41
30-35 176 153 144 109 30-35 106 103 82 28 30-35 131 93 50 12
35-40 122 133 128 69 35-40 87 77 44 13 35-40 92 72 42 5
40-45 98 92 81 47 40-45 68 54 37 4 40-45 67 37 19 2
>45 743 524 321 85 >45 382 168 64 3 >45 295 104 40 1

<(25) 62 16 16 1 <(25) 68 18 10 0 <(25) 80 23 8 1
(25)-(20) 40 19 6 3 (25)-(20) 45 10 5 3 (25)-(20) 53 18 6 1
(20)-(15) 55 34 17 14 (20)-(15) 67 42 17 3 (20)-(15) 96 42 30 1
(15)-(10) 114 74 47 27 (15)-(10) 121 75 48 11 (15)-(10) 173 92 80 23
(10)-(5) 220 167 131 76 (10)-(5) 231 205 149 92 (10)-(5) 320 240 168 99
(5)-0 420 455 417 368 (5)-0 511 510 467 443 (5)-0 601 668 636 540
0-5 915 1,063 1,190 1,312 0-5 968 1,128 1,245 1,289 0-5 1,080 1,212 1,321 1,434
5-10 881 1,026 1,110 1,082 5-10 853 956 1,062 973 5-10 872 1,045 1,079 981
10-15 577 570 553 440 10-15 538 545 506 349 10-15 572 548 526 306
15-20 328 316 268 147 15-20 343 288 223 152 15-20 345 327 239 111
20-25 188 175 143 55 20-25 224 189 138 37 20-25 226 166 116 28
25-30 162 131 91 29 25-30 128 102 74 26 25-30 145 101 62 13
30-35 102 83 40 12 30-35 94 59 24 4 30-35 83 61 23 2
35-40 72 43 27 4 35-40 61 42 15 2 35-40 60 34 4 1
40-45 65 25 19 7 40-45 36 28 8 2 40-45 40 19 10 0
>45 279 103 32 3 >45 221 56 18 0 >45 202 39 8 0

February 23, 2016

<(25) 93 24 12 1 <(25) 125 28 19 1 <(25) 157 48 13 1
(25)-(20) 57 36 8 7 (25)-(20) 73 28 13 4 (25)-(20) 84 34 29 2
(20)-(15) 90 52 31 4 (20)-(15) 112 69 35 23 (20)-(15) 145 99 63 19
(15)-(10) 206 137 88 39 (15)-(10) 213 165 126 40 (15)-(10) 233 164 123 48
(10)-(5) 358 273 202 149 (10)-(5) 504 412 323 176 (10)-(5) 501 414 329 202
(5)-0 686 725 698 558 (5)-0 905 964 914 729 (5)-0 1,011 1,046 938 713
0-5 1,181 1,382 1,501 1,483 0-5 1,377 1,585 1,644 1,592 0-5 1,409 1,550 1,647 1,415
5-10 1,038 1,063 1,068 974 5-10 1,157 1,166 1,223 988 5-10 1,117 1,118 1,053 741
10-15 611 543 486 287 10-15 683 617 501 255 10-15 599 518 414 235
15-20 347 309 252 99 15-20 337 313 216 87 15-20 315 244 187 90
20-25 208 185 98 31 20-25 239 179 86 26 20-25 192 149 78 24
25-30 160 97 49 20 25-30 137 89 64 10 25-30 141 72 38 3
30-35 95 59 27 6 30-35 100 59 20 4 30-35 87 49 21 1
35-40 50 25 12 0 35-40 58 24 11 2 35-40 56 23 13 0
40-45 38 18 7 0 40-45 50 18 6 0 40-45 31 18 1 0
>45 201 49 16 0 >45 202 37 6 0 >45 164 26 3 0

<(25) 177 65 42 3 <(25) 78 29 26 0 <(25) 947 273 152 14
(25)-(20) 82 38 20 4 (25)-(20) 44 13 8 1 (25)-(20) 524 221 113 30
(20)-(15) 127 92 53 17 (20)-(15) 53 38 16 5 (20)-(15) 859 515 307 110
(15)-(10) 257 164 124 55 (15)-(10) 121 76 42 18 (15)-(10) 1,608 1,053 758 334
(10)-(5) 489 433 329 217 (10)-(5) 224 217 152 74 (10)-(5) 3,174 2,509 1,925 1,235
(5)-0 915 920 859 598 (5)-0 394 410 373 269 (5)-0 6,236 6,319 5,842 4,785
0-5 1,198 1,295 1,333 964 0-5 502 532 566 368 0-5 10,597 12,079 12,897 12,668
5-10 885 880 743 531 5-10 357 339 281 177 5-10 9,272 10,300 10,828 10,321
10-15 504 442 351 153 10-15 201 185 113 33 10-15 5,899 5,916 5,607 4,120
15-20 302 204 134 34 15-20 122 64 37 6 15-20 3,520 3,261 2,666 1,580
20-25 184 105 51 6 20-25 77 30 11 0 20-25 2,322 1,874 1,393 679
25-30 132 52 17 0 25-30 53 13 2 0 25-30 1,541 1,145 845 359
30-35 57 20 10 0 30-35 23 2 1 0 30-35 1,031 739 441 178
35-40 37 22 5 0 35-40 12 5 0 0 35-40 695 495 301 96
40-45 30 8 3 0 40-45 9 2 0 0 40-45 523 317 191 62
>45 110 14 1 0 >45 27 0 0 0 >45 2,799 1,120 509 92

February 23, 2016
Endnotes
1
2
3
Ibid. Growth only creates value when a company earns in excess of the cost of capital. Growth at a negative spread
destroys value.
4
Benjamin Lansford, Baruch Lev, Jennifer Wu Tucker, “Causes and Consequences of Disaggregating Earnings
Guidance,” Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Vol. 40, No. 1-2, January/February 2013, 26-54.
5
Kahneman, 257.
6
Dunkelberg, “Entrepreneurs’ Perceived Chances for Success,” Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 3, No. 2, Spring
1988, 97-108.
7
Books, 2011).
8
Michael J. Mauboussin and Dan Callahan, “IQ versus RQ: Differentiating Smarts from Decision-Making
Skills,” Credit Suisse Global Financial Strategies, May 12, 2015.
9
10
Jack B. Soll and Joshua Klayman, “Overconfidence in Interval Estimates,” Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Vol. 30, No. 2, March 2004, 299-314.
11
12
Bent Flyvbjerg, Massimo Garbuio, Dan Lovallo, “Better Forecasting for Large Capital Projects,” McKinsey
on Finance, Autumn 2014, 7-13. Also, Bent Flyvbjerg, “Truth and Lies about Megaprojects,” Speech at Delft
13
Kahneman, 249.
14
15
Berkeley J. Dietvorst, Joseph P. Simmons, and Cade Massey, “Algorithm Aversion: People Erroneously
Avoid Algorithms After Seeing Them Err,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 144, No. 1,
February 2015, 114-126.
16
The sample size is somewhat smaller than 1,000 in the early years but reaches 1,000 by the late 1960s.
17
Suisse Global Financial Strategies, April 16, 2014.
18
Madeleine I. G. Daepp, Marcus J. Hamilton, Geoffrey B. West, and Luís M. A. Bettencourt, “The mortality
of companies,” The Royal Society Publishing, Vol. 12, No. 106, April 1, 2015.
19

February 23, 2016
20
Companies, 6th Edition (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2015), 126-127.
21
22
23
24
“Credit Suisse Global Investment Returns Yearbook 2016,” Credit Suisse Research Institute, February 2016.
25
Michael J. Mauboussin, Dan Callahan, and Darius Majd, “The Base Rate Book – Earnings Growth,” Credit
Suisse Global Financial Strategies, December 16, 2015. Louis K.C. Chan, Jason Karceski, and Josef
Lakonishok, “The Level and Persistence of Growth Rates,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 58, No. 2, April 2003,
643-684. Also, Michael J. Mauboussin, “The True Measures of Success,” Harvard Business Review, October
2012, 46-56.
26
We winsorize the top and bottom two percent of the growth rates. Companies with growth rates in the top two
percent are generally extremely small firms or firms that engaged in a significant merger and acquisition activity.

The Base Rate Book – Gross Profitability

April 25, 2016
25
Authors
Michael J. Mauboussin Highest

20
Value (Base Year = $1)
michael.mauboussin@credit-suisse.com Universe
Lowest
Dan Callahan, CFA
15
Darius Majd
darius.majd@credit-suisse.com 10
0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
“. . . people who have information about an individual case rarely feel the
need to know the statistics of the class to which the case belongs.”
Daniel Kahneman1
Gross profitability, gross profits divided by assets, may be a useful

additional input into valuation analysis.
This measure of profitability can provide a different valuation signal than
the price-earnings multiple, which is the most common metric analysts use
to value stocks.
Gross profitability is highly persistent over time, and research shows that
firms with high profitability deliver higher total shareholder returns than
those with low profitability.
This report shows the base rate for gross profitability for nearly 1,000
global companies from 1950-2014 and includes analysis by sector.
We provide a method to integrate company-specific views with the base
rate to sharpen the quality of forecasts.
April 25, 2016
Introduction
Benjamin Graham, the father of security analysis, spent some time with an aeronautical engineer named
James Rea in the 1970s. Together, they developed a screen to find attractive stocks that had ten criteria.
Because it was toward the end of Graham’s life, some refer to the list as Graham’s “last will.”2 About one-half
of the measures were based on valuation, consistent with Graham’s value orientation. But the other half of the
criteria addressed quality. So a company that passed the screen would be both statistically cheap and of high
quality.
This installment in our base rate series examines gross profitability, a measure of a company’s ability to make
money that has attracted the attention of academics and practitioners in recent years. Prior reports include
two dedicated to the income statement, sales growth and net income growth, and one to Cash Flow Return
on Investment (CFROI®), a measure of economic profitability.3
Robert Novy-Marx, a professor of finance at the Simon Business School at the University of Rochester,
defines gross profitability as revenues minus cost of goods sold, scaled by the book value of total assets. In
other words, gross profitability is gross profit divided by assets. Investors can use gross profitability as a proxy
for quality and it is not positively correlated with classic measures of value.4
Research shows that gross profitability is highly persistent in the short and long run. This means that you can
make a reasonable estimate of future profitability based on the past. Academic research also shows that firms
with high gross profitability deliver better total shareholder returns than those with low profitability. This is
despite the fact that they start with loftier price-to-book ratios.5
Many academics and practitioners now incorporate gross profitability into their asset pricing models. For
instance, Eugene Fama, a professor at the University of Chicago and a winner of the Nobel Prize, and
Kenneth French, a professor of finance at the Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College, include
profitability as one of the factors that helps explain changes in asset prices. The others include beta (a
measure of the sensitivity of an asset’s returns to market returns), size, valuation, and investment.6 The
definition of profitability that Fama and French use differs somewhat from that of Novy-Marx but captures the
same essence.
The power of profitability to explain total shareholder returns appears to be a global phenomenon.7 Using
Compustat data (July 1963 to December 2010) and Compustat Global data (July 1990 to October 2009),
Novy-Marx found that the stocks of more profitable firms outperformed the stocks of less profitable firms in
the United States as well as in developed markets outside the U.S. Both samples exclude stocks of
companies in the financial services sector. These results are consistent with a study that examined the effect
of gross profitability on total shareholder returns in 41 countries from 1980 to 2010.8
Gross profitability may also be a useful factor to screen for in a search for attractive stocks. Profitability can
provide a very different signal than a price-earnings (P/E) multiple, which is the most common metric analysts
use to value stocks. A stock that appears unattractive using a P/E multiple may look attractive using gross
profitability, and a stock that appears unattractive using gross profitability may look attractive using a P/E
multiple.
Take Amazon.com as a case. The stock had a trailing P/E multiple of roughly 540 at year-end 2015 based
on a price of $676 on December 31 and full-year reported earnings per share of $1.25. For context, the P/E
multiple was 20 for the S&P 500 at the same time. Based purely on its P/E multiple, the valuation of
Amazon.com appeared high.
The Base Rate Book – Gross Profitability 2

April 25, 2016
The company’s gross profitability told a different story. For 2015, Amazon.com’s gross profitability was 0.54
(gross profit of $35 billion and total assets of $65 billion). According to Novy-Marx, gross profitability of 0.33
or higher is generally attractive.9 Not only did Amazon.com’s recent gross profitability surpass that level easily,
it has been well above that threshold for most of the company’s history (see Exhibit 1).
Exhibit 1: Amazon.com’s Gross Profitability, 1997-2015

0.60
0.50
Gross Profitability
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015
Source: FactSet.
Base Rate of Gross Profitability
Two common ways of making a forecast include bottom-up research (known as the “inside view”), which is
the most natural approach, and application of a base rate (“outside view”) to see what the results have been
for an appropriate reference class. The research in decision making shows that the bottom-up approach is
subject to biases and that incorporating the base rate generally improves the accuracy of the forecast. 10 You
want to combine the two approaches intelligently.
There is a technique to blend the approaches that we apply to gross profitability.11 The basic idea is if an
outcome in the present is consistent with the past, you can place more weight on the inside view. On the
other hand, if the present outcome is very different than the past, you should place greater emphasis on the
outside view.
The key to the method is correlation, which measures the degree of the linear relationship between variables
in a pair of distributions. The value of a correlation coefficient can fall between -1.0 (the rise in one variable
perfectly correlates with the fall of the other) to 1.0 (both variables move in tandem). A zero correlation
indicates randomness. Correlations for gross profitability are high and positive.
If the correlation between two distributions is high, then what happened before gives you a really good sense
of what will follow. For example, the correlation between the expense ratio for U.S. equity mutual funds today
and three years ago is about 0.98. Provided that correlation persists, you can forecast a mutual fund’s future
expense ratio with a great deal of accuracy if you know the ratio today.12 The bottom-up work is highly
relevant.

April 25, 2016
If the correlation is low, what happened before provides little sense of what will happen next. Alpha, a measure
of a fund’s risk-adjusted excess return, is a good example. For U.S. mutual funds that invest in stocks of large
capitalization companies, the correlation between the three-year periods of alpha is 0.05. That means knowing
a mutual find’s alpha from 2010-2012 would tell you little about the fund’s alpha from 2013-2015. As a
consequence, your best forecast for future alpha is close to the average of the reference class.
Exhibit 2 shows that the Novy-Marx definition of gross profitability is very persistent over one-, three-, and
five-year periods. For example, the correlation between profitability in the current year and three years in the
future has a coefficient, r, of 0.89 (middle panel of Exhibit 2). But even the five-year correlation is high at
0.82 (right panel).
This universe includes the top 1,000 firms in the world from 1950 to 2014 as measured by market
capitalization. The sample includes dead companies but excludes firms in the financial services and utilities
sectors. The data include nearly 40,000 company years, and there is no need to take into account inflation
because profitability is expressed as a ratio.
Exhibit 2: Persistence of Gross Profitability

3.5
r = 0.95 3.5
r = 0.89 3.5
r = 0.82
3.0 3.0 3.0

Gross Profitability in 3 Years

Gross Profitability Next Year
2.5 2.5 2.5
2.0 2.0 2.0
1.5 1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0 0.0

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
-0.5 -0.5 -0.5
-1.0 -1.0 -1.0

Gross Profitability Gross Profitability Gross Profitability
Exhibit 3 shows the stability of gross profitability. We start by sorting companies into quintiles based on gross
profitability at the beginning of a year. We then follow the gross profitability for each of the five cohorts. There
is very little regression toward the mean. The spread from the highest to the lowest quintile shrinks only
slightly, from 0.55 to 0.50. Given this stability, a sensible forecast is to start with last year’s profitability and
seek reasons to move away from it.

April 25, 2016
Exhibit 3: Regression Toward the Mean for Gross Profitability

0.4
Relative Gross Profitability (Medians) 0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
1 2 3 4 5
Year
Gross Profitability and Total Shareholder Returns
Exhibit 4 shows that the correlation between gross profitability and total shareholder return (TSR) is 0.01 for
one year, 0.13 for three years, and 0.17 for five years. However, neither Novy-Marx nor Fama and French
recommend a simple correlation between gross profitability and TSR.
Exhibit 4: Predictive Value of Gross Profitability

r = 0.01 r = 0.13 r = 0.17
200 200 200
Total Shareholder Return 3 Years (Percent)

Total Shareholder Return 1 Year (Percent)
150 150 150
100 100
100
50 50
50
0 0
-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
0
-50 -50 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
-100 -100 -50
-150 -150 -100

Gross Profitability 1 Year Gross Profitability 3-Year Average Gross Profitability 5-Year Average

April 25, 2016
A more effective way to use gross profitability is to rank stocks in quintiles by gross profitability and to build
portfolios for each. Exhibit 5 shows the cumulative growth in value of $1 for the quintiles with the highest and
lowest ratios of gross profitability, as well as that for the whole universe. The sample includes the largest
1,000 U.S. industrial and service companies from 1990 through January 2016. The portfolios are rebalanced
monthly.
Exhibit 5: Total Return for the Highest and Lowest Quintiles of Profitability (1990-January 2016)
25
20 Highest
Universe
Lowest
15
10
0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Note: Gross profitability is calculated using the average of the assets at the beginning and the end of the fiscal year.
Base Rate of Gross Profitability for Sectors
We can refine this analysis by examining gross profitability at the sector level. This reduces the sample size but
improves its relevance. We present a guide for calculating the rate of regression toward the mean, as well as
the proper mean to use, for eight sectors. We exclude the financial services and utilities sectors.
Exhibit 6 examines gross profitability for two sectors, consumer discretionary and energy. The panels at the
top show the persistence of gross profitability for the consumer discretionary sector. On the right, we see that
the correlation between gross profitability in the base year and five years in the future is 0.77.
The panels at the bottom of exhibit 6 show the same relationships for the energy sector. On the right, we see
that the correlation between gross profitability in the base year and five years in the future is 0.62. This
suggests you should expect a slower rate of regression toward the mean in the consumer discretionary sector
than in the energy sector.

April 25, 2016
Exhibit 6: Correlation Coefficients for Gross Profitability in Consumer Discretionary and Energy
Consumer Discretionary
2.5
r = 0.95 2.5
r = 0.88 2.5
r = 0.77
2.0 2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0 0.0

-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
-0.5 -0.5 -0.5

Energy
2.5
r = 0.89 2.5
r = 0.75 2.5
r = 0.62
2.0 2.0 2.0


1.5 1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0 0.0

-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
-0.5 -0.5 -0.5

Exhibit 7 shows the correlation coefficient for five-year changes in gross profitability for eight sectors from
1950 to 2014, as well as the standard deviation for the ranges of recorded correlations. Two aspects of the
exhibit are worth highlighting. The first is the ordering of r from high to low. This gives you a sense of the rate
of regression toward the mean by sector. A high r suggests slow regression, and a low r means more rapid
regression. Consumer-oriented sectors generally have higher r’s, and sectors with more exposure to
technology or commodities have lower r’s.
The second aspect is how the correlations change from year to year. The standard deviation for the consumer
discretionary sector was 0.10. With a correlation coefficient of 0.77, that means 68 percent of the
observations fell within a range of 0.67 and 0.87. The standard deviation for the energy sector was 0.18.
With a correlation coefficient of 0.62, that means 68 percent of the observations fell within a range of 0.44
and 0.80.

April 25, 2016
5-Year Correlation Standard
Sector Coefficient Deviation
Consumer Staples 0.86 0.07
Industrials 0.78 0.12
Health Care 0.77 0.12
Consumer Discretionary 0.77 0.10
Materials 0.76 0.14
Information Technology 0.64 0.13
Energy 0.62 0.18
Telecommunication Services 0.61 0.44
Exhibit 8 presents guidelines on the rate of regression toward the mean, as well as the proper mean to use,
for eight sectors based on more than sixty years of data. Keep in mind that regression toward the mean works
on a population but not necessarily on every individual company.
The third and fourth columns show the median and mean, or average, gross profitability for each sector. We
include medians because the gross profitability in many sectors does not follow a normal distribution. (When
the average is higher than the median, the distribution is skewed to the right.) Still, the means are only 5-10
percent higher than the medians.
The two columns at the right show measures of variability. The coefficient of variation, a normalized measure,
captures dispersion. The coefficient of variation equals the standard deviation of gross profitability divided by
average gross profitability. It is not surprising that gross profitability is higher and less volatile in consumer
discretionary than it is in energy.
Exhibit 8: Rate of Reversion and to What Mean Gross Profitability Reverts for Eight Sectors
How Much Reversion? To What Level?
5-Year Correlation Standard Coefficient of
Sector Coefficient Median Average Deviation Variation
Consumer Staples 0.86 0.50 0.54 0.08 0.14
Industrials 0.78 0.28 0.30 0.07 0.23
Health Care 0.77 0.48 0.50 0.09 0.17
Consumer Discretionary 0.77 0.36 0.40 0.05 0.12
Materials 0.76 0.26 0.28 0.04 0.14
Information Technology 0.64 0.40 0.42 0.06 0.13
Energy 0.62 0.22 0.24 0.04 0.17
Telecommunication Services 0.61 0.24 0.27 0.07 0.26

April 25, 2016
Summary
Benjamin Graham understood years ago that buying a good business at an attractive price would likely yield
satisfactory results. This report examines gross profitability, a measure of corporate performance that has
received attention from both academics and practitioners. For example, profitability is now one of the factors in
Eugene Fama and Kenneth French’s five-factor asset pricing model.
Further, gross profitability can send a different valuation signal than does a more traditional valuation approach
such as the price-earnings multiple. We show that gross profitability is persistent and confirm the positive
relationship between gross profitability and total shareholder returns.
Decision-making research shows that using base rates can improve the quality of forecasts. This report
provides the base rate for gross profitability for nearly 1,000 global companies from 1950-2014, and it shows
gross profitability by sector. Investors may find gross profitability to be a useful metric to screen for and an
additional input into valuation analysis.

April 25, 2016
Endnotes
1
2
James B. Rea, “Remembering Benjamin Graham – Teacher and Friend,” Journal of Portfolio Management,
Vol. 3, No. 4, Summer 1977, 66-72. Also, see P. Blustein, “Ben Graham’s Last Will and Testament,” Forbes,
August 1, 1977, 43-45. Also, Charles M. C. Lee and Eric C. So, “Alphanomics: The Informational
Underpinnings of Market Efficiency,” Foundations and Trends in Accounting, Vol. 9, Nos. 2-3, December
2014, 59-258.
3
Michael J. Mauboussin, Dan Callahan, and Darius Majd, “The Base Rate Book – Sales Growth: Integrating
the Past to Better Anticipate the Future,” Credit Suisse Global Financial Strategies, February 23, 2016;
Michael J. Mauboussin, Dan Callahan, and Darius Majd, “The Base Rate Book – Earnings Growth: Integrating
the Past to Better Anticipate the Future,” Credit Suisse Global Financial Strategies, December 16, 2015;
4
Robert Novy-Marx, “The Other Side of Value: The Gross Profitability Premium,” Journal of Financial
Economics, Vol. 108, No. 1, April 2013, 1-28. Credit Suisse’s HOLT team also analyzed this topic. See
Bryant Matthews, David A. Holland, and Richard Curry, “The Measure of Quality,” Credit Suisse HOLT Wealth
Creation Principles, February 2016.
5
Some researchers are critical of the claim that gross profit, the numerator of gross profitability, is a better
measure of earnings than other popular measures such as net income or operating income. They argue that
gross profitability and net income have similar predictive power when they are deflated the same way. See Ray
Ball, Joseph Gerakos, Juhani T. Linnainmaa, and Valeri V. Nikolaev, “Deflating Profitability,” Journal of
Financial Economics, Vol. 117, No. 2, August 2015, 225-248. Another study suggests operating leverage
explains the excess returns to gross profitability. See Michael Kisser, “What Explains the Gross Profitability
Premium?” Working Paper, November 2014.
6
Eugene F. Fama and Kenneth R. French, “A Five-Factor Asset Pricing Model,” Journal of Financial
Economics, Vol. 116, No. 1, April 2015, 1-22.
7
Phil DeMuth, “The Mysterious Factor ‘P’: Charlie Munger, Robert Novy-Marx And The Profitability Factor,”
Forbes, June 27, 2013.
8
Lei Sun, Kuo-Chiang (John) Wei, and Feixue Xie, “On the Explanations for the Gross Profitability Effect:
Insights from International Equity Markets,” Asian Finance Association 2014 Conference Paper, December 23,
2014.
9
Jason Zweig, “Have Investors Finally Cracked the Stock-Picking Code?” Wall Street Journal, March 1, 2013.
10
11
12
Michael J. Mauboussin, Dan Callahan, and Darius Majd, “What Makes for a Useful Statistic: Not All
Numbers Are Created Equal,” Credit Suisse Global Financial Strategies, April 5, 2016.

The Base Rate Book

September 26, 2016
Authors
Michael J. Mauboussin
michael.mauboussin@credit-suisse.com
Dan Callahan, CFA

Outside Accurate Inside
Darius Majd
darius.majd@credit-suisse.com View Forecast View
Source: Credit Suisse.
“People who have information about an individual case rarely feel the need to
know the statistics of the class to which the case belongs.”
Daniel Kahneman1

Executives and investors commonly rely on their own experience and
information in making forecasts (the “inside view”) and don’t place
sufficient weight on the rates of past occurrences (the “outside view”).
This book is the first comprehensive repository for base rates of corporate
results. It examines sales growth, gross profitability, operating leverage,
operating profit margin, earnings growth, and cash flow return on
investment. It also examines stocks that have declined or risen sharply
and their subsequent price performance.
We show how to thoughtfully combine the inside and outside views.
The analysis provides insight into the rate of regression toward the mean
and the mean to which results regress.
September 26, 2016
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 4
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 5
How to Combine the Inside and Outside Views ..................................................................... 7
Regression toward the Mean ............................................................................................... 9
Estimating the Mean to Which Results Regress ................................................................... 16
Sales Growth .............................................................................................................................. 19

Why Sales Growth Is Important.......................................................................................... 20
Base Rates of Sales Growth ............................................................................................. 21
Sales and Total Shareholder Returns .................................................................................. 27
Using Base Rates to Model Sales Growth ........................................................................... 28
Current Expectations ........................................................................................................ 29
Appendix: Observations for Each Base Rate by Decile, 1950-2015 ...................................... 31
Gross Profitability ........................................................................................................................ 33

Why Gross Profitability Is Important .................................................................................... 34
Persistence of Gross Profitability ....................................................................................... 35
Gross Profitability and Total Shareholder Returns................................................................. 36
Base Rates of Gross Profitability by Sector ......................................................................... 37
Operating Leverage ..................................................................................................................... 40

Why Operating Leverage Is Important................................................................................. 41
Sales Growth as an Input .................................................................................................. 44
The Factors That Determine Operating Leverage ................................................................ 46
Empirical Results for Operating Leverage............................................................................ 49
The Role of Financial Leverage in Earnings Volatility ............................................................ 54
Appendix: Threshold and Incremental Threshold Operating Profit Margin ................................ 56
Operating Profit Margin ................................................................................................................ 58

Why Operating Profit Margin Is Important ........................................................................... 59
Persistence of Operating Profit Margin ............................................................................... 59
Base Rates of Operating Profit Margin by Sector ................................................................. 60
The Rich Get Richer ......................................................................................................... 63
Earnings Growth .......................................................................................................................... 67

Why Earnings Growth Is Important ..................................................................................... 68
Base Rates of Earnings Growth ......................................................................................... 69
Earnings and Total Shareholder Returns ............................................................................. 76
Using Base Rates to Model Earnings Growth ...................................................................... 77
Current Expectations ........................................................................................................ 79
Appendix: Observations for Each Base Rate by Decile, 1950-2015 ...................................... 80
The Base Rate Book 2

September 26, 2016
Cash Flow Return on Investment (CFROI®)..................................................................................... 82

Why CFROI Is Important ................................................................................................... 83
Persistence of CFROI ....................................................................................................... 83
Base Rates of CFROI by Sector ........................................................................................ 84
Appendix A: Historical Correlation Coefficients for All Sectors ............................................... 90
Appendix B: Historical CFROIs for All Sectors ..................................................................... 92
Managing the Man Overboard Moment .......................................................................................... 95

The Value of a Framework under Adversity ......................................................................... 96
Base Rates of Large Drawdowns in Stock Price .................................................................. 97
The Checklist .................................................................................................................. 99
Case Studies ................................................................................................................. 102
Summary: Buy, Sell, or Hold ........................................................................................... 109
Appendix A: Definition of the Factors ............................................................................... 112
Appendix B: Distribution of Stock Price Changes............................................................... 114
Celebrating the Summit .............................................................................................................. 118

The Value of a Framework under Success ........................................................................ 119
Base Rates of Large Gains in Stock Price ........................................................................ 120
The Checklist ................................................................................................................ 122
Case Studies ................................................................................................................. 125
Summary: Buy, Sell, or Hold ........................................................................................... 132
Appendix: Distributions of Stock Price Changes ............................................................... 133
Endnotes .................................................................................................................................. 137
Resources ................................................................................................................................ 144
We offer special thanks to members of the HOLT team, who facilitated our access to data and contributed a
number of useful concepts. Specifically, we thank Bryant Matthews, David Holland, David Rones, Greg
Williamson, Chris Morck, and Sean Burns.

September 26, 2016
Executive Summary
The objective of a fundamental investor is to find a gap between the financial performance implied by an
asset price and the results that will ultimately be revealed. As a result, investing requires a clear sense of
what’s priced in today and possible future results.
The natural and intuitive way to create forecasts is to focus on an issue, gather information, search for
evidence based on our experience, and extrapolate with some adjustment. This is what psychologists call
the “inside view.” It is common for the inside view to lead to a forecast that is too optimistic.
Another way to make a forecast is to consider the outcomes of a relevant reference class. This is called
the “outside view.” Rather than emphasizing differences, as the inside view does, the outside view relies
on similarity. Using the outside view can be unnatural because you have to set aside your own
information and experience as well as find and appeal to an appropriate reference class, or base rate.
Most executives and investors rely on their memory of prior instances as a basis for comparison. For
example, they may deem this private equity deal similar to that prior deal, and hence assume the return
on investment will be similar. An appropriate reference class is one that has a sample size that is
sufficient to be robust but is similar enough to the class you are examining to be relevant.
Research in psychology shows that the most accurate forecasts are a thoughtful blend of the inside and
the outside views. Here’s a helpful guide: If skill determines the outcome, you can rely more on the
inside view. If luck plays a large role, you should place more weight on the outside view.
Regression toward the mean is a tricky concept that most investors believe in but few fully understand.
The concept says that outcomes that are far from average will be followed by outcomes with an expected
value closer to the average. Examining correlations allows us to not only acknowledge the role of
regression toward the mean, but also to understand its pace. The data in this book not only offer a basis
for an assessment of the rate of regression toward the mean, but also document the mean, or average,
to which results regress.
This book provides the base rates of corporate performance for sales growth, gross profitability (gross
profits/assets), operating leverage, operating profit margin, earnings growth, and cash flow return on
investment (CFROI® ). In most cases, the data go back to 1950 and include dead companies. It also
examines stocks that have declined or risen sharply, and shows the subsequent price performance based
on how the stocks screen on momentum, valuation, and quality.
Integrating the outside view allows an executive or investor to improve the quality of his or her forecast. It
also serves as a valuable reality check on the claims of others.
This report is the result of a deep collaboration with our HOLT team. HOLT® aims to remove the vagaries
of accounting in order to allow comparison of corporate performance across a portfolio, a market, or a
universe (cross sectional) as well as over time (longitudinal).
®
CFROI is a registered trademark in the United States and other countries (excluding the United Kingdom) of Credit Suisse
Group AG or its affiliates.

September 26, 2016
Introduction
The objective of a fundamental investor is to find a gap between the financial performance implied by an asset
price and the results that will ultimately be revealed. A useful analogy is pari-mutuel betting in horse racing.
The odds provide the probability that a horse will win (implied performance) and the running of the race
determines the outcome (actual performance). The goal is not to pick the winner of the race but rather the
horse that has odds that are mispriced relative to its likelihood of winning.
As a result, investing requires a clear sense of what’s priced in today and possible future results. Today’s
stock price, for example, combines a company’s past financial performance with expectations of how the
company will perform in the future. Market psychology also comes into play. The fundamental analyst has to
have a sense of a company’s future performance to invest intelligently.
There is a natural and intuitive approach to creating a forecast of any kind. We focus on an issue, gather
information, search for evidence based on our experience, and extrapolate with some adjustment.
Psychologists call this approach the “inside view.”
An important feature of the inside view is that we dwell on what is unique about the situation.2 Indeed, Daniel
Gilbert, a psychologist at Harvard University, suggests that “we tend to think of people as more different from
one another than they actually are.”3 Likewise, we think of the things we are trying to forecast as being more
unique than they are. The inside view commonly leads to a forecast that is too optimistic, whether it’s the likely
success of a new business venture, the cost and time it will take to build a bridge, or when a term paper will
be ready to be submitted.
The “outside view” considers a specific forecast in the context of a larger reference class. Rather than
emphasizing differences, as the inside view does, the outside view relies on similarity. The outside view asks,
“What happened when others were in this situation?” This approach is also called “reference class forecasting.”
Psychologists have shown that our forecasts improve when we thoughtfully incorporate the outside view.4
Analysis of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) provides a good example of these contrasting approaches. The
executives at the companies that are merging will dwell on the strategic strength of the combined entities and
the synergies they expect. The uniqueness of the combined businesses is front and center in the minds of the
dealmakers, who almost always feel genuinely good about the deal. That’s the inside view.
The outside view asks not about the details of a specific deal but rather how all deals tend to do. Historically,
about 60 percent of deals have failed to create value for the acquiring company.5 If you know nothing about a
specific M&A deal, the outside view would have you assume a success rate similar to all deals.
Considering the outside view is useful but most executives and investors fail to do so. Dan Lovallo, Carmina
Clarke, and Colin Camerer, academics who study decision making, examined how executives make strategic
choices and found that they frequently rely either on a single analogy or a handful of cases that come to
mind.6 Investors likely do the same.
Using an analogy or a small sample of cases from memory has the benefit of being easy. But the cost is that
it prevents a decision maker from properly incorporating the outside view.
Yet not all instances in a reference class are equally informative. For instance, M&A deals financed with cash
tend to do better than those funded with equity. Therefore, a proper analogy, or set of cases, may be a better
match with the current decision than a broad base rate. You trade sample size for specificity.

September 26, 2016
Lovallo, Clarke, and Camerer created a matrix with the columns representing the reference class and the rows
reflecting the weighting (see Exhibit 1). The ideal is a large sample of cases similar to the problem at hand.
Exhibit 1: Reference Class versus Weighting Matrix
Reference Class
Recall Distribution
Reference class
Event-
Single analogy forecasting
based
(RCF)
Weighting
Similarity-
Case-based
Similarity- based
decision theory
based forecasting
(CBDT)
(SBF)
Source: Dan Lovallo, Carmina Clarke, and Colin Camerer, “Robust Analogizing and the Outside View: Two Empirical Tests of Case-
Based Decision Making,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 33, No. 5, May 2012, 498.
“Single analogy,” found in the top left corner, refers to cases where an executive recalls a sole analogy and
places all of his or her decision weight on it. This is a common approach that substantially over-represents the
inside view. As a result, it frequently yields assessments that are too optimistic.
“Case-based decision theory,” the bottom left corner, reflects instances when an executive recalls a handful of
case studies that seem similar to the relevant decision. The executive assesses how comparable the cases are
to the focal decision and weights the cases appropriately.
The top right corner is reference class forecasting.14 Here, a decision maker considers an unbiased reference
class, determines the distribution of that reference class, makes an estimate of the outcome for the focal
decision, and then corrects the intuitive forecast based on the reference class. The decision maker weights
equally all of the events in the reference class.
Lovallo, Clarke, and Camerer advocate “similarity-based forecasting,” the bottom right corner, which starts
with an unbiased reference class but assigns more weight to the cases that are similar to the focal problem
without discarding the cases that are less relevant. Done correctly, this approach is the best of both worlds as
it considers a large reference class as well as a means to weight relevance.
The scientists ran a pair of experiments to test the empirical validity of their approach. In one, they asked
private equity investors to consider a current deal, including key steps to success, performance milestones,
and the expected rate of return. This revealed the inside view.
They then asked the professionals to recall two past deals that were similar, to compare the quality of those
deals to the project under consideration, and to write down the rate of return for those projects. This was a
prompt to consider the outside view.

September 26, 2016
The average estimated return for the focal project was almost 30 percent, while the average for the
comparable projects was close to 20 percent. Every subject wrote a rate of return for the focal project that
was equal to or higher than the comparable projects.
Over 80 percent of subjects who had higher forecasts for the focal project revised down their forecasts when
given the opportunity. The prompt to consider the outside view tempered their estimates of the rate of return
for the deal under consideration. It is not hard to imagine similar results for corporate executives or investors in
public markets.
If the outside view is so useful, why do so few forecasters use it? There are a couple of reasons. Integrating
the outside view means less reliance on the inside view. We are reluctant to place less weight on the inside
view because it reflects the information we have gathered as well as our experience. Further, we don’t always
have access to the statistics of the appropriate reference class. As a result, even if we want to incorporate the
outside view we do not have the data to do so.
This book provides a deep, empirical repository for the outside view, or base rates, for a number of the key
drivers of corporate performance. These include sales growth, gross profitability, operating profit margins, net
income growth, and rates of fade for cash flow return on investment (CFROI®). It also offers data for how
stocks perform following big moves down or up versus the stock market.
How to Combine the Inside and Outside Views
Daniel Kahneman, a psychologist who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2002, wrote a paper with his
colleague Amos Tversky called “On the Psychology of Prediction.” The paper, published in Psychological
Review in 1973, argues that there are three types of information relevant to a statistical prediction: the base
rate (outside view), the specifics about the case (inside view), and the relative weights you should assign to
each.7
One way to determine the relative weighting of the outside and inside views is based on where the activity lies
on the luck-skill continuum.8 Imagine a continuum where luck alone determines results on one end and where
skill solely defines outcomes on the other end (see Exhibit 2). A blend of luck and skill reflects the results of
most activities, and the relative contributions of luck and skill provide insight into the weighting of the outside
versus the inside view.
For reference, the exhibit shows where professional sports leagues fall on the continuum based on one
season. The National Basketball Association is the furthest from luck and the National Hockey League is the
closest to it.
Exhibit 2: The Luck-Skill Continuum
Source: Michael J. Mauboussin, The Success Equation: Untangling Skill and Luck in Business, Sports, and Investing (Boston, MA: Harvard Business
Review Press, 2012), 23.
Note: Average of five most recently completed seasons.

September 26, 2016
For activities where skill dominates, the inside view should receive the greatest weight. Suppose you first listen
to a song played by a concert pianist followed by a tune played by a novice. Playing music is predominantly a
matter of skill, so you can base the prediction of the quality of the next piece played by each musician on the
inside view. The outside view has little or no bearing.
By contrast, when luck dominates the best prediction of the next outcome should stick closely to the base rate.
For example, money management has a lot of luck, especially in the short run. So if a fund has a particularly
good year, a reasonable forecast for the subsequent year would be a result closer to the average of all funds.
There are two analytical concepts that can help you improve your judgment. The first is an equation that allows
you to estimate true skill:9
Estimated true skill = grand average + shrinkage factor (observed average – grand average)
The shrinkage factor has a range of zero to 1.0. Zero indicates complete regression toward the mean and 1.0
implies no regression toward the mean at all.10 In this equation, the shrinkage factor tells us how much we
should regress the results toward the mean, and the grand average tells us the mean to which we should
regress.
Here is an example to make this concrete. Assume that you want to estimate the true skill of a mutual fund
manager based on an annual result. The grand average would be the average return for all mutual funds in a
similar category, adjusted for risk. Let’s say that’s eight percent. The observed average would be the fund’s
result. We’ll assume 12 percent. In this case, the shrinkage factor is close to zero, reflecting the high dose of
luck in short-term results for mutual fund managers. You will use a shrinkage factor for one-year risk-adjusted
excess return of .10. The estimate of the manager’s true skill based on these inputs is 8.4 percent, calculated
as follows:
8.4% = 8% + .10(12% - 8%)
The second concept, intimately related to the first, is how to come up with an estimate for the shrinkage factor.
It turns out that the correlation coefficient, r, a measure of the degree of linear relationship between two
variables in a pair of distributions, is a good proxy for the shrinkage factor.11 Positive correlations take a value
of zero to 1.0.
Say you had a population of violinists, from beginners to concert-hall performers, and on a Monday rated the
quality of their playing numerically from 1 (the worst) to 10 (the best). You then have them come back on
Tuesday and rate them again. The correlation coefficient would be very close to 1.0—the best violinists would
play well both days, and the worst would be consistently bad. There is very little need to appeal to the outside
view. The inside view correctly receives the preponderance of the weight in forecasting results.
Unlike the violinists, the correlation of excess returns of mutual funds is low.12 That means that in the short run,
returns that are well above or below average may not be a reliable indicator of skill. So it makes sense to use
a shrinkage factor that is much closer to zero than to 1.0. You accord the outside view most of the weight in
your forecast.

September 26, 2016
To summarize, here are the steps to integrate the outside view:13
Choose an appropriate reference class. The goal is to find a reference class that is large enough to
be statistically useful but sufficiently narrow to be applicable to the decision you face. In the world of
investing and corporate performance, there is a rich amount of reference class data.
Assess the distribution of outcomes. These distributions are the heart of this book. Not all outcomes
follow a normal, bell-shaped distribution. For example, of the roughly 2,900 initial public offerings (IPOs)
in technology since 1980, a small fraction of the companies have created the vast preponderance of the
value. So while this is a relevant reference class, the outcomes are heavily skewed.
Make a prediction. With data from the reference class and knowledge of the distribution, make an
estimate using the inside view. At this juncture you should be ready to consider a range of probabilities
and outcomes.
Assess the reliability of your prediction and adjust as appropriate. This last step is a crucial one,
as it takes into account how much you should regress your estimate toward the average. In cases where
correlation is low, indicating low reliability, it is appropriate to regress your estimate substantially toward
the mean.
Regression toward the Mean
Regression toward the mean is a tricky concept that most investors believe in but few fully understand.14 The
concept says that an outcome that is far from average will be followed by an outcome with an expected value
closer to the average. Here’s an example to make the idea clearer. Say a teacher assigns her students 100
pieces of information to study, and one particular student learns 80 of them. The teacher then creates a test
by selecting 20 pieces of information at random. The student will score an 80 on average, but it is possible,
albeit extremely unlikely, that he will score 100 or 0.
Assume he scores 90. You could say that his skill contributed 80 and that good luck added 10. If the
following test has the same setup, what score would you expect? The answer, of course, is 80. You could
assume that his skill of 80 would persist and that his luck, which is transitory, would be zero. Naturally, there’s
no way to know if luck will be zero. In fact, the student may get luckier on the second test. On average,
however, the student’s score will be closer to his skill.
Any time the correlation coefficient between two measures of the same quantity over time is less than one,
you will see regression toward the mean. The additional insight is that the correlation coefficient indicates the
rate of regression toward the mean. High correlations mean that you should expect modest regression while
low correlations suggest rapid regression.
The illusion of causality and the illusion of declining variance are two major errors in thinking commonly
associated with regression toward the mean. These illusions cause a lot of confusion for investors and even
trained economists. We will show how these apply to business in a moment, but we will start with a classic
example of human height.
Exhibit 3 shows the heights of more than 1,000 fathers and sons relative to the average of each population.
The left side of the exhibit shows regression toward the mean. Tall fathers have tall sons, but the tallest
fathers are about eight inches taller than the average of all fathers while the tallest sons are only about four
inches taller than the average of all sons.
September 26, 2016
More formally, the correlation coefficient is 0.50. Using the equation above, a son’s height is expected to be
halfway between his father’s height and the average. A son has an expected height of 73 inches if his father
is 76 inches tall and the average for the male population is 70 inches (73 = 70 + 0.50(76-70)).
Exhibit 3: Heights of Fathers and Sons, and Sons and Fathers

10 10
Father Son
8 8
Difference in Height (inches)

Difference in Height (inches)
6 6
Son Father
4 4
2 2
Average height Average height
0 0
-2 -2
Son Father
-4 -4
-6 -6
Father
-8 -8 Son
-10 -10
55 60 65 70 75 80 55 60 65 70 75 80
Height (inches) Height (inches)
Source: Karl Pearson and Alice Lee, “On the Laws of Inheritance in Man: I. Inheritance of Physical Characteristics,” Biometrika, Vol. 2, No. 4,
November 1903, 357-462.
But regression toward the mean implies something that doesn’t make as much sense: because the
phenomenon is the result of imperfect correlation, the arrow of time doesn’t matter. So tall sons have tall
fathers, but the sons have a greater difference between their heights and the average than their fathers do.
The same relationship is true for short sons and fathers. The right side of exhibit 3 shows this.
That the arrow of time can point in either direction reveals the risk of falsely attributing causality. While it is
true that tall fathers cause tall sons, it makes no sense to say that tall sons cause tall fathers. We find it
difficult to refrain from assigning causality, even though regression toward the mean doesn’t require it.
Regression toward the mean also seems to convey the sense that the difference between the extremes
shrinks over time. But that sense is deceptive. The way to think about it is that the values that are far from
average basically have nowhere to go but toward the average, and the values that are close to average don’t
show much change in the aggregate as large moves up and down cancel out one another.
An examination of the dispersion of values is the best way to evaluate whether the distribution has changed.
You can do that by measuring the standard deviation of the distribution or, even better, the coefficient of
variation. A normalized measure of dispersion, the coefficient of variation equals the standard deviation divided
by the mean. Exhibit 4 shows the distribution of the heights of fathers and sons. While the distributions are
different at the top, the tails are remarkably similar. The coefficient of variation is nearly identical. The heights
of the sons are no more clustered toward the average than those of the fathers.

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 4: The Distributions of Heights for Fathers and Sons Are Nearly Identical
350
Son
300 Father
250
Frequency
200
150
100
50
0
(10)-(8) (8)-(6) (6)-(4) (4)-(2) (2)-0 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10
Difference from Average (inches)
Source: Karl Pearson and Alice Lee, "On the Laws of Inheritance in Man: I. Inheritance of Physical Characteristics," Biometrika, Vol. 2, No. 4,
November 1903, 357-462.
If you ask a group of executives or investors to explain why companies with high CFROIs have lower CFROIs
in the future, and companies with low CFROIs have higher prospective CFROIs, you will likely hear them chant
the word “competition” in unison. The thinking is straightforward. Companies with high CFROIs attract
competition, driving down returns. Companies with low CFROIs disinvest and commonly consolidate, lifting
returns. This is basic microeconomics.
The left side of exhibit 5 shows this for roughly 6,600 global companies excluding the financial services and
utilities sectors. We start by ranking companies by quintile based on CFROI less the median return for the
universe. We then follow the companies over a decade. The cohort of companies with the highest returns
realizes an overall decline, while the cohort with the lowest returns sees its returns rise over the period. Just as
with the height data, this comes as no surprise. This is especially the case given the perceived role of
competition.
The right side of exhibit 5 is less intuitive. It starts by ranking companies based on the CFROI for the most
recent year. It then tracks CFROI from 2015 to 2005, or back through time. We see the same pattern. While
it makes sense to suggest that competition causes the regression in the left panel, it makes no sense to
suggest that competition works backward in time. This is true simply because the correlation is less than one
between CFROIs from one period to the next. Regression toward the mean does not rely on the arrow of time.
This also demonstrates that competition is not the sole explanation for regression toward the mean.

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 5: Regression toward the Mean for CFROI

Forward in Time Backward in Time
12 12
10 10
CFROI Minus Median (Percent)

8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
-2 -2
-4 -4
-6 -6
-8 -8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Year Year
Source: Credit Suisse HOLT.
Note: Global companies excluding the financial services and utilities sectors; no size limit; Data reflects fiscal years; updated as of September 19, 2016.
Similar to the heights of fathers and sons, we see in exhibit 6 that the distributions of CFROIs have not
changed much over the decade. Common-cause variation, or variation inherent in the system, reshuffles the
companies within the distribution, but the overall distribution remains stable over the period we measure.
Exhibit 6: The Distributions of CFROI Are Nearly Identical Over Time

2,500
2015
2,000 2005
Frequency
1,500
1,000
500
0
<(20)
5-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
(10)-(5)
(15)-(10)
0-5
>25
(20)-(15)
(5)-0

Now that we have established that regression toward the mean happens, we turn our attention to estimating
the rate at which it happens. To do so we calculate the correlation coefficient for each sector and insert it into
the equation to estimate the expected outcome. Intuitively, you would expect that a sector with stable demand,
such as consumer staples, would have a higher r than an industry exposed to commodity markets, such as
energy.

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 7 shows that this relationship is indeed what we see empirically. The top charts examine the CFROI in
the consumer staples sector from 1983 to 2015. The left panel shows that the correlation coefficient, r, is
0.89 for the year-to-year CFROI. The right panel shows that the r for the four-year change is 0.78. The
bottom charts consider the same relationships for the energy sector. The one-year r for energy is 0.64 and
the r for the four-year change is 0.35. This shows that you should expect slower regression toward the mean
in consumer staples than in energy.
Exhibit 7: Correlation Coefficients for CFROI in Consumer Staples and Energy, 1983-2015
Consumer Staples Consumer Staples
45
r = 0.89 r = 0.78
45
40 40
CFROI Next Year (Percent)
CFROI in 4 Years (Percent)

35 35
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
-10 -5
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 -10 -5
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
-10 -10
CFROI (Percent) CFROI (Percent)
Energy Energy
30
r = 0.64 30
r = 0.35
20 20
10 10
0 0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-10 -10
-20 -20
-30 -30
-40 -40
Note: Global companies, live and dead, with market capitalizations of $250 million-plus scaled; Winsorized at 1st and 99th percentiles.
Note that the correlation coefficient for the four-year change in CFROI is higher than what you would expect
by looking solely at the r for the one-year change. Take consumer staples as an illustration. Say a company
has a CFROI that is 10 percentage points above average. Using the one-year r, you’d forecast the excess
CFROI spread in 4 years to be 6.3 (10 * 0.894 = 6.3). But using the four-year r, you’d forecast the spread to
be 7.8 (0.78 * 10 = 7.8). So using a one-year correlation coefficient overstates the rate of regression toward
the mean.
Exhibit 8 shows the average correlation coefficient for the four-year change in CFROI for ten sectors from
1983-2015, as well as the standard deviation for each series. There are two aspects of the exhibit worth
emphasizing. The first is the ranking of r from the highest to the lowest. This provides a sense of the rate of
September 26, 2016
regression toward the mean by sector. Consumer-oriented sectors are generally at the top of the list and
those sectors that have exposure to commodities tend to be at the bottom.
Also important is how the r changes from year to year. While the ranking is reasonably consistent through time,
there is a large range in the standard deviation of r for each sector. For example, the r for the consumer
staples sector averaged 0.78 from 1983-2015 and had a standard deviation of just 0.04. This means that 68
percent of the observations fell within a range of 0.74 and 0.82. The average r for the energy sector, by
contrast, was 0.35 and had a standard deviation of 0.12. This means that most observations fell between
0.23 and 0.47. Appendix B shows the one-year and four-year r for each of the ten sectors.
Exhibit 8: Correlation Coefficients for CFROI for Ten Sectors, 1983-2015

Four-Year Correlation Standard
Utilities 0.57 0.11
Financials 0.43 0.10
Materials 0.41 0.07
Energy 0.35 0.12
Exhibit 9 visually translates r’s into the downward slopes for excess CFROIs that they suggest. It shows the
rate of regression toward the mean based on four-year r’s of 0.78 and 0.35, the numbers that bound our
empirical findings. We assume a company is earning a CFROI ten percentage points above the sector average
and show how those returns fade given the assumptions.
Exhibit 9: The Rate of Regression toward the Mean Assuming Different Four-Year r’s
12
CFROI - Sector Average (Percent)
10
r = 0.78
8
6
r = 0.35
4
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Years

September 26, 2016
Here’s an application of this approach. Let’s look at Microsoft, a technology company primarily in the software
business. Microsoft’s CFROI was 16.1 percent in the most recent fiscal year, the mean CFROI for the
information technology sector was 9.0 percent from 1983-2015, and the four-year r for the sector is 0.50.
Based on the formula, Microsoft’s projected CFROI in four years is 12.6 percent, calculated as follows:
12.6% = 9.0% + 0.50(16.1% – 9.0%)
After five years, we can assume that about one-half of Microsoft’s excess CFROI will be gone, either as a
result of internal or external factors.
It is important to underscore that this is not a specific prediction about Microsoft. More accurately, it is a
characterization of what happens on average to a large sample of companies in the same sector that start with
similar excess CFROIs. Exhibit 10 shows this graphically. The dot on the left is the average less sector
average CFROI for companies in the highest quintile of the information technology sector in 2005. The dot on
the right shows the average less sector average CFROI for that same group in 2015.
The exhibit underscores two points. The first is that the average excess CFROI regresses toward the mean for
the sector, as you would expect. The second is that the dot on the right summarizes a distribution of CFROIs.
Some of the companies with high CFROIs in 2005 had even higher CFROIs in 2015, while others sunk to
levels well below the sector average. The use of a dot to capture regression toward the mean belies the
richness of the underlying data.
Exhibit 10: Regression toward the Mean Happens on Average (Information Technology, 2005-2015)
Frequency
0 10 20 30 40
>25
CFROI Minus Sector Average (Percent)
20-25
15-20
10-15
5-10
0-5
(5)-0
(10)-(5)
<(10)
2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Note: Global companies; no size limit; Data reflects fiscal years; updated as of August 16, 2016.
Modeling corporate performance is not simply a matter of plugging in assumptions about regression toward
the mean. You may have well-founded reasons to believe that a particular company’s results will be better or
worse than what a simple model of regression toward the mean suggests, and you should reflect those results
in your model. That said, regression toward the mean should always be a consideration in your modeling
because it is relevant for a population of companies.

September 26, 2016
Estimating the Mean to Which Results Regress
The second issue we must address is the mean, or average, to which results regress. For some measures,
such as sports statistics and the heights of parents and children, the means remain relatively stable over time.
But for other measures, including corporate performance, the mean can change from one period to the next.
In assessing the stability of the mean, you want to answer a couple of questions. The first is: How stable has
the mean been in the past? In cases where the average has been consistent over time and the environment
isn’t expected to change much, you can safely use past averages to anticipate future averages.
The blue lines in the middle of each chart of exhibit 11 are the mean (solid) and median (dashed) CFROI for
each year for the consumer staples and energy sectors. The consumer staples sector had an average CFROI
of 9.3 percent from 1983-2015, with a standard deviation of 0.6 percent. The energy sector had an average
CFROI of 4.9 percent, with a standard deviation of 1.7 percent over the same period. So the CFROI in the
energy sector was lower than that for consumer staples and moved around a lot more.
It comes as no surprise that the CFROI for energy is lower and more volatile than that for consumer staples.
This helps explain why regression toward the mean in energy is more rapid than that for consumer staples.
You can associate high volatility and low CFROIs with low valuation multiples, and low volatility and high
CFROIs with high valuation multiples. This is what we see empirically for these sectors.
Also in exhibit 11 are gray dashed lines that capture the CFROI for the 75th and 25th percentile companies
within the sector. If you ranked 100 companies in a sector from 100 (the highest) to 1 (the lowest) based on
CFROI, the 75th percentile would be the CFROI of company number 75. So plotting the percentiles allows you
to see the dispersion in CFROIs for the sector.
Another way to show dispersion is with the coefficient of variation, which is the standard deviation of the
CFROIs divided by the mean of the CFROIs. The coefficient of variation for 1983-2015 was 0.07 for
consumer staples and 0.34 for energy. For every 100 basis points of CFROI, there’s much more variance in
energy than in consumer staples.
Exhibit 11: Mean and Median CFROI and 75th and 25th Percentiles – Consumer Staples and Energy
Consumer Staples Energy
75th % Mean Median 25th % 75th % Mean Median 25th %
18 18
16 16
14 14
CFROI (Percent)
CFROI (Percent)
12 12
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
-2 -2
-4 -4
-6 -6
1983 1991 1999 2007 2015 1983 1991 1999 2007 2015
Note: Global companies, live and dead, with market capitalizations of $250 million-plus scaled, 1983-2015; Winsorized at 1st and 99th percentiles.

September 26, 2016
The second question is: What are the factors that affect the mean CFROI? For example, the CFROI for the
energy sector might be correlated to swings in oil prices, or returns for the financial sector might be dictated
by changes in regulations. Analysts must answer this question sector by sector.
As regression toward the mean is a concept that applies wherever correlations are less than perfect, thinking
about this second question can frame debates. Currently, for instance, there’s a heated discussion about
whether operating profit margins in the U.S. are sustainable. The answer lies in what factors drive the level of
profit margins—including labor costs and depreciation expense—and what is happening to each factor.
There is regression toward the mean for the operating profit margins of companies within a sector or industry.
The question is whether average operating profit margins will rise, remain stable, or fall in coming years.
We examine base rates for six categories of corporate performance and two categories of stock price
movement. For corporate performance, we consider:
Sales growth. This is the most important driver of corporate value. Changes in sales, both in magnitude
and composition, have a material influence on profitability and are generally larger than those for cost
savings or investment efficiencies. Changes in sales growth rates are particularly important for companies
that create shareholder value and have high expectations.
Gross profitability. Gross profitability, defined as gross profit divided by assets, is a measure of a
company’s ability to make money. Academic research also shows that firms with high gross profitability
deliver better total shareholder returns than those with low profitability.
Operating leverage. Analysts are commonly too optimistic about earnings growth and often miss
estimates by a wide margin. Operating leverage measures the change in operating profit as a function of
the change in sales. Operating leverage is high when a company realizes a relatively large change in
operating profit for every dollar of change in sales.
Operating profit margin. Operating profit margin, the ratio of operating income to sales, is one of the crucial
indicators of profitability. Operating profit is the number from which you subtract cash taxes to calculate a
company’s net operating profit after tax (NOPAT). NOPAT is the number from which you subtract investments
to calculate a company’s free cash flow, and the numerator of a return on invested capital (ROIC) calculation.
Earnings growth. Executives and investors perceive that earnings are the best indicator of corporate
results. Nearly two-thirds of chief financial officers say that earnings are the most important measure that
they report to outsiders, giving it a vastly higher rating than other financial metrics such as revenue growth
and cash flow from operations. Investors indicate that disclosure of quarterly earnings is the most
significant of all releases.
CFROI. CFROI reflects a company’s economic return on capital deployed by considering a company’s
inflation-adjusted cash flow and operating assets. CFROI removes the vagaries of accounting in order to
provide a metric that allows for comparison of corporate performance across a portfolio, a market, or a
universe (cross sectional) as well as over time (longitudinal). CFROI shows which companies are creating
economic value and allows you to get a sense of market expectations.

September 26, 2016
For stock price performance, we consider:
Managing the man overboard moment. This analysis starts with a quarter-century of instances of a
stock declining 10 percent or more versus the S&P 500. It then introduces three factors—momentum,
valuation, and quality—in order to establish base rates of stock price returns in the 30, 60, and 90 trading
days following the event. There are no answers in this analysis, but it establishes a naïve default and
provides a foundation for unemotional discussion and debate.
Celebrating the summit. This study considers a quarter-century of instances of when a stock rises 10
percent or more versus the S&P 500, excluding mergers and acquisitions. It then introduces the same
factors of momentum, valuation, and quality to look at the base rates of stock price returns in the 30, 60,
and 90 trading days following the event. In some cases, knowing when to sell can be more difficult than
knowing when to buy.

September 26, 2016
Sales Growth
Overconfidence – Range of Sales Growth Rates Too Narrow

50
45 Base Rates
Frequency (Percent)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
5-10
15-20
(10)-(5)
(5)-0
10-15
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-45
<(25)
0-5
>45
(25)-(20)
(20)-(15)
(15)-(10)

Source: Credit Suisse HOLT® and FactSet.

September 26, 2016
Why Sales Growth Is Important
Sales growth is the most important driver of corporate value.1 Changes in sales, both in magnitude and
composition, have a material influence on profitability (see section on operating leverage). Revisions in sales
forecasts are generally larger than those for cost savings or investment efficiencies. Changes in sales growth
rates are particularly important for companies with high expectations that create shareholder value. Investors
and executives are often too optimistic about growth rates companies will achieve.
Researchers who study forecasts of this nature find that two biases, optimism and overconfidence, are
common. Optimism about personal predictions has value for encouraging perseverance in the face of
challenges but distorts assessments of likely outcomes.2 For example, notwithstanding that only about 50
percent of new businesses survive five or more years, a survey of thousands of entrepreneurs found that more
than 8 of 10 of them rated their odds of success at 70 percent or higher, and fully one-third did not allow for
any probability of failure at all.3 The bottom line on optimism: “People frequently believe that their preferred
Overconfidence bias also distorts the ability to make sound predictions. This bias reveals itself when an
individual’s confidence in his or her subjective judgments is higher than the objective outcomes warrant. For
instance, nearly two thousand people answered 50 true-false questions and provided a confidence level for
each. They were correct about 60 percent of the time but indicated confidence in their answers of 70
percent.5 Most people, including financial analysts, place too much weight on their own information.6
The classic way that overconfidence shows up in forecasts is with ranges of outcomes that are too narrow. As
a case in point, researchers asked chief financial officers to predict the results for the stock market, including
high and low growth rates within which the executives were 80 percent sure the results would land. They were
Exhibit 1 shows how this bias manifests in forecasts. Both are distributions of sales growth rates annualized
over three years for roughly 1,000 of the largest companies by market capitalization in the world. The
distribution with the lower peak reflects the actual results since 1950, and the distribution with the higher peak
is the set of growth rates that analysts are currently forecasting. We adjust both distributions to remove the
effect of inflation.

September 26, 2016

50
45 Base Rates
Frequency (Percent)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
5-10
15-20
(10)-(5)
(5)-0
10-15
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-45
<(25)
0-5
>45
(25)-(20)
(20)-(15)
(15)-(10)

Note: I/B/E/S consensus estimates as of September 19, 2016.
Consistent with the overconfidence bias, the range of expected outcomes is narrower than what the results of
the past suggest is reasonable. Specifically, the standard deviation of estimates is 8.3 percent versus a
standard deviation of 18.7 percent for the past growth rates. Forecasts are commonly too optimistic and too
narrow. The best explanations for the pattern of faulty forecasts include behavioral biases and distortions
encouraged by incentives.8
We analyze the distribution of sales growth rates for the top 1,000 global companies by market capitalization
since 1950. This sample represents roughly 60 percent of the global market capitalization and includes all
sectors. The population includes companies that are now “dead.” The main reason public companies cease to
exist is they merge or are acquired.9
We calculate the compound annual growth rates (CAGR) of sales for 1, 3, 5, and 10 years for each firm. We
adjust all of the figures to remove the effects of inflation, which translates all of the numbers to 2015 dollars.
15-20 percent for three years. You start with the row marked “15-20” and slide to the right to find the column
“3-Yr.” There, you’ll see that 6.7 percent of the companies achieved that rate of growth. The panel on the
right shows the sample sizes for each growth rate and time period, allowing us to see where that percentage
comes from: 3,589 instances out of the total of 53,266 (3,589/53,266 = 6.7 percent).

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 2: Base Rates of Sales Growth, 1950-2015

Sales CAGR (%) 1-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr Sales CAGR (%) 1-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr
<(25) 1.9% 0.6% 0.3% 0.0% <(25) 1,073 305 156 15
(25)-(20) 1.0% 0.4% 0.3% 0.1% (25)-(20) 577 239 130 31
(20)-(15) 1.7% 1.0% 0.7% 0.3% (20)-(15) 954 558 337 121
(15)-(10) 3.2% 2.2% 1.6% 0.9% (15)-(10) 1,820 1,156 792 369
(10)-(5) 6.2% 5.2% 4.2% 3.2% (10)-(5) 3,540 2,744 2,076 1,329
(5)-0 12.2% 13.2% 12.9% 12.4% (5)-0 6,912 7,037 6,453 5,176
0-5 20.6% 25.2% 28.8% 34.2% 0-5 11,693 13,434 14,386 14,236
5-10 17.8% 21.3% 24.2% 28.3% 5-10 10,137 11,359 12,068 11,799
10-15 11.4% 12.3% 12.6% 11.6% 10-15 6,464 6,530 6,284 4,839
15-20 6.8% 6.7% 6.0% 4.5% 15-20 3,862 3,589 2,971 1,878
20-25 4.5% 3.9% 3.1% 2.0% 20-25 2,570 2,052 1,552 814
25-30 2.9% 2.3% 1.9% 1.1% 25-30 1,666 1,236 934 460
30-35 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.6% 30-35 1,145 809 502 235
35-40 1.3% 1.0% 0.7% 0.3% 35-40 758 543 364 131
40-45 1.1% 0.7% 0.5% 0.2% 40-45 599 357 230 79
>45 5.5% 2.5% 1.3% 0.3% >45 3,113 1,318 639 133
Mean 14.8% 8.1% 6.9% 5.8% Total 56,883 53,266 49,874 41,645
Median 5.8% 5.4% 5.2% 4.9%
StDev 275.2% 18.7% 12.3% 8.0%
Exhibit 3 is the distribution for the three-year sales growth rate. This represents, in a graph, the corresponding
column in exhibit 2. The mean, or average, growth rate was 8.1 percent per year and the median growth rate
was 5.4 percent. The median is a better indicator of the central location of the results because the distribution
is skewed to the right. The standard deviation, 18.7 percent, gives an indication of the width of the bell curve.
Exhibit 3: Three-Year CAGR of Sales, 1950-2015

30
25
Frequency (Percent)
20
15
10
0
5-10
(5)-0
15-20
10-15
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-45
<(25)
(10)-(5)
0-5
>45
(25)-(20)
(20)-(15)
(15)-(10)
CAGR (Percent)
®

September 26, 2016
While the data for the full sample are a start, you want to hone the reference class of base rates to make the
results more relevant and applicable. One approach is to break the universe into deciles based on a
company’s sales in the prior year. Within each size decile, we sort the observations of growth rates into bins in
increments of five percentage points (except for the tails).
There is a modest survivorship bias because each sample includes only the firms that survived for that
specified period. For example, a company in our 10-year sample would have had to have survived for 10 years.
About one-half of all public companies cease to exist within ten years of being listed.10
You now have the proper reference class and the distribution of growth rates over the various horizons.
Let’s use Tesla as an example. In February 2015, Elon Musk, the chief executive officer, said he hoped to
grow sales 50 percent per year for the next decade from an estimated sales base of $6 billion.11 How would
you assess the plausibility of that goal? Using the inside view, you would build a bottom-up model of the
automobile and battery businesses, considering the size of the markets, how they will likely grow, and what
market shares Tesla might achieve.
The outside view simply looks to see if growth at this rate is common in an appropriate reference class. Go to
exhibit 4. You must first find the correct reference class, which is the decile that has a sales base of $4.5 -
$7 billion. Next you examine the row of growth that is marked “>45,” representing sales growth of 45 percent
or more. Going to the column “10-Yr,” you will see that no companies achieved this feat. Indeed, you have to
go down to 30-35 percent growth to see any companies, and even there it is only one-fifth of 1 percent of the
sample.

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 4: Base Rates by Decile, 1950-2015
<(25) 1.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.0% <(25) 0.9% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% <(25) 1.6% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2%
(25)-(20) 0.7% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% (25)-(20) 0.4% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% (25)-(20) 0.9% 0.3% 0.3% 0.1%
(20)-(15) 1.1% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% (20)-(15) 1.1% 0.6% 0.4% 0.1% (20)-(15) 1.4% 0.8% 0.5% 0.2%
(15)-(10) 1.7% 1.0% 0.5% 0.5% (15)-(10) 2.3% 1.0% 0.7% 0.5% (15)-(10) 2.7% 1.8% 1.3% 0.8%
(10)-(5) 3.5% 1.8% 1.2% 0.7% (10)-(5) 4.0% 2.4% 1.9% 1.6% (10)-(5) 4.7% 3.5% 3.3% 2.2%
(5)-0 7.2% 5.9% 4.4% 3.5% (5)-0 8.1% 7.6% 6.6% 5.8% (5)-0 10.2% 9.5% 8.8% 9.2%
0-5 14.3% 15.3% 16.1% 16.7% 0-5 17.7% 22.2% 23.3% 24.3% 0-5 19.5% 23.6% 26.6% 31.9%
5-10 14.8% 19.1% 22.1% 29.3% 5-10 17.3% 21.8% 26.4% 32.1% 5-10 18.3% 23.6% 26.6% 32.1%
10-15 12.2% 15.2% 18.2% 20.4% 10-15 12.3% 15.1% 15.2% 14.9% 10-15 12.3% 14.5% 15.3% 14.8%
15-20 8.9% 10.4% 10.1% 10.5% 15-20 7.2% 7.4% 7.2% 5.2% 15-20 7.9% 8.2% 7.3% 4.9%
20-25 6.6% 6.4% 6.7% 6.2% 20-25 5.8% 4.5% 3.5% 2.5% 20-25 5.2% 4.3% 4.2% 2.0%
25-30 4.1% 4.5% 4.8% 4.2% 25-30 3.2% 2.5% 2.1% 1.1% 25-30 3.1% 2.9% 2.3% 1.1%
30-35 3.7% 3.3% 3.2% 2.7% 30-35 1.9% 1.9% 1.5% 0.7% 30-35 2.8% 1.9% 1.0% 0.3%
35-40 2.4% 2.8% 3.0% 1.8% 35-40 1.6% 1.3% 0.8% 0.2% 35-40 1.8% 1.5% 1.0% 0.1%
40-45 2.2% 2.0% 1.9% 1.1% 40-45 1.2% 1.0% 0.7% 0.1% 40-45 1.4% 0.9% 0.4% 0.0%
>45 15.1% 11.3% 7.2% 2.1% >45 6.7% 2.9% 1.3% 0.1% >45 6.1% 2.2% 0.9% 0.0%
Mean 61.0% 21.2% 16.8% 12.6% Mean 16.1% 10.7% 9.2% 7.4% Mean 12.4% 9.2% 7.9% 6.2%
<(25) 1.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% <(25) 1.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.0% <(25) 1.6% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0%
(25)-(20) 0.9% 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% (25)-(20) 1.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% (25)-(20) 1.0% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0%
(20)-(15) 1.4% 0.7% 0.4% 0.4% (20)-(15) 1.6% 0.9% 0.4% 0.1% (20)-(15) 1.8% 0.9% 0.7% 0.0%
(15)-(10) 2.7% 1.8% 1.0% 0.7% (15)-(10) 2.8% 1.6% 1.2% 0.4% (15)-(10) 3.5% 2.0% 1.7% 0.8%
(10)-(5) 5.1% 3.9% 3.1% 1.8% (10)-(5) 5.3% 4.8% 3.6% 2.6% (10)-(5) 6.3% 5.0% 3.7% 2.6%
(5)-0 10.1% 10.7% 10.4% 9.8% (5)-0 11.1% 12.4% 11.7% 12.1% (5)-0 12.4% 14.3% 14.4% 15.0%
0-5 20.6% 25.7% 29.6% 36.8% 0-5 22.1% 27.2% 31.9% 40.0% 0-5 22.1% 26.8% 31.3% 40.1%
5-10 19.6% 23.8% 27.0% 31.2% 5-10 18.7% 22.6% 26.9% 28.8% 5-10 17.9% 22.8% 25.2% 28.1%
10-15 12.4% 13.1% 13.6% 12.3% 10-15 12.2% 12.5% 12.0% 9.8% 10-15 11.4% 11.7% 12.3% 8.7%
15-20 7.4% 7.0% 6.2% 4.0% 15-20 7.1% 6.5% 5.4% 4.1% 15-20 7.0% 7.0% 5.2% 3.2%
20-25 4.1% 4.0% 3.4% 1.6% 20-25 4.8% 4.2% 3.2% 1.1% 20-25 4.7% 3.3% 2.6% 0.8%
25-30 3.4% 2.9% 2.1% 0.7% 25-30 2.9% 2.4% 1.7% 0.8% 25-30 2.9% 2.0% 1.4% 0.4%
30-35 2.2% 1.7% 0.9% 0.3% 30-35 2.0% 1.3% 0.6% 0.1% 30-35 1.6% 1.3% 0.5% 0.0%
35-40 1.6% 1.0% 0.6% 0.1% 35-40 1.4% 0.9% 0.3% 0.1% 35-40 1.2% 0.7% 0.2% 0.0%
40-45 1.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.2% 40-45 0.8% 0.6% 0.2% 0.1% 40-45 0.7% 0.4% 0.3% 0.0%
>45 5.8% 2.3% 0.7% 0.1% >45 4.8% 1.3% 0.4% 0.0% >45 4.0% 0.8% 0.2% 0.0%
Mean 12.3% 8.6% 7.2% 5.7% Mean 10.0% 7.2% 6.2% 5.1% Mean 8.8% 6.4% 5.4% 4.4%

September 26, 2016
<(25) 1.8% 0.5% 0.2% 0.0% <(25) 2.0% 0.5% 0.3% 0.0% <(25) 2.6% 0.9% 0.3% 0.0%
(25)-(20) 1.0% 0.7% 0.2% 0.1% (25)-(20) 1.2% 0.5% 0.3% 0.1% (25)-(20) 1.4% 0.6% 0.6% 0.1%
(20)-(15) 1.6% 1.0% 0.6% 0.1% (20)-(15) 1.9% 1.2% 0.7% 0.6% (20)-(15) 2.3% 1.9% 1.2% 0.5%
(15)-(10) 3.8% 2.7% 1.9% 1.0% (15)-(10) 3.6% 3.0% 2.3% 1.0% (15)-(10) 3.8% 2.9% 2.5% 1.4%
(10)-(5) 6.7% 5.6% 4.5% 4.1% (10)-(5) 8.0% 7.2% 6.3% 4.4% (10)-(5) 8.2% 7.7% 6.4% 5.7%
(5)-0 12.9% 14.8% 15.6% 15.5% (5)-0 14.4% 16.8% 17.7% 18.5% (5)-0 16.5% 19.4% 19.7% 20.2%
0-5 21.8% 28.4% 33.2% 40.8% 0-5 21.9% 27.7% 31.9% 40.8% 0-5 22.5% 27.9% 33.3% 41.7%
5-10 19.0% 20.8% 23.1% 26.5% 5-10 18.4% 20.4% 23.5% 25.1% 5-10 17.5% 19.6% 21.1% 20.8%
10-15 11.2% 11.0% 10.5% 7.7% 10-15 10.9% 10.4% 9.5% 6.3% 10-15 9.5% 8.9% 8.2% 6.3%
15-20 6.4% 6.2% 5.6% 2.7% 15-20 5.5% 5.4% 4.0% 2.1% 15-20 4.9% 4.4% 3.6% 2.5%
20-25 3.8% 3.6% 2.2% 0.8% 20-25 3.7% 3.1% 1.5% 0.7% 20-25 3.0% 2.6% 1.7% 0.6%
25-30 2.8% 1.9% 1.1% 0.5% 25-30 2.2% 1.5% 1.2% 0.3% 25-30 2.3% 1.2% 0.7% 0.1%
30-35 1.7% 1.1% 0.6% 0.2% 30-35 1.6% 1.0% 0.5% 0.1% 30-35 1.4% 0.9% 0.4% 0.1%
35-40 0.9% 0.5% 0.3% 0.0% 35-40 0.9% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 35-40 0.8% 0.4% 0.3% 0.0%
40-45 0.8% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 40-45 0.8% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 40-45 0.5% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0%
>45 3.8% 1.0% 0.3% 0.0% >45 3.1% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% >45 2.6% 0.5% 0.1% 0.1%
Mean 7.9% 5.7% 5.0% 3.9% Mean 6.8% 4.7% 3.9% 3.3% Mean 5.8% 3.8% 3.3% 2.9%
<(25) 3.6% 1.6% 1.0% 0.1% <(25) 4.0% 2.0% 1.6% 0.0% <(25) 1.9% 0.6% 0.3% 0.0%
(25)-(20) 1.5% 0.8% 0.6% 0.2% (25)-(20) 1.9% 0.8% 1.0% 0.3% (25)-(20) 1.0% 0.4% 0.3% 0.1%
(20)-(15) 2.4% 2.0% 1.5% 0.8% (20)-(15) 2.6% 2.3% 1.5% 1.0% (20)-(15) 1.7% 1.0% 0.7% 0.3%
(15)-(10) 4.8% 3.8% 3.0% 2.5% (15)-(10) 5.0% 4.2% 2.7% 3.1% (15)-(10) 3.2% 2.2% 1.6% 0.9%
(10)-(5) 9.1% 9.0% 8.2% 9.0% (10)-(5) 10.1% 10.7% 9.3% 9.8% (10)-(5) 6.2% 5.2% 4.2% 3.2%
(5)-0 16.6% 19.8% 21.3% 22.9% (5)-0 16.9% 21.4% 22.8% 26.9% (5)-0 12.2% 13.2% 12.9% 12.4%
0-5 21.8% 26.9% 32.6% 37.1% 0-5 21.8% 26.5% 34.0% 37.8% 0-5 20.6% 25.2% 28.8% 34.2%
5-10 15.9% 18.2% 18.1% 20.2% 5-10 15.0% 16.9% 16.9% 17.2% 5-10 17.8% 21.3% 24.2% 28.3%
10-15 9.0% 9.1% 8.5% 5.8% 10-15 8.6% 9.2% 7.0% 3.0% 10-15 11.4% 12.3% 12.6% 11.6%
15-20 5.6% 4.3% 3.2% 1.3% 15-20 5.1% 3.2% 2.3% 0.9% 15-20 6.8% 6.7% 6.0% 4.5%
20-25 3.2% 2.2% 1.2% 0.2% 20-25 3.3% 1.6% 0.6% 0.0% 20-25 4.5% 3.9% 3.1% 2.0%
25-30 2.3% 1.1% 0.4% 0.0% 25-30 2.3% 0.7% 0.3% 0.0% 25-30 2.9% 2.3% 1.9% 1.1%
30-35 1.1% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 30-35 1.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 30-35 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.6%
35-40 0.7% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 35-40 0.6% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 35-40 1.3% 1.0% 0.7% 0.3%
40-45 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 40-45 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 40-45 1.1% 0.7% 0.5% 0.2%
>45 1.9% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% >45 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% >45 5.5% 2.5% 1.3% 0.3%
Mean 3.6% 2.4% 2.1% 1.7% Mean 2.3% 1.2% 1.0% 0.8% Mean 14.8% 8.1% 6.9% 5.8%

September 26, 2016
each of the reference classes. Bear in mind that these data are adjusted for inflation and that most forecasts
reflect inflation expectations. We will show how to incorporate these base rates into your forecasts for sales
growth in a moment. For now, it’s useful to acknowledge the utility of these data as an analytical guide and a
valuable reality check.
Getting to the proper reference class is crucial, but there are some useful observations about the whole that
are worth noting. To begin, as firm size increases the mean and median growth rates decline, as does the
standard deviation of the growth rates. This point has been well established empirically.12 Exhibit 5 shows this
pattern for annualized growth rates over three years. The lesson is to temper expectations about sales growth
as companies get larger.

45
40
Sales 3-Year CAGR (Percent)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >$50B >$100B Full
Universe
Decile (Smallest to Largest by Sales) Mega
Exhibit 6 shows that sales growth follows gross domestic product (GDP) reasonably closely. U.S. GDP growth
and the median sales growth in the same year have a correlation coefficient of 0.66. (Positive correlations fall
in the range of 0 to 1.0, where 0 is random and 1.0 is a perfect correlation.) From 1950-2015, U.S. GDP
grew at 3.2 percent per year, adjusted for inflation, with a standard deviation of 2.4 percent.
Corporate sales growth was higher than that of the broader economy for a few reasons. First, companies
growing rapidly often need access to capital and hence choose to go public, likely creating a selection bias.
Second, some companies, including contract manufacturers, generate growth that is not captured in the GDP
figures. Finally, some companies grow outside the U.S., which shows up in sales growth but fails to be
reflected in GDP.13

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 6: Median Sales Growth Is Correlated with GDP Growth, 1950-2015

15 r = 0.66
Annual Real Sales Growth (Percent)

10
0
-5 0 5 10
-5
®
Source: Credit Suisse HOLT and Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Note: Sales growth is for the top 1,000 global companies by market capitalization in each year.
had negative sales growth rates for 3 years, after an adjustment for inflation, and 20 percent shrank for 5
years. Whereas a decline in sales need not be bad if it occurs for the right reasons, few analysts or corporate
leaders project shrinking sales unless there is a clear strategy of divestiture.14
Sales and Total Shareholder Returns
Sales growth is moderately hard to forecast and has only a moderate positive correlation with total shareholder
return. Exhibit 7 shows that the correlation coefficient is 0.20 for 1 year, 0.25 for 3 years, and 0.28 for 5
years. It is easier to forecast sales growth than earnings growth, but the payoff to getting earnings right,
especially over the long haul, is much larger.
Exhibit 7: Correlation between Sales Growth Rates and Total Shareholder Returns over 1-, 3-, and
5-Year Horizons
r = 0.20 r = 0.25 r = 0.28
150 70 50
125 60
40
50
100 30
40
75 20
30
50 20 10
25 10
0
0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 -10
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 -10
-25 -20
-20
-50 -30 -30
Sales Growth 1 Year (Percent) Sales Growth 3 Years (Percent) Sales Growth 5 Years (Percent)

Note: Calculations use annual data on a rolling 1-, 3-, and 5-year basis; Winsorized at 2nd and 98th percentiles; Growth rates and TSRs annualized.

September 26, 2016
Using Base Rates to Model Sales Growth
Studying base rates for sales growth is logical for two reasons. First, sales growth is the most important driver
of value for most companies. Second, sales growth has a higher correlation from year to year than does
earnings growth, which is the most commonly discussed item on the income statement.15 Sales growth is
important and more predictable than profit growth.
As we discussed in the introduction, we can examine the correlation coefficient (r) to gain insight into the rate
of regression toward the mean. In this case, we consider the correlation in sales growth rates over two
different periods. Recall that a correlation near zero implies rapid regression toward the mean and a correlation
near one implies very modest regression.
Exhibit 8 shows that the correlation coefficient is 0.30 for the year-to-year sales growth rate.16 This includes
the top 1,000 global companies by market capitalization from 1950 to 2015. Roughly 55,000 company years
are in the data, and all of the figures are adjusted for inflation.

75
r = 0.30
60
Sales Growth Next Year (Percent)
45
30
15
0
-30 -15 0 15 30 45 60 75 90
-15
-30
Sales Growth 1 Year (Percent)
®
Source: Credit Suisse HOLT and Credit Suisse.
Not surprisingly, the correlations are lower for longer time periods. Exhibit 9 shows the correlations for one-,
three-, and five-year horizons for the full population of companies. The base rate for the reference classes,
the median growth rate, should receive the majority of the weight for forecasts of three years or longer. In fact,
you might start with the base rate and seek reasons to move away from it.

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 9: Correlation of Sales Growth Rates for 1-, 3-, and 5-Year Horizons
0.40
0.30
Correlation 0.19
0.17
(r)
0.00
Period
Note: Calculations use annual data on a rolling 1-, 3-, and 5-year basis; Winsorized at 2nd and 98th percentiles.
This approach to modelling regression toward the mean does not say that some companies will not grow
rapidly and others will not shrink. We know that companies will fill the tails of the distribution. What it does say
is that the best forecast for a large sample of companies is something close to the median, and that
companies that anticipate sales growth well in excess of the median are likely to be disappointed.
Exhibit 1 shows the current expectations for sales growth over three years for a thousand public companies
around the world. The median expected growth rate is 1.7 percent. Exhibit 10 represents the three-year sales
growth rates, adjusted for inflation, which analysts expect for ten companies with sales in excess of $50 billion.
We superimposed the expected growth rates on the distribution of historical sales growth rates for the
reference class of mega companies.

September 26, 2016
30
Fiat Chrysler Nestlé
25
Frequency (Percent) Hon Hai Precision
Boeing
20 Target PetroChina
15 BASF
10
HSBC Holdings Alphabet
5
Amazon.com
0
5-10
15-20
(5)-0
10-15
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-45
(10)-(5)
<(25)
(20)-(15)
0-5
>45
(25)-(20)
(15)-(10)
CAGR (Percent)
Source: Credit Suisse HOLT® and FactSet Estimates.
Analysts expect negative sales growth for five of the ten. The standard deviation of growth rates for this small
sample is 9.4 percent.

September 26, 2016
Appendix: Observations for Each Base Rate by Decile, 1950-2015

<(25) 92 27 18 0 <(25) 58 13 5 0 <(25) 85 21 12 7
(25)-(20) 43 12 8 2 (25)-(20) 27 17 5 1 (25)-(20) 47 15 16 4
(20)-(15) 67 22 20 14 (20)-(15) 66 34 24 6 (20)-(15) 71 38 25 10
(15)-(10) 104 60 28 27 (15)-(10) 143 61 42 30 (15)-(10) 140 92 62 36
(10)-(5) 219 110 70 41 (10)-(5) 252 148 111 93 (10)-(5) 246 177 162 99
(5)-0 451 360 266 200 (5)-0 503 459 397 334 (5)-0 531 480 429 407
0-5 893 928 967 960 0-5 1,104 1,345 1,397 1,395 0-5 1,015 1,189 1,297 1,415
5-10 923 1,159 1,322 1,684 5-10 1,079 1,321 1,584 1,843 5-10 949 1,188 1,297 1,420
10-15 764 919 1,089 1,169 10-15 765 913 911 857 10-15 637 729 746 655
15-20 556 629 605 601 15-20 450 450 434 300 15-20 411 415 355 215
20-25 412 386 400 356 20-25 364 270 209 141 20-25 270 219 204 90
25-30 259 274 289 243 25-30 200 149 126 65 25-30 160 147 110 48
30-35 229 197 189 154 30-35 120 115 87 38 30-35 145 97 49 13
35-40 151 169 177 103 35-40 102 77 49 13 35-40 93 77 47 6
40-45 137 119 114 64 40-45 77 59 40 4 40-45 75 43 20 2
>45 943 686 432 122 >45 421 178 75 3 >45 319 112 44 2

<(25) 66 16 15 1 <(25) 65 19 11 0 <(25) 82 22 7 1
(25)-(20) 42 18 7 2 (25)-(20) 48 12 5 3 (25)-(20) 51 18 7 1
(20)-(15) 66 34 17 15 (20)-(15) 77 41 17 3 (20)-(15) 96 43 32 1
(15)-(10) 132 85 46 27 (15)-(10) 132 72 52 13 (15)-(10) 180 98 80 31
(10)-(5) 250 182 139 73 (10)-(5) 256 220 153 96 (10)-(5) 330 246 172 101
(5)-0 492 502 465 390 (5)-0 531 563 501 441 (5)-0 646 697 664 574
0-5 1,002 1,200 1,330 1,466 0-5 1,061 1,234 1,368 1,462 0-5 1,150 1,311 1,438 1,534
5-10 956 1,114 1,213 1,242 5-10 898 1,025 1,154 1,055 5-10 932 1,113 1,160 1,073
10-15 602 614 612 489 10-15 587 569 516 360 10-15 593 574 565 334
15-20 360 327 280 161 15-20 341 295 232 150 15-20 365 343 241 124
20-25 201 185 152 63 20-25 228 189 137 40 20-25 245 163 118 31
25-30 166 137 94 26 25-30 139 111 75 28 25-30 150 98 66 15
30-35 108 81 42 12 30-35 98 61 27 4 30-35 86 65 22 1
35-40 76 46 28 4 35-40 65 42 14 2 35-40 62 36 7 1
40-45 71 24 19 7 40-45 39 28 7 2 40-45 39 22 12 0
>45 284 108 33 3 >45 230 58 18 0 >45 207 41 8 0

September 26, 2016

<(25) 105 24 11 1 <(25) 132 28 18 2 <(25) 176 52 15 1
(25)-(20) 58 36 9 5 (25)-(20) 79 30 14 6 (25)-(20) 94 37 30 2
(20)-(15) 93 54 31 4 (20)-(15) 121 74 37 24 (20)-(15) 154 113 67 20
(15)-(10) 218 139 89 38 (15)-(10) 233 177 126 42 (15)-(10) 257 175 133 53
(10)-(5) 378 294 215 160 (10)-(5) 520 429 344 183 (10)-(5) 553 468 345 223
(5)-0 732 772 747 603 (5)-0 934 1,005 968 776 (5)-0 1,111 1,172 1,064 789
0-5 1,239 1,484 1,595 1,591 0-5 1,427 1,660 1,739 1,714 0-5 1,513 1,685 1,798 1,629
5-10 1,080 1,090 1,110 1,034 5-10 1,196 1,220 1,280 1,052 5-10 1,182 1,183 1,140 814
10-15 634 575 504 299 10-15 707 622 518 264 10-15 643 541 442 246
15-20 363 322 267 104 15-20 357 321 219 87 15-20 331 266 195 99
20-25 215 189 106 33 20-25 241 183 81 30 20-25 205 156 90 24
25-30 159 99 51 20 25-30 140 92 66 11 25-30 157 74 39 4
30-35 98 58 28 6 30-35 103 59 25 5 30-35 95 56 23 2
35-40 53 25 13 0 35-40 60 26 10 2 35-40 56 22 14 0
40-45 43 20 8 0 40-45 51 16 6 0 40-45 35 18 1 0
>45 216 50 15 0 >45 203 42 7 0 >45 176 29 6 3

<(25) 212 83 44 2 <(25) 100 43 29 0 <(25) 1,073 305 156 15
(25)-(20) 88 44 29 5 (25)-(20) 48 17 18 3 (25)-(20) 577 239 130 31
(20)-(15) 143 105 67 24 (20)-(15) 64 49 28 11 (20)-(15) 954 558 337 121
(15)-(10) 281 197 134 72 (15)-(10) 124 91 49 34 (15)-(10) 1,820 1,156 792 369
(10)-(5) 536 470 365 260 (10)-(5) 251 230 169 108 (10)-(5) 3,540 2,744 2,076 1,329
(5)-0 981 1,027 952 662 (5)-0 421 461 412 296 (5)-0 6,912 7,037 6,453 5,176
0-5 1,289 1,398 1,457 1,070 0-5 542 571 616 415 0-5 11,693 13,434 14,386 14,236
5-10 942 946 808 582 5-10 373 364 305 189 5-10 10,137 11,359 12,068 11,799
10-15 532 474 381 166 10-15 213 198 126 33 10-15 6,464 6,530 6,284 4,839
15-20 328 221 143 37 15-20 126 69 41 10 15-20 3,862 3,589 2,971 1,878
20-25 189 112 55 6 20-25 82 34 11 0 20-25 2,570 2,052 1,552 814
25-30 136 55 18 0 25-30 56 14 5 0 25-30 1,666 1,236 934 460
30-35 63 20 10 0 30-35 28 2 1 0 30-35 1,145 809 502 235
35-40 40 23 5 0 35-40 14 7 0 0 35-40 758 543 364 131
40-45 32 8 3 0 40-45 10 2 0 0 40-45 599 357 230 79
>45 114 14 1 0 >45 32 0 0 0 >45 3,113 1,318 639 133
Source: Credit Suisse HOLT®

September 26, 2016
Gross Profitability
Total Return for the Highest and Lowest Quintiles of Profitability (1990-January 2016)
25
20 Highest
Universe
Lowest
15
10
0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

September 26, 2016
Why Gross Profitability Is Important
Benjamin Graham, the father of security analysis, spent some time with an aeronautical engineer named
James Rea in the 1970s. Together, they developed a screen to find attractive stocks that had ten criteria.
Because it was toward the end of Graham’s life, some refer to the list as Graham’s “last will.”1 About one-half
of the measures were based on valuation, consistent with Graham’s value orientation. But the other half
addressed quality. So a company that passed the screen would be both statistically cheap and of high quality.
Gross profitability is a measure of a company’s ability to make money. Robert Novy-Marx, a professor of
finance at the Simon Business School at the University of Rochester, defines gross profitability as revenues
minus cost of goods sold, scaled by the book value of total assets. In other words, gross profitability is gross
profit divided by assets. Investors can use gross profitability as a proxy for quality and it is not positively
correlated with classic measures of value.2
Research shows that gross profitability is highly persistent in the short and long run. This means that you can
make a reasonable estimate of future profitability based on the past. Academic research also shows that firms
with high gross profitability deliver better total shareholder returns than those with low profitability. This is
despite the fact that they start with loftier price-to-book ratios.3
Many academics and practitioners now incorporate gross profitability into their asset pricing models. For
instance, Eugene Fama, a professor at the University of Chicago and a winner of the Nobel Prize, and
Kenneth French, a professor of finance at the Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College, include
profitability as one of the factors that helps explain changes in asset prices. The others include beta (a
measure of the sensitivity of an asset’s returns to market returns), size, valuation, and investment.4 The
definition of profitability that Fama and French use differs somewhat from that of Novy-Marx but captures the
same essence.
The power of profitability to explain total shareholder returns appears to be a global phenomenon.5 Using
Compustat data (July 1963 to December 2010) and Compustat Global data (July 1990 to October 2009),
Novy-Marx found that the stocks of more profitable firms outperformed the stocks of less profitable firms in
the United States as well as in developed markets outside the U.S. Both samples exclude stocks of
companies in the financial services sector. These results are consistent with a study that examined the effect
of gross profitability on total shareholder returns in 41 countries from 1980 to 2010.6
Gross profitability may also be a useful factor to screen for in a search for attractive stocks. Profitability can
provide a very different signal than a price-earnings (P/E) multiple, which is the most common metric analysts
use to value stocks. A stock that appears unattractive using a P/E multiple may look attractive using gross
profitability, and a stock that appears unattractive using gross profitability may look attractive using a P/E
multiple.
Take Amazon.com as a case. The stock had a trailing P/E multiple of roughly 540 at year-end 2015 based
on a price of $676 on December 31 and full-year reported earnings per share of $1.25. For context, the P/E
multiple was 20 for the S&P 500 at the same time. Based purely on its P/E multiple, the valuation of
Amazon.com appeared high.
The company’s gross profitability told a different story. For 2015, Amazon.com’s gross profitability was 0.54
(gross profit of $35 billion and total assets of $65 billion). According to Novy-Marx, gross profitability of 0.33
or higher is generally attractive.7 Not only did Amazon.com’s recent gross profitability surpass that level easily,
it has been well above that threshold for most of the company’s history (see Exhibit 1).

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 1: Amazon.com’s Gross Profitability, 1997-2015

0.60
0.50
Gross Profitability
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015
Source: FactSet.
Persistence of Gross Profitability
Exhibit 2 shows that the Novy-Marx definition of gross profitability is very persistent over one-, three-, and
five-year periods. For example, the correlation between profitability in the current year and three years in the
future has a coefficient, r, of 0.89 (middle panel of Exhibit 2). But even the five-year correlation is high at
0.82 (right panel).
This universe includes the top 1,000 firms in the world from 1950 to 2015 as measured by market
capitalization. The sample includes dead companies but excludes firms in the financial services and utilities
sectors. The data include more than 40,000 company years, and there is no need to take into account
inflation because profitability is expressed as a ratio.
Exhibit 2: Persistence of Gross Profitability

3.5
r = 0.95 3.5
r = 0.89 3.5
r = 0.82
3.0 3.0 3.0

2.5 2.5 2.5
2.0 2.0 2.0
1.5 1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0 0.0

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
-0.5 -0.5 -0.5
-1.0 -1.0 -1.0

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 3 shows the stability of gross profitability. We start by sorting companies into quintiles based on gross
profitability at the beginning of a year. We then follow the gross profitability for each of the five cohorts. There
is very little regression toward the mean. The spread from the highest to the lowest quintile shrinks only
slightly, from 0.54 to 0.49. Given this stability, a sensible forecast is to start with last year’s profitability and
seek reasons to move away from it.
Exhibit 3: Regression Toward the Mean for Gross Profitability

0.4
Relative Gross Profitability (Medians)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
1 2 3 4 5
Year
®
Gross Profitability and Total Shareholder Returns
Exhibit 4 shows that the correlation between gross profitability and total shareholder return (TSR) is 0.06 for
one year, 0.18 for three years, and 0.24 for five years. However, neither Novy-Marx nor Fama and French
recommend a simple correlation between gross profitability and TSR.
Exhibit 4: Predictive Value of Gross Profitability

r = 0.06 r = 0.18 r = 0.24
200 70 50

60 40
150 50
30
40
100 30 20
20 10
50 10 0
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 -10
0 -10
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 -20
-20
-50 -30 -30
Gross Profitability Gross Profitability 3-Year Average Gross Profitability 5-Year Average

Note: Winsorized at 2nd and 98th percentiles; TSRs annualized.

September 26, 2016
A more effective way to use gross profitability is to rank stocks in quintiles by gross profitability and to build
portfolios for each. Exhibit 5 shows the cumulative growth in value of $1 for the quintiles with the highest and
lowest ratios of gross profitability, as well as that for the whole universe. The sample includes the largest
1,000 U.S. industrial and service companies from 1990 through January 2016. The portfolios are rebalanced
monthly.
Exhibit 5: Total Return for the Highest and Lowest Quintiles of Profitability (1990-January 2016)
25
20 Highest
Universe
Lowest
15
10
0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Note: Gross profitability is calculated using the average of the assets at the beginning and the end of the fiscal year.
Base Rates of Gross Profitability by Sector
We can refine this analysis by examining gross profitability at the sector level. This reduces the sample size but
improves its relevance. We present a guide for calculating the rate of regression toward the mean, as well as
the proper mean to use, for eight sectors. We exclude the financial services and utilities sectors.
Exhibit 6 examines gross profitability for two sectors, consumer discretionary and energy. The panels at the
top show the persistence of gross profitability for the consumer discretionary sector. On the right, we see that
the correlation between gross profitability in the base year and five years in the future is 0.77.
that the correlation between gross profitability in the base year and five years in the future is 0.61. This
suggests you should expect a slower rate of regression toward the mean in the consumer discretionary sector

September 26, 2016
r = 0.95 r = 0.88 r = 0.77
2.5 2.5 2.5
2.0 2.0 2.0


1.5 1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0 0.0

-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
-0.5 -0.5 -0.5
Energy
r = 0.89 r = 0.75 r = 0.61
2.5 2.5 2.5
2.0 2.0 2.0


1.5 1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0 0.0

-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
-0.5 -0.5 -0.5
Exhibit 7 shows the correlation coefficient for five-year changes in gross profitability for eight sectors from
of regression toward the mean by sector. A high r suggests slow regression, and a low r means more rapid
regression. Consumer-oriented sectors generally have higher r’s, and sectors with more exposure to
technology or commodities have lower r’s.
discretionary sector was 0.10. With a correlation coefficient of 0.77, that means 68 percent of the
observations fell within a range of 0.67 and 0.87. The standard deviation for the energy sector was 0.18.
With a correlation coefficient of 0.61, that means 68 percent of the observations fell within a range of 0.43
and 0.79.

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 7: Correlation Coefficients for Gross Profitability for Eight Sectors, 1950-2015
Five-Year Correlation Standard
Materials 0.76 0.14
Energy 0.61 0.18
Note: Figures for telecommunication services reflect 1960-2015.
for eight sectors based on more than 60 years of data. Keep in mind that regression toward the mean works
on a population but not necessarily on every individual company.
The third and fourth columns show the median and mean, or average, gross profitability for each sector. We
include medians because the gross profitability in many sectors does not follow a normal distribution. (When
the average is higher than the median, the distribution is skewed to the right.) Still, the means are only 5-10
percent higher than the medians.
captures dispersion. The coefficient of variation equals the standard deviation of gross profitability divided by
average gross profitability. It is not surprising that gross profitability is higher and less volatile in consumer
discretionary than it is in energy.
Exhibit 8: Rate of Regression and toward What Mean Gross Profitability Reverts for Eight Sectors
How Much Regression? Toward What Mean?
Five-Year Correlation Standard Coefficient of
Industrials 0.79 0.28 0.30 0.07 0.23
Health Care 0.77 0.47 0.49 0.09 0.18
Materials 0.76 0.25 0.28 0.04 0.14
Energy 0.61 0.22 0.24 0.04 0.18
Note: “Standard deviation” is the standard deviation of the annual average gross profitability for the sector.

September 26, 2016
Operating Leverage
Framework for Assessing Operating Leverage

Value trigger Value factor Value driver Financial leverage Earnings
Volume
Price & mix Operating Financial

Sales Earnings
margin leverage
Operating leverage β β
Economies of scale
Cost
Cost efficiencies
Source: Alfred Rappaport and Michael J. Mauboussin, Expectations Investing: Reading Stock Prices for Better Returns (Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press, 2001), 41.

September 26, 2016
Why Operating Leverage Is Important
Sources of revisions in expectations include fundamental outcomes (typically earnings revisions) and an
assessment of how the market will value those fundamentals (multiple expansion or contraction).1 Investors
who are able to forecast earnings in a year’s time that are substantially different than today’s expectations can
earn meaningful excess returns.2
Analysts are commonly too optimistic about earnings growth and often miss estimates by a wide margin.3 This
is especially pronounced for companies that have high operating leverage and surprise the market with weak
sales.4 Buy-side analysts are generally more optimistic and less accurate than sell-side analysts.5
Operating leverage measures the change in operating profit as a function of the change in sales. Operating
leverage is high when a company realizes a relatively large change in operating profit for every dollar of change
in sales. Operating leverage is low when operating profit is mostly unchanged for every dollar of change in
sales. Operating profit is earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) and is the same as operating income.
We outline a systematic way to assess earnings revisions with a specific emphasis on operating leverage. The
goal is to be able to better anticipate revisions in expectations. The issue of operating leverage does not
receive enough attention, in our view, and it can provide insight into excess returns. For instance, there is
empirical evidence that operating leverage can help explain the value premium.6
Exhibit 1 is the roadmap for this analysis. The process starts on the left side with an analysis of the change in
sales. Sales changes, in turn, can be refined using “value factors” to determine the impact on operating profit.
The value factors are based on established microeconomic principles. Consideration of sales changes and the
role of the value factors allows you to calculate operating leverage, or “operating margin beta (β).” You can
then incorporate the degree of financial leverage to determine the variability of earnings.
The main utility of exhibit 1 is to allow you to understand the cause and effect of changes in earnings. The
interaction between sales and operating profit is crucial. Not all sales growth has the same effect on
profitability. Note that you can use the roadmap to analyze the past as well as to anticipate the future.
Exhibit 1: Framework for Assessing Operating Leverage

Value trigger Value factor Value driver Financial leverage Earnings
Volume
Price & mix Operating Financial

Sales Earnings
margin leverage
Operating leverage β β
Economies of scale
Cost
Cost efficiencies
Source: Alfred Rappaport and Michael J. Mauboussin, Expectations Investing: Reading Stock Prices for Better Returns (Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press, 2001), 41.

September 26, 2016
The easiest way to think about operating leverage is as the ratio of fixed to variable costs. Fixed costs are
costs that a company must bear irrespective of its sales level. If sales shrink, fixed costs don’t budge and
profits fall sharply. Conversely, profits rise substantially if sales grow. Theme parks are an example of a
business with high operating leverage. Roughly three-quarters of the costs for that business are fixed, with
labor as the largest component.7
Variable costs are linked to output. These costs rise and fall in tandem with sales. The commissions a
company pays to its sales force are an example of a variable cost. Commissions move together with sales,
limiting the degree of operating leverage.
Exhibit 2 illustrates the impact that sales changes have on operating profit margins for businesses with high
(75 percent) or low (25 percent) fixed costs. The operating profit margin is 20 percent for both businesses
when sales are $10 million. At $25 million of sales, the high-fixed-cost business sees its operating profit
margin soar to nearly 60 percent, while the low-fixed-cost business has an operating profit margin of only
slightly above 30 percent. At $5 million of sales, however, the business with high fixed costs loses money and
records a margin of -40 percent, while the business with low variable costs breaks even.
Exhibit 2: Cost Structure Composition and Operating Profit Scalability

60 75% Fixed / 25% Variable
Operating Profit Margin (Percent)
40
20 25% Fixed / 75% Variable
-20
-40
-60
5 10 15 20 25
Sales ($ Millions)
Note: Cost structure based on $10 million in sales.
Exhibit 3 shows the ratio of fixed assets to total assets by sector. A fixed asset is not sold or consumed during
the normal course of business. Examples include land, manufacturing plants, and acquired intangibles. The
basic idea is that companies that rely on a high ratio of fixed to total assets have high fixed costs. There is a
positive correlation between the ratio of fixed assets to total assets and operating leverage.

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 3: Fixed Assets to Total Assets by Sector
Energy
Materials
Industrials
Telecommunication Services
Health Care
Information Technology
Consumer Staples
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Fixed Assets to Total Assets
Source: Aswath Damodaran.
Note: Global companies as of January 2016; Fixed-to-total asset ratio for each sector is the average of the industries in that sector.
It is important to underscore that all costs are variable in the long run. While the distinction between fixed and
variable costs is practical and useful for modeling purposes, companies can reduce fixed and variable costs if
sales decline.8 Further, growth eventually dilutes the advantage of an incumbent in a business with high fixed
costs, because the ratio of fixed to variable costs declines as the industry grows.9
Exhibit 4 shows the drivers of operating profit changes for the largest 1,000 global companies, by market
capitalization, for the last 65 years. The sample excludes companies in the financial services and utility
industries. Operating leverage is particularly pronounced in periods of recession and subsequent recovery.
Exhibit 4: Drivers of Operating Profit for Top 1,000 Companies, 1950-2015

50
Change in Operating Margin
40 Change in Sales
Change in Operating Profit
Annual Change (Percent)
30
20
10
-10
-20
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

September 26, 2016
The rest of this report has four parts. We start with the drivers of sales growth. We then discuss the value
factors, which determine the impact of sales changes on operating profit. Next we review the empirical results
of our analysis of operating margin β, or how the change in operating profit relates to the change in sales. We
conclude with data on financial leverage. Companies with debt incur interest expense, which serves to amplify
the changes in operating earnings. Companies with high operating and financial leverage have greater swings
in earnings, and hence risk, than those with low operating and financial leverage.10
Sales Growth as an Input
We can forecast sales growth using a number of approaches. One logical starting point is overall economic
growth. The left panel of exhibit 5 shows the correlation between annual growth in gross domestic product
(GDP) in the United States and the median sales growth rate for the top 1,000 global companies by market
capitalization from 1950-2015. The right panel is the relationship between growth in industrial production (IP)
in the United States and sales growth, both adjusted for inflation. GDP and IP are highly correlated.
Exhibit 5: Median Sales Growth Is Correlated with GDP and IP Growth, 1950-2015
r = 0.66 r = 0.74
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
-5 0 5 10 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
-5 -5
Annual Real GDP Growth (Percent) Annual Industrial Production Growth (Percent)
®
Source: Credit Suisse HOLT ; Bureau of Economic Analysis; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Naturally, some sectors are more sensitive to overall economic growth than others. Exhibit 6 shows the
correlation between annual U.S. GDP growth and median annual sales growth for eight sectors. The
consumer discretionary and industrial sectors have relatively high correlations with GDP, while consumer
staples and health care have correlations that are relatively low.

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 6: Sales Growth versus U.S. GDP Growth by Sector, 1950-2015

Consumer Discretionary Consumer Staples Energy
20 12 25
18 r = 0.79 r = 0.42 r = 0.10
10
16 15
14 8
12 5
6
10
8 4 -5
6
2
4 -15
2 0
0 -25
-2
-2
Annual Sales Growth (Percent)

-4 -4 -35
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Annual GDP Growth (Percent) Annual GDP Growth (Percent) Annual GDP Growth (Percent)
Health Care Industrials Information Technology

18 20 r = 0.75 50
r = 0.52 r = 0.49
16 45
14 15 40
12 35
10 30
10
25
8 5
20
6 15
4 0
10
2 -5 5
0 0


-2 -10 -5
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Annual GDP Growth (Percent) Annual GDP Growth (Percent) Annual GDP Growth (Percent)
Materials Telecommunication Services

25 25
r = 0.53 r = 0.47
20
20
15
10 15
5
10
0
-5 5
-10
0
-15

-20 -5
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Annual GDP Growth (Percent) Annual GDP Growth (Percent)
Note: Growth rates are adjusted for inflation. Sector growth rates are calculated using medians. Telecommunication Services includes 1960-2015.

September 26, 2016
Industry growth is the primary factor that analysts consider when they make sales forecasts.11 There are a
number of issues to consider when assessing industry growth.12 The first is where the industry is in its life
cycle.13 Industry growth tends to follow an S-curve, where there is rapid sales growth for a time followed by
flattened sales growth. Industries have different rates of growth as well as variations in growth rates.14
One common analytical mistake is to extrapolate high growth in the middle of an S-curve. One famous
example is the production of color television sets, which were launched in the late 1950s and reached a sales
peak in 1968. The industry grew rapidly in the 1960s, which encouraged manufacturers to add capacity. But
they extrapolated the sharp growth and failed to recognize the top of the S-curve. The result was
manufacturing capacity in the later 1960s of 14 million units and peak unit sales of 6 million units. A sensible
judgment of the number of potential customers multiplied by the revenue per customer informs the
assessment of industry size.
Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) are also important in determining sales growth. One study of the sales growth
of large companies found that M&A accounted for about one-third of total top-line gain.15 Large M&A deals
merit careful analysis because they can change the nature of a company’s operating leverage. However, the
evidence shows it is challenging to create substantial value through M&A.16
Changes in a company’s market share within an industry also influence sales growth rates. Market shares
tend to be volatile in emerging industries, as technological change is rapid and entry and exit is rampant.17 But
market shares tend to settle down as an industry matures. There is a positive correlation between market
share and profitability. But there is also evidence that corporate objectives focused on competitors, including
market share targets, are mostly harmful to a firm’s profitability.18
Sales growth is the most important value driver for most companies because it is the largest source of cash
and affects four of the value factors. But it is important to emphasize that sales growth, profit growth, and
value creation are distinct. Sales growth only creates value when a company earns a rate of return on
investment that is above the cost of capital. As a result, companies can grow profits without creating value.
Indeed, sales growth destroys value for a company earning a return below the cost of capital.
The threshold margin is the level of operating profit margin at which a company earns its cost of capital.22 To
break even in terms of economic value, a company with higher capital intensity requires a higher operating
profit margin than a company with lower capital intensity. So threshold margin is an analytically sound way to
make the connection between sales growth, profits, and value creation. Appendix A defines threshold margin
and incremental threshold margin. Appendix B shows that the overall rise in operating profit margin has been
driven by companies in the highest margin quintile and documents the history of operating profit margin by
sector.
The Factors That Determine Operating Leverage
Sales changes can have varying effects on operating profit margins. Careful consideration of the value factors,
including volume, price and mix, operating leverage, and economies of scale, will allow you to sort out cause
and effect. Here’s a quick description of the value factors:19
Volume. Volume captures the potential revision in expectations for the number of units a company sells.
Volume changes lead to sales changes and can influence operating profit margins through operating
leverage and economies of scale.

September 26, 2016
Price and Mix. Change in selling price means that a company sells the same unit at a different price. If a
company can raise its price in an amount greater than its incremental cost, margins will rise. Warren
Buffett, chairman and chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway and one of the most successful
investors in the past half century, argued that “the single most important decision in evaluating a business
is pricing power.” This is not just relevant for established businesses. Marc Andreessen, co-founder and
general partner of the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, recently said “probably the single
number one thing we try to get our companies to do is raise prices.”20
Price elasticity, a measure of the change in the demand for the quantity of a good or service relative to a
change in price, is one way to assess pricing power. Goods or services that are inelastic (e.g., cigarettes
and gasoline) have small changes in demand for a given price change, whereas price changes create
large changes in demand for elastic goods (e.g., leisure airline travel and high-end spirits). One study of
price elasticity for a sample of roughly 370 goods found that a 1 percent change in price would lead to
an average of a 1.76 percent change in demand.21
Price mix captures the change in sales of high- and low-margin products. Goodyear Tire & Rubber is an
example of a company that has had a positive sales mix in recent years. Goodyear’s sales in 2015 were
28 percent lower than those in 2011 and its total unit volume was 8 percent less. Both sales and volume
declined in each year since 2011 with the exception of 2015 for volume. Yet the company’s operating
income rose nearly 50 percent over that period, while its operating profit margin expanded 6 percentage
points. A shift in mix from low-margin commodity tires to high-margin premium tires allowed the company
to increase operating margins.22 Exhibit 7 summarizes these figures.
Exhibit 7: Goodyear Tire & Rubber Change in Sales Mix (2011-2015)

25 14
24 Operating Profit Margin Operating Profit Margin (Percent)
12
Sales (Billions U.S. Dollars)
23
22 10
21 8
20
19 6
18 4
Sales
17
2
16
15 0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Source: Company reports.
Operating Leverage. Businesses almost always invest money before they can generate sales and
profits. These outlays are called “preproduction costs.” For some companies, including those in the
chemical, steel, and utility businesses, the costs relate to physical facilities. These investments are
capitalized on the balance sheet and the accountants depreciate their value on the income statement
over time. Other companies, such as those in the biotechnology or software industries, make huge
investments in research and development or in writing code but expense most of those investments.
Preproduction costs lower operating profit margins in the short run. But as subsequent sales of the good
or service occur, margins rise. Think of it this way: Say a manufacturing company incurs substantial

September 26, 2016
preproduction costs to build a factory that can produce 100 widgets but only produces 50 today. As
volume rises from 50 to 100 widgets, the incremental investment is small and operating margins rise.
Operating leverage is relevant when you see a company in a position to reap the benefit of its spending
on preproduction costs.
Capacity utilization is one way to assess operating leverage (see Exhibit 8). Operating margins tend to
shrink when capacity utilization falls and expand when utilization rises. Exhibit 9 shows this relationship.
Exhibit 8: Capacity Utilization: Total Industry (1967-July 2016)

90
85
Percent of Capacity
80
75
70
65
1988
1995
1967
1974
1981
2002
2009
2016
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
Note: Monthly data.
Exhibit 9: Changes in Capacity Utilization and Changes in Operating Margin (1967-2015)

20 r = 0.60
Change in Operating Margin (Percent)
15
10
-5
-10
-15
-20
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10
Change in Capacity Utilization (Percent)
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.) and Credit Suisse HOLT ®.
Note: Annual data.

September 26, 2016
Economies of Scale. A company enjoys economies of scale when it can perform key activities at a
lower cost per unit as its volume increases. These tasks include purchasing, production, marketing, sales,
and distribution. Economies of scale lead to greater efficiency as volume increases. This is distinct from
operating leverage, where margin improvement is the result of spreading preproduction costs over larger
volumes. Mistaking operating leverage for economies of scale may lead to the incorrect conclusion that
unit costs will decline even as the company expands to meet new demand.
The financial results of Home Depot, the largest home improvement retailer in the United States, are an
example of economies of scale. Home Depot’s gross margins expanded from 27.7 percent in fiscal
1996 to 29.9 percent in fiscal 2001 as it added incremental sales in excess of $30 billion. The company
attributed the improvement in its profitability to the ability to use its size to get better prices from suppliers.
Cost Efficiencies. Cost efficiencies can also affect operating profit margin but are unrelated to sales
changes and hence not relevant to a discussion of operating leverage. Still, you must account for
operating margin changes as the result of cost efficiencies. These efficiencies come about in two ways.
A company can either reduce costs within an activity or it can reconfigure its activities.23
The discussion of sales changes and the value factors provides you with a framework to consider operating
leverage, or how operating profit rises or falls as a function of a change in sales. We now turn to an empirical
examination of operating leverage by sector to understand the past and to get a sense of where operating
leverage is most pronounced.
Empirical Results for Operating Leverage
We measure operating leverage by examining the relationship between the change in sales and the change in
operating profit in a particular period. Exhibit 10 shows this calculation for the top 1,000 global companies by
market capitalization, excluding companies in the financial services and utilities industries, over 1- and 3-year
periods from 1950 through 2015. We call the slope of the least-squares regression line the “operating margin
beta (β),” and it is a good proxy for the degree of operating leverage. The operating margin β for both periods
is about 0.11, and is slightly higher for the one-year change. The way to interpret the β is that for every $1.00
change in sales, operating profit changes by approximately $0.11.
Exhibit 10: Operating Leverage for the Top 1,000 Global Companies, 1950-2015
2,000 y = 0.115x + 1.833 4,000 y = 0.104x - 0.010
1-Year Change in Operating Income
1,500 3,000
1,000
2,000
500
1,000
0
-5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000
0
-500 -10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000
-1,000 -1,000
-1,500 -2,000
1-Year Change in Sales 3-Year Change in Sales
®
Note: All amounts in 2015 U.S. dollars; winsorized at 2nd and 98th percentiles.

September 26, 2016
Naturally, operating margin β varies by sector and industry given the different economic characteristics of each.
Exhibit 11 shows the data and operating margin β for eight sectors, ranked from highest to lowest leverage.
Exhibit 12 shows the results for each sector for the one- and three-year periods.
Exhibit 11: Operating Margin Beta by Sector, 1950-2015

One-Year Operating Three-Year Operating
Sector Margin Beta Margin Beta
Materials 0.193 0.155
Energy 0.134 0.103

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 12: Operating Margin Beta by Sector, 1950-2015

1,500 y = 0.081x + 8.091 4,000 y = 0.074x + 17.436

1,000 3,000
500 2,000
0 1,000
-5,000 0 5,000 10,000
-500 0
-5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
-1,000 -1,000
-1,500 -2,000
Consumer Staples
1,200 y = 0.075x + 23.148 2,500 y = 0.071x + 62.380
1,000
2,000
800
1,500
600
400 1,000
200 500
0
-5,000 0 5,000 10,000 0
-200 -10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000
-500
-400
-600 -1,000
Energy
8,000 y = 0.134x - 63.591 12,000 y = 0.103x - 9.646
10,000
6,000
8,000
4,000 6,000
4,000
2,000
2,000
0
0
-20,000 0 20,000 40,000
-50,000 0 50,000 100,000
-2,000 -2,000
-4,000
-4,000
-6,000
-6,000 -8,000

September 26, 2016
Health Care
1,500 y = 0.115x + 40.281 4,000 y = 0.111x + 120.112

3,000
1,000
2,000
500
1,000
0
-5,000 0 5,000 10,000 0
-10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000
-500
-1,000
-1,000 -2,000
Industrials
1,200 y = 0.083x + 9.611 2,500 y = 0.076x + 12.677
1,000
2,000
800
600 1,500
400 1,000
200
500
0
-5,000 0 5,000 10,000 0
-200
-10,000 0 10,000 20,000
-400 -500
-600
-1,000
-800
-1,000 -1,500
2,500 y = 0.173x - 12.371 6,000 y = 0.158x - 62.124
2,000 5,000
1,500 4,000
1,000 3,000
500 2,000
0 1,000
-5,000 0 5,000 10,000
-500 0
-10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000
-1,000 -1,000
-1,500 -2,000
-2,000 -3,000

September 26, 2016
Materials
2,000 y = 0.193x - 29.031 4,000 y = 0.155x - 91.373

1,500 3,000
1,000 2,000
500 1,000
0 0
-5,000 0 5,000 10,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000
-500 -1,000
-1,000 -2,000
-1,500 -3,000
4,000 y = 0.174x - 38.519 10,000 y = 0.184x - 139.848
8,000
3,000
6,000
2,000
4,000
1,000
2,000
0
-10,000 0 10,000 20,000 0
-1,000 -20,000 0 20,000 40,000
-2,000
-2,000 -4,000
-3,000 -6,000

Note: All amounts in 2015 U.S. dollars; winsorized at 2nd and 98th percentiles.
Operating margin β has a few practical uses. The error in analyst forecasts tends to be larger in sectors and
industries where the operating margin β is high. For example, earnings surprises are large in the metal industry
but small in the food industry.24 Understanding the full framework for assessing operating leverage is
particularly important for sectors and industries with high operating margin β’s.
Analyst errors tend to be large at peaks and troughs in industrial production. When industrial production
growth accelerates, the errors in analyst forecasts tend to fall. When industrial production decelerates, errors
tend to rise. Analysts, who are normally optimistic, are rewarded when economic conditions are favorable and
miss the mark substantially when conditions are poor.25
Notwithstanding the errors that analysts make when the economy is expanding or contracting, their earnings
forecasts are more accurate than those of management for businesses with high operating margin β.
Management forecasts are better than those of analysts when a firm is dealing with unusual issues such as
losses, inventory increases, and excess capacity. Overall, forecasts by management are more accurate than

September 26, 2016
analysts about half of the time, suggesting that the information advantage executives have may not be as
significant as macroeconomic factors in determining the accuracy of their forecasts.26
At this point, we have developed a framework to anticipate changes in operating profit. The process involves
consideration of macroeconomic outcomes and microeconomic factors, informed by empirical results. This
analysis is the basis for “asset beta,” the risk of a company based on the volatility of operating income and
without regard for financial policy. We now introduce the role of financial leverage as a final step to understand
volatility in earnings.
The Role of Financial Leverage in Earnings Volatility
Earnings volatility for a company is determined by the combination of volatility in operating profit and financial
leverage. Financial leverage captures the amount of debt a company assumes, net of the cash that it holds.
Lots of debt increases the volatility of earnings because a company has to pay interest expense, which you
can think of as another fixed cost. As a result, financial leverage amplifies changes in operating income. In
exhibit 1, we refer to this as “financial leverage beta (β).”
To illustrate the impact of financial leverage β, consider two companies, A and B, which have the same
scenarios for operating profit next year:
Company A
Operating profit Interest expense Pretax profit
Bullish scenario $120 $0 $120
Base case scenario 100 0 100
Bearish scenario 80 0 80
Since A is free of debt, the variability of pretax profit mirrors that of operating profit. In this case, the highest
profit scenario ($120) is 50 percent greater than the lowest ($80).
Company B
Operating profit Interest expense Pretax profit
Bullish scenario $120 $30 $90
Base case scenario 100 30 70
Bearish scenario 80 30 50
B has debt and hence interest expense. The variability of pretax profit for B is much higher than that for A.
The highest profit ($90) is 80 percent greater than the lowest profit ($50). The addition of debt creates more
volatility in earnings and may suggest different values for the businesses.
Exhibit 13 shows the debt-to-total capital ratios by sector. This ratio uses the book value of debt and the
market value of equity and reflects an adjustment for leases. Higher ratios of debt to total capital are
consistent with higher financial leverage. However, the substantial increase in cash holdings distorts this
relationship. For example, Apple’s debt-to-total-capital ratio was approximately 14 percent on June 30, 2016
(debt of $85 billion and market value of equity of $515 billion). But the company had a cash balance in excess
of $200 billion. This means that the company’s net cash position was in excess of $100 billion even after
considering the taxes the company would pay if it repatriated the money.

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 13: Debt-to-Total Capital Ratio by Sector
Energy
Materials
Industrials
Health Care
Consumer Staples
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Debt to Total Capital
Source: Aswath Damodaran.
Note: Global companies as of January 2016; Debt-to-total capital ratio for each sector is the average of the industries in that sector.
Credit ratings are also a proxy for financial leverage. Exhibit 14 shows the statistics for companies of various
investment ratings, including operating margins, the ratio of operating profit to interest expense, debt to total
capital, and default rates. Companies with high ratings tend to have high margins, low amounts of debt, and
strong interest expense coverage ratios.
Exhibit 14: Statistics for Companies with Different Credit Ratings

AAA AA A BBB BB B
Operating income/revenues (%) 28.0 26.9 22.7 21.3 17.9 19.2
EBIT interest coverage (x) 40.8 17.3 10.3 5.5 3.2 1.3
Debt/total capital (%) 2.8 17.2 30.7 41.1 50.4 72.7
Return on capital (%) 30.6 21.6 22.2 14.2 11.1 7.1
Median default rates, 1-Year (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.71 3.46
Number of companies 4 15 94 233 253 266
Source: Standard & Poor's Ratings Services, Ratings Direct.
Note: Financial ratios are medians for 3-year averages (2011-2013) for U.S companies; default rates are median 1-year global default rates (2014).
Academic research shows that companies with high operating leverage tend to have lower financial leverage.27
Our findings are consistent with this when we measure financial leverage as debt-to-total capital based on
book value. The idea is that companies with high operating margin β will seek low financial leverage so as to
manage overall risk.
Over the past 30 years, the ratio of cash to assets has risen in the United States from 7 percent in 1980 to
about 16 percent today.28 This shift is consistent with the rise in companies that spend a lot of money on
research and development (R&D). As R&D expense is a fixed or quasi-fixed cost, this trend reflects the efforts
by executives to manage overall risk by using a cash buffer to dampen the impact of operating leverage.
Operating leverage and financial leverage together determine earnings volatility. Generally speaking,
executives of companies with substantial operating leverage choose a conservative capital structure so as to
reduce the volatility of the business results.
September 26, 2016
Appendix: Threshold and Incremental Threshold Operating Profit Margin
Considering the relationship between sales growth, profit growth, and value creation is vital throughout this
analysis. One way to do this is to calculate the threshold margin, or the level of operating profit margin at
which a company earns its cost of capital. To break even in terms of economic value, a company with higher
capital intensity requires a higher margin than a company with lower capital intensity.29
Let’s examine a simple example. Assume a company has the following financial characteristics:
Base sales $100

Sales growth 8.0%
Operating profit margin (base) 8.4%
Operating profit margin (incremental) 8.4%
Incremental fixed capital rate 35%
Incremental working capital rate 25%
Tax rate 35%
Cost of capital 10%
The definitions for sales growth, operating profit margin, tax rate, and the cost of capital are straightforward.
The incremental fixed capital rate captures how much a company will spend on incremental investments in
fixed capital (more formally, capital expenditures minus depreciation) and is measured as a percentage change
in sales.
For example, if sales grow by $10 and the incremental fixed capital rate is 35 percent, the company’s capital
expenditure, net of depreciation, is $3.5. The same idea applies to working capital. For every incremental
dollar in sales, the incremental working capital rate measures the percent a company needs to reinvest in
working capital.
We get these figures if we apply the numbers to five years of free cash flow:
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Sales $100.0 108.0 116.6 126.0 136.0 146.9
Operating income 8.4 9.1 9.8 10.6 11.4 12.3
Taxes 3.2 3.4 3.7 4.0 4.3
Incremental fixed capital 2.8 3.0 3.3 3.5 3.8
Incremental fixed capital 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.7
Free cash flow 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
We can see that the company is growing modestly. But the question is whether it is creating shareholder value.
We can only assess that by determining whether the company earns a return on its incremental investments
that exceeds the cost of capital.
The answer is that this company is value neutral (see the column “shareholder value added” at the far right
below). It earns its cost of capital on its investments. This demonstrates that growth does not equal value
creation.

September 26, 2016
Free cash Present value of Cumulative present Present value of CUM PV of FCF + Shareholder
Year flow free cash flow value of free cash flow residual value PV of residual value added
1 1.09 0.99 0.99 53.56 54.55
2 1.18 0.97 1.97 52.58 54.55 0
3 1.27 0.96 2.92 51.63 54.55 0
4 1.37 0.94 3.86 50.69 54.55 0
5 1.48 0.92 4.78 49.77 54.55 0
With these parts in place, we can now calculate the incremental threshold margin. This is the margin the
company must achieve on incremental investments in order to earn the cost of capital.
Incremental threshold margin = (incremental fixed + working capital rate) * (cost of capital)
(1 + cost of capital) * (1 – tax rate)
Substituting numbers from above, we can see that the threshold margin is 8.4 percent:
Incremental threshold margin = (0.35 + 0.25) * 0.10 = 0.06 = 0.084

(1.10) * (0.65) 0.715
Given this company’s sales growth, investment needs, tax rate, and cost of capital, it needs to achieve an
incremental profit margin of 8.4 percent just to earn the cost of capital. What the equation also makes clear is
that as a company’s investment needs increase, the business must earn a higher operating profit margin to be
value neutral.
While the incremental threshold margin captures the required margin on new sales, the threshold margin
reflects the overall margin the company must earn to be value neutral.
Here’s the equation:
Threshold margin = (prior year operating income) + (incremental threshold margin * incremental sales)
prior sales + increase in sales
Running the numbers from year 1 to year 2, we see that the threshold margin is also 8.4 percent:
Threshold margin = 9.1 + (0.084 * 8.6) = 9.82 = 0.084

108.0 + 8.6 116.6
Incorporating the concept of threshold margin helps clarify the essential link between growth, profitability, and
value creation.

September 26, 2016
Operating Profit Margin
Aggregate and Median Operating Profit Margin, 1950-2015

18
Median
16
14
12
10 Aggregate
8
6
4
2
0
1955
2000
1950
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2005
2010
2015

September 26, 2016
Why Operating Profit Margin Is Important
A company creates value when it generates earnings in excess of the opportunity cost of the capital it deploys.
Operating profit margin, which is the ratio of operating income to sales, is one of the crucial indicators of
profitability. Since our figures capture reported results, the data reflect stock-based compensation only when
the accounting rules have required companies to record it as an expense. This occurred around 2005 for most
large companies.
Operating profit is the number from which you subtract cash taxes in order to calculate a company’s net
operating profit after tax (NOPAT). NOPAT is a central figure in valuation. NOPAT is the number from which
you subtract investments to calculate a company’s free cash flow (FCF). FCF is the cash that is distributable
to a company’s debtors and equity holders, and hence is the lifeblood of corporate value. NOPAT is also the
numerator of a return on invested capital (ROIC) calculation.
You can decompose ROIC, or a variant such as CFROI, into two parts: profitability (NOPAT/sales) and capital
velocity (sales/invested capital). Generally speaking, companies pursuing a cost leadership strategy have low
margins and high capital velocity. Think of Wal-Mart Stores as an example. The company does not make
much money on each item it sells, but it sells a lot of items. Companies that pursue a differentiation strategy
have high margins and low capital velocity. Consider Tiffany & Company, the luxury jewelry retailer, which
makes a lot on the items it sells, but does not sell that many items. Operating profit margin is important
because it not only measures profitability but it also gives you a sense of a company’s competitive positioning.
Persistence of Operating Profit Margin
Exhibit 1 shows that the operating profit margin is very persistent over one-, three-, and five-year periods. For
example, the correlation between operating margin in the current year and three years in the future has a
coefficient, r, of 0.79 (middle panel). But even the five-year correlation is relatively high at 0.72 (right panel).
This universe includes the top 1,000 firms in the world from 1950 to 2015, measured by market capitalization.
The sample includes dead companies but excludes firms in the financial and utilities sectors. The data include
more than 40,000 company years and there is no need to take into account inflation because operating
margin is expressed as a ratio.
Exhibit 1: Persistence of Operating Profit Margin

50
r = 0.91 50
r = 0.79 50
r = 0.72
Operating Margin in 3 Years (Percent)
Operating Margin Next Year (Percent)
40 40 40
30 30 30
20 20 20
10 10 10
0 0 0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
-10 -10 -10

Operating Margin (Percent) Operating Margin (Percent) Operating Margin (Percent)

Data winsorized at 2n and 98th percentile.

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 2 shows the stability of operating profit margin. We start by sorting companies into quintiles based on
operating profit margin at the beginning of a year. For each of the 5 cohorts, we follow the operating profit
margin less the median for the full population over 10 years. There is only slight regression toward the mean.
The spread from the highest to the lowest quintile only shrinks from 0.21 to 0.15. Given this stability, a
sensible approach is to start with last year’s operating margin and seek reasons to move away from it.
Exhibit 2: Regression toward the Mean for Operating Profit Margin

0.15
Relative Operating Margin (Medians)
0.10
0.05
0.00
-0.05
-0.10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Year
Base Rates of Operating Profit Margin by Sector
We can refine our analysis by examining operating profit margin at the sector level. This reduces the size of
the sample but increases its relevance. We present a guide for calculating the rate of regression toward the
mean, as well as the proper mean to use, for eight sectors. We exclude the financial and utilities sectors.
Exhibit 3 examines operating margin in the consumer staples and energy sectors. The panels at the top show
the persistence of operating margin for the consumer staples sector. On the right, we see that the correlation
between operating margin in the current year and five years in the future is 0.89.
that the correlation between operating margin in the current year and five years in the future is 0.63. This
suggests that you should expect a slower rate of regression toward the mean in the consumer staples sector

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 3: Correlation Coefficients for Operating Margin in Consumer Staples and Energy
Consumer Staples
r = 0.97 r = 0.93 50
r = 0.89
50 50

40 40 40
30 30 30
20 20 20
10 10 10
0 0 0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
-10 -10 -10

Energy
60
r = 0.89 r = 0.74 r = 0.63
60 60

50 50 50
40 40 40
30 30 30
20 20 20
10 10 10
0 0 0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-10 -10 -10
Exhibit 4 shows the correlation coefficient for five-year changes in operating margin for eight sectors from
of regression toward the mean by sector. The top half of the list generally consists of consumer-oriented
sectors and the bottom half tends to include sectors with more exposure to commodities or technology.
staples sector was 0.06. With a correlation coefficient of 0.89, that means 68 percent of the observations fell
within a range of 0.95 and 0.83. The standard deviation for the energy sector was 0.14. With a correlation
coefficient of 0.62, that means 68 percent of the observations fell within a range of 0.48 and 0.76.

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 4: Correlation Coefficients for Operating Margin for Eight Sectors, 1950-2015
Five-Year Correlation Standard
Materials 0.62 0.13
Energy 0.62 0.14
Note: Winsorized at 2nd and 98th percentiles—performed at the level of the universe. Average for energy differs slightly compared to exhibit 3, where
winsorization was performed at the level of the sector.
Exhibit 5 presents guidelines on the rate of regression toward the mean, as well as the mean, for eight sectors.
Keep in mind that regression toward the mean works on a population, not necessarily on every individual
company.
The third and fourth columns show the median and average operating profit margin for each sector. We also
include medians because the operating margin in many sectors does not follow a normal distribution. (When
the mean is higher than the median, the distribution is skewed to the right.) Still, the means are only slightly
higher than the medians.
measures dispersion. The coefficient of variation equals the standard deviation of operating margin divided by
average operating margin. It is not surprising that operating margin is less volatile in consumer staples than it is
in energy as energy profits are inherently more volatile.
Exhibit 5: Rate of Regression and toward What Mean Operating Margin Reverts for Eight Sectors,
1950-2015
Five-Year Correlation Standard Coefficient of
Health Care 0.74 0.16 0.17 0.02 0.14
Industrials 0.72 0.09 0.11 0.02 0.16
Materials 0.62 0.11 0.13 0.03 0.25
Energy 0.62 0.14 0.17 0.04 0.24
Winsorized at 2n and 98th percentile; “Standard deviation” is the standard deviation of the annual average operating margin for the sector.

September 26, 2016
The Rich Get Richer
Exhibit 6 shows that the aggregate and median operating profit margin for the top 1,000 companies has been
rising since the mid-1980s. The sample excludes companies in the financial services and utility industries. The
aggregate margin is total operating profit divided by total sales for the companies in the sample. The decline in
operating profit margin from 1950 through the early 1980s is the result of increased global competition in an
economy dominated by manufacturing. Since the mid-1980s, the economy has shifted toward service and
knowledge businesses. Those businesses tend to have higher operating profit margins than manufacturing
businesses.
Exhibit 6: Aggregate and Median Operating Profit Margin, 1950-2015

18
Median
16
14
12
10 Aggregate
8
6
4
2
0
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Exhibit 7 shows that much of the expansion in aggregate operating profit margin is attributable to the top
quintile.1 Here, we use operating margin to sort the sample into quintiles in each year. We then see how the
margins change for each of the quintiles over time. This method ensures that the composition of each quintile
changes annually.
Over the full period, the operating profit margins of the bottom three quintiles remain roughly flat. But the top
two quintiles, and especially the highest one, show substantial expansion. For example, the operating profit
margin for the highest quintile went from 21 percent in 1985 to 31 percent in 2015.

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 7: Operating Profit Margins on the Rise for the Top 20 Percent, 1950-2015
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Exhibit 8 shows the trend in operating profit margin for each sector. Note that the relative contribution of each
sector changes over time. For example, the energy, materials, and industrial sectors represented 50 percent
of the market capitalization of the top 1,500 companies in the U.S. market in 1980, but just 19 percent in
2015. Over the same period, the healthcare and technology sectors went from 18 to 34 percent of the market
capitalization. Exhibit 9 shows the operating profit margins by sector broken into quintiles.

Operating Profit Margin (Percent) Operating Profit Margin (Percent)
0
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
10
15
20
25
30
35
1950 1950
The Base Rate Book
1955 1955
1960 1960
1965 1965
1970 1970
1975 1975
1980 1980
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1985 1985
Health Care
1950
1990 1990
1955
1995 1995
1960
2000 2000
1965
StDev: 2.5%
Median: 8.0%
Mean: 8.2%
2005 2005
Median: 15.7%
StDev: 1.7%
Mean: 15.7%
1970
2010 2010
1975
2015
1980
Materials
1985
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1990
1995 1950 1950
Exhibit 8: Operating Profit Margin by Sector, 1950-2015
2000 1955 1955

2005 1960 1960
StDev: 3.6%
Mean: 12.0%
Median: 11.4%
2010 1965 1965

2015 1970 1970
1975 1975
1980 1980
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35 1985 1985
Industrials
1960
1990 1990
1965
Consumer Staples
1995 1995
1970 2000 2000
Median: 8.5%
StDev: 2.4%
Mean: 8.1%
StDev: 1.0%
Median: 8.0%
Mean: 8.3%
1975 2005 2005

2010 2010
1980
2015 2015
1985
1990
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1995
1950 1950
2000 1955 1955
2005 1960 1960
StDev: 5.3%
Mean: 21.0%
Median: 19.3%
2010 1965 1965
2015 1970 1970
1975 1975
1980 1980
Energy
1985 1985
1990 1990
1995 1995
2000 2000
2005 2005
StDev: 3.0%
Mean: 11.6%
Median: 12.1%
StDev: 4.0%
Mean: 14.5%
Median: 14.9%
2010 2010
2015 2015
September 26, 2016
65
0
5
0
5
10
30
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
15
20
25
1950 1950
The Base Rate Book
1955 1955
1960 1960
1965 1965
1970 1970
1975 1975
1980 1980
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1985 1985
Health Care
1950 1990 1990

1955 1995 1995
1960 2000 2000
1965 2005 2005

1970 2010 2010
1975 2015 2015
1980
1985 Operating Profit Margin (Percent) Operating Profit Margin (Percent)
Materials
0
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1990
1995 1950 1950
Exhibit 9: Operating Profit Margin by Sector, 1950-2015
2000 1955 1955

2005 1960 1960
2010 1965 1965
2015 1970 1970
1975 1975
1980 1980
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60 1985 1985
Industrials
1960 1990 1990

Consumer Staples
1965 1995 1995

1970 2000 2000
2005 2005
1975
2010 2010
1980 2015 2015
1985
1990 Operating Profit Margin (Percent) Operating Profit Margin (Percent)
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
-10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
10
20
30
40
50
60
1995
2000 1950 1950
1955 1955
2005
1960 1960
2010
1965 1965
2015 1970 1970
1975 1975
1980 1980
Energy
1985 1985
1990 1990
1995 1995
2000 2000
2005 2005
2010 2010
2015 2015
September 26, 2016
66
September 26, 2016
Earnings Growth
Overconfidence—Range of Net Income Growth Rates Too Narrow

50
Base Rates
Frequency (Percent)
30
20
10
0
0-10
60-70
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
70-80
80-90
<(50)
(50)-(40)
(10)-0
>90
(40)-(30)
(30)-(20)
(20)-(10)
-10


September 26, 2016
Why Earnings Growth Is Important
Executives and investors perceive that earnings are the best indicator of corporate results. In a survey of
financial executives, nearly two-thirds said that earnings are the most important measure that they report to
outsiders and gave it a vastly higher rating than other financial metrics such as revenue growth and cash flow
from operations.1 In a separate survey, a majority of investors indicated that quarterly earnings is the disclosure
that is most significant.2 Consistent with these views, many companies provide some form of earnings
guidance, and the price-earnings multiple is the most popular way to assign a value to a company’s stock.3
Yet earnings have severe limitations as a measure of shareholder value. The main reasons include the fact
that management can use alternative accounting methods to calculate earnings, that earnings fail to capture
the capital needs of the business, and that earnings don’t reflect the cost of capital. As a result, it is possible
to increase earnings without creating value.4
The popularity of earnings has spawned extensive research on the link between earnings per share (EPS) and
stock prices.5 Studies from the late 1960s show that annual earnings announcements convey information to
the market, as measured by a rise in trading volume and stock price volatility.6 Public companies in the United
States were not required to file quarterly income statements, through Form 10-Q, until 1970. Further,
companies outside the U.S. realized an increase in the information content of their earnings announcements
following the adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards.7
Recent work on the impact of earnings not only confirms the original finding, but also shows that the
information content of earnings has risen since 2001.8 One plausible explanation is that since the adoption of
Regulation Fair Disclosure in 2000, which ensures that all investors receive financial information at the same
time, companies convey less information between earnings reports. Other researchers find that earnings are
less relevant today as a result of a broad shift from tangible to intangible investment.9 To add context to this
discussion, researchers estimate that each quarterly earnings announcement reflects one to two percent of
the total new information available in each year.10
Companies can increase the information content of their earnings disclosure and guidance by providing more
detail about the components of earnings. That detail leads to more timely revisions by analysts, more frequent
revisions, and a lower dispersion of forecasts among the analysts. Academics have found that about 40
percent of large companies in the U.S. provide no earnings guidance and less than a quarter provide revenue,
expense, and earnings forecasts.11
Further, studies show that there has been a growing rift between “Street” earnings and earnings based on
generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). In recent decades, companies have been more liberal in
excluding “special” or “non-cash items” from GAAP earnings to come up with Street earnings. Potential
motivations for emphasizing Street earnings include an effort by managers and investors to boost corporate
value and an attempt to remove transitory elements from earnings so as to improve the ability to estimate
future cash flows. While it is unclear which motivation is dominant, the research does demonstrate that Street
EPS have a higher correlation with stock price movement than GAAP EPS do.12
EPS are ubiquitous and provide some information that affect stock prices. Growth in EPS creates shareholder
value when a company makes investments that earn a return in excess of the cost of capital. In general, there
is a positive correlation between EPS growth and total shareholder return. Indeed, investors who can anticipate
earnings in 12 months that are substantially different than today’s forecast stand to earn substantial excess
returns.13

September 26, 2016
However, earnings growth rates are not very persistent.14 This suggests that it is hard to predict future growth
rates based on the past. You can improve your earnings forecasts by carefully considering accruals. Accruals
that are less reliable, such as an estimate for the collection of accounts receivable, are associated with lower
earnings persistence than accruals with more persistence such as accounts payable. 15
The goal of this report is to help guide thinking with regard to earnings growth.16 This is especially true for
growth companies, where analysts tend to be optimistic about the future. Indeed, when sentiment is bullish,
earnings forecasts by analysts tend to be optimistic, especially for firms that are difficult to value using
conventional measures.17
Analysts tend to be too sanguine when they forecast net income growth.18 Consistent with the overconfidence
bias, exhibit 1 shows that the range of expected outcomes is narrower than what the results of the past
suggest is reasonable. Both are distributions of net income growth rates annualized over three years for
roughly 1,000 of the largest companies by market capitalization in the world. The distribution with the lower
peak reflects the actual results since 1950, and the distribution with the higher peak is the set of growth rates
that analysts are currently forecasting. We adjust both distributions to remove the effect of inflation.
Specifically, the standard deviation of estimates is 19.2 percent versus a standard deviation of 34.6 percent
for the past growth rates. Forecasts are commonly too optimistic and too narrow. The best explanations for
the pattern of faulty forecasts include behavioral biases and distortions encouraged by incentives.
Exhibit 1: Overconfidence—Range of Net Income Growth Rates Too Narrow

50
Base Rates
Frequency (Percent)
30
20
10
0
0-10
60-70
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
70-80
80-90
<(50)
(50)-(40)
(10)-0
>90
(40)-(30)
(30)-(20)
(20)-(10)
-10

®
Source: Credit Suisse HOLT and FactSet.
Note: I/B/E/S consensus estimates as of September 19, 2016; Sample excludes companies with negative beginning or ending net income.
Base Rates of Earnings Growth

September 26, 2016
Sales are the most important driver of corporate value, while earnings are the most common metric to
communicate results and to establish value. Sales growth is more persistent than earnings growth, but less
predictive of total shareholder return.20 The sample throughout this report includes the net income growth of
the top 1,000 global companies by market capitalization since 1950. These companies currently represent
about 60 percent of the global market capitalization. The data include all sectors. The sample size is
somewhat smaller than 1,000 in the early years but reaches 1,000 by the late 1960s. The population includes
companies that are now dead.
We use a definition of net income that is before extraordinary items. We calculate the compound annual
growth rates (CAGR) of net income for 1, 3, 5, and 10 years for each firm. We adjust all of the figures to
remove the effects of inflation, which translates all of the numbers to 2015 dollars.
Exhibit 2 shows the results for the full sample. In the panel on the left, the rows show net income growth rates
and the columns reflect time periods. Say you want to know what percent of the universe grew net income at
a CAGR of 10-20 percent for five years. You start with the row marked “10-20” and slide to the right to find
the column “5-Yr.” There, you’ll see that 20.3 percent of the companies achieved that rate of growth. The
panel on the right shows the sample sizes for each growth rate and time period, allowing us to see where the
20.3 percent comes from: 9,087 instances out of the total of 44,874 (9,087/44,874 = 20.3 percent).
Exhibit 2: Base Rates of Net Income Growth, 1950-2015

Net Income CAGR (%) 1-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr Net Income CAGR (%) 1-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr
<(50) 4.5% 1.2% 0.3% 0.0% <(50) 2,374 595 151 5
(50)-(40) 2.1% 1.1% 0.6% 0.1% (50)-(40) 1,117 529 275 20
(40)-(30) 3.0% 2.0% 1.3% 0.3% (40)-(30) 1,603 969 565 99
(30)-(20) 4.5% 3.7% 2.7% 1.0% (30)-(20) 2,362 1,806 1,209 368
(20)-(10) 7.0% 7.3% 6.5% 4.2% (20)-(10) 3,679 3,520 2,918 1,577
(10)-0 11.9% 16.3% 17.9% 18.7% (10)-0 6,310 7,898 8,049 6,976
0-10 18.5% 26.8% 34.1% 47.8% 0-10 9,779 13,007 15,322 17,819
10-20 15.0% 18.4% 20.3% 20.5% 10-20 7,946 8,924 9,087 7,633
20-30 9.0% 9.5% 8.8% 5.1% 20-30 4,762 4,591 3,932 1,899
30-40 5.9% 5.1% 3.4% 1.5% 30-40 3,135 2,493 1,528 558
40-50 3.8% 2.7% 1.7% 0.6% 40-50 1,999 1,331 743 209
50-60 2.6% 1.6% 0.9% 0.2% 50-60 1,393 774 382 69
60-70 1.9% 1.1% 0.5% 0.1% 60-70 1,004 548 228 42
70-80 1.5% 0.7% 0.3% 0.0% 70-80 803 344 147 13
80-90 1.1% 0.6% 0.2% 0.0% 80-90 604 271 98 9
>90 7.6% 1.8% 0.5% 0.0% >90 4,031 872 240 9
Mean 88.8% 10.3% 7.3% 5.8% Total 52,901 48,472 44,874 37,305
Median 9.2% 6.8% 5.9% 5.2%
StDev 7842.2% 34.6% 20.2% 11.0%
Exhibit 3 is the distribution for the five-year net income growth rate. This shows, in a graph, what the numbers
say in exhibit 2. The mean, or average, growth rate was 7.3 percent per year and the median growth rate was
5.9 percent. The median is a better indicator of the central location of the results because the distribution is

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 3: Five-Year CAGR of Net Income, 1950-2015

35
30
Frequency (Percent)
25
20
15
10
0
0-10
30-40
10-20
20-30
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90
<(50)
(10)-0
>90
(50)-(40)
(40)-(30)
(30)-(20)
(20)-(10)
CAGR (Percent)
®
the results more relevant and applicable. One way to do that is to break the universe into deciles based on a
company’s starting annual sales. Within each size decile, we sort the observations of growth rates into bins in
increments of 10 percentage points (except for the tails).
Let’s use Alphabet Inc. as an example. As of early September 2016, the consensus for net income growth
over the next three years, according to the I/B/E/S consolidated estimate of analysts, is about 15 percent per
year after accounting for inflation. We first find the correct reference class. In this case, it’s the bin that has a
sales base in excess of $50 billion. Next we examine the row of growth that is marked “10-20,” representing
a net income growth rate of between 10 and 20 percent. Going out to the column under “3-Yr,” we see that
15.4 percent of companies achieved this feat.
cover the vast majority of possible outcomes for net income growth. The appendix contains the sample sizes
for each of the reference classes. We will show how to incorporate these base rates into your forecasts for
net income growth in a moment, but for now it’s useful to acknowledge the utility of these data as an
analytical guide and a valuable reality check.

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 4: Base Rates by Decile, 1950-2015
<(50) 2.7% 0.6% 0.2% 0.0% <(50) 2.5% 0.6% 0.2% 0.0% <(50) 3.2% 0.6% 0.2% 0.0%
(50)-(40) 1.3% 0.7% 0.3% 0.0% (50)-(40) 1.2% 0.6% 0.4% 0.0% (50)-(40) 1.7% 0.7% 0.5% 0.0%
(40)-(30) 1.8% 1.0% 0.7% 0.1% (40)-(30) 2.3% 1.0% 0.7% 0.2% (40)-(30) 2.5% 1.8% 1.1% 0.3%
(30)-(20) 2.9% 2.2% 1.3% 0.5% (30)-(20) 3.1% 2.4% 1.5% 0.5% (30)-(20) 4.5% 3.1% 2.0% 0.9%
(20)-(10) 5.0% 4.9% 3.5% 2.2% (20)-(10) 6.0% 5.6% 4.5% 2.8% (20)-(10) 6.3% 6.8% 5.4% 3.7%
(10)-0 10.1% 12.8% 12.7% 11.0% (10)-0 11.5% 14.4% 14.7% 13.0% (10)-0 12.1% 15.8% 17.0% 17.4%
0-10 19.2% 25.2% 31.0% 42.5% 0-10 20.7% 29.3% 35.5% 46.8% 0-10 21.1% 28.9% 36.7% 51.1%
10-20 15.2% 19.1% 23.6% 26.6% 10-20 16.2% 19.6% 21.6% 21.2% 10-20 16.3% 20.0% 22.1% 20.5%
20-30 9.7% 12.0% 12.3% 10.2% 20-30 8.8% 9.6% 9.1% 4.6% 20-30 8.8% 9.6% 8.0% 4.7%
30-40 7.7% 6.8% 5.4% 3.7% 30-40 6.0% 4.9% 3.1% 1.2% 30-40 6.4% 5.0% 3.4% 0.9%
40-50 4.8% 4.1% 3.2% 1.9% 40-50 3.9% 2.3% 1.4% 0.4% 40-50 3.9% 2.8% 1.7% 0.3%
50-60 3.1% 2.8% 1.8% 0.6% 50-60 2.5% 1.6% 0.8% 0.1% 50-60 2.8% 1.4% 0.7% 0.1%
60-70 2.2% 1.9% 1.4% 0.5% 60-70 1.9% 1.2% 0.4% 0.1% 60-70 2.1% 1.0% 0.4% 0.0%
70-80 1.9% 1.1% 0.9% 0.1% 70-80 1.6% 0.6% 0.2% 0.1% 70-80 1.3% 0.7% 0.3% 0.0%
80-90 1.5% 1.2% 0.5% 0.1% 80-90 1.2% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 80-90 1.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0%
>90 10.8% 3.7% 1.4% 0.1% >90 5.4% 1.4% 0.3% 0.0% >90 5.8% 1.4% 0.3% 0.0%
Mean 63.8% 18.4% 14.3% 10.6% Mean 32.1% 11.6% 8.6% 6.6% Mean 134.5% 10.5% 7.5% 5.5%
<(50) 3.2% 1.2% 0.4% 0.0% <(50) 3.7% 1.1% 0.2% 0.0% <(50) 4.6% 1.4% 0.5% 0.0%
(50)-(40) 1.7% 0.9% 0.4% 0.1% (50)-(40) 1.7% 0.8% 0.7% 0.1% (50)-(40) 2.2% 0.8% 0.5% 0.1%
(40)-(30) 2.9% 2.1% 1.2% 0.1% (40)-(30) 2.8% 1.9% 1.2% 0.4% (40)-(30) 3.0% 2.3% 1.3% 0.1%
(30)-(20) 4.2% 3.4% 2.2% 0.9% (30)-(20) 3.9% 3.4% 3.0% 1.1% (30)-(20) 4.6% 4.0% 2.9% 1.1%
(20)-(10) 7.3% 7.3% 6.2% 4.0% (20)-(10) 7.6% 6.7% 6.1% 4.8% (20)-(10) 7.4% 7.0% 7.4% 4.7%
(10)-0 12.0% 16.0% 17.1% 18.6% (10)-0 12.5% 17.0% 18.7% 21.2% (10)-0 11.9% 18.0% 20.2% 20.9%
0-10 19.4% 28.0% 36.8% 51.9% 0-10 19.8% 28.7% 36.9% 50.8% 0-10 18.7% 27.3% 34.8% 50.0%
10-20 16.4% 19.0% 20.5% 19.7% 10-20 15.7% 19.1% 18.6% 17.2% 10-20 15.1% 17.9% 19.3% 18.5%
20-30 9.7% 9.6% 9.1% 3.7% 20-30 9.3% 8.9% 8.5% 3.4% 20-30 9.6% 9.4% 7.6% 3.0%
30-40 6.2% 5.0% 3.1% 0.8% 30-40 5.4% 5.8% 3.1% 0.8% 30-40 5.6% 4.8% 2.9% 0.9%
40-50 3.7% 2.8% 1.7% 0.2% 40-50 3.7% 2.0% 1.3% 0.2% 40-50 3.5% 2.4% 1.0% 0.4%
50-60 2.3% 1.7% 0.5% 0.1% 50-60 2.6% 1.4% 0.5% 0.1% 50-60 2.7% 1.3% 0.6% 0.1%
60-70 2.0% 1.0% 0.2% 0.0% 60-70 1.9% 1.0% 0.3% 0.0% 60-70 1.7% 0.9% 0.3% 0.0%
70-80 1.4% 0.5% 0.3% 0.0% 70-80 1.3% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 70-80 1.4% 0.6% 0.1% 0.0%
80-90 0.9% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 80-90 1.1% 0.5% 0.2% 0.0% 80-90 0.9% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0%
>90 6.6% 1.1% 0.1% 0.0% >90 6.8% 1.4% 0.4% 0.1% >90 7.0% 1.4% 0.4% 0.0%
Mean 400.9% 8.9% 6.8% 5.1% Mean 42.2% 9.6% 6.2% 4.2% Mean 32.9% 8.5% 5.4% 4.5%

September 26, 2016
<(50) 4.5% 1.5% 0.4% 0.1% <(50) 5.6% 1.7% 0.6% 0.0% <(50) 6.5% 1.8% 0.4% 0.0%
(50)-(40) 2.2% 1.5% 0.7% 0.1% (50)-(40) 2.7% 1.1% 0.7% 0.1% (50)-(40) 2.9% 1.6% 0.9% 0.1%
(40)-(30) 3.1% 2.1% 1.2% 0.4% (40)-(30) 3.6% 2.4% 1.6% 0.2% (40)-(30) 3.8% 2.3% 1.9% 0.6%
(30)-(20) 4.8% 4.0% 2.7% 1.4% (30)-(20) 4.9% 4.5% 3.5% 1.1% (30)-(20) 5.7% 4.7% 3.6% 1.5%
(20)-(10) 8.0% 7.8% 7.5% 4.9% (20)-(10) 6.8% 8.1% 7.8% 4.9% (20)-(10) 7.5% 8.8% 8.0% 5.7%
(10)-0 11.6% 17.2% 20.4% 23.0% (10)-0 12.5% 17.4% 18.2% 21.6% (10)-0 12.9% 17.6% 21.3% 22.4%
0-10 18.4% 26.8% 34.8% 46.7% 0-10 16.9% 26.7% 34.1% 46.9% 0-10 15.6% 24.3% 29.9% 43.3%
10-20 14.6% 18.4% 18.9% 17.8% 10-20 14.3% 16.3% 18.6% 18.6% 10-20 12.7% 17.4% 19.1% 19.2%
20-30 9.3% 9.0% 7.1% 3.9% 20-30 8.6% 9.0% 8.0% 4.6% 20-30 8.5% 8.2% 8.2% 4.5%
30-40 5.0% 4.5% 2.9% 1.1% 30-40 5.9% 4.9% 3.3% 1.3% 30-40 5.2% 4.6% 2.9% 1.6%
40-50 3.7% 2.2% 1.1% 0.4% 40-50 3.7% 2.8% 1.6% 0.3% 40-50 3.3% 2.8% 1.3% 0.5%
50-60 2.8% 1.4% 1.0% 0.1% 50-60 2.7% 1.5% 0.7% 0.1% 50-60 2.4% 1.3% 0.7% 0.2%
60-70 1.7% 0.9% 0.3% 0.0% 60-70 1.9% 0.9% 0.4% 0.1% 60-70 1.8% 1.1% 0.7% 0.1%
70-80 1.7% 0.6% 0.2% 0.0% 70-80 1.4% 0.7% 0.3% 0.0% 70-80 1.4% 0.9% 0.3% 0.1%
80-90 1.2% 0.6% 0.3% 0.0% 80-90 0.9% 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 80-90 1.1% 0.6% 0.1% 0.1%
>90 7.3% 1.6% 0.4% 0.0% >90 7.6% 1.6% 0.4% 0.0% >90 8.6% 2.0% 0.8% 0.0%
Mean 77.1% 9.1% 5.7% 4.3% Mean 42.1% 8.5% 5.8% 4.9% Mean 64.8% 8.9% 5.8% 4.6%
<(50) 7.7% 1.9% 0.3% 0.0% <(50) 8.8% 2.1% 0.2% 0.0% <(50) 4.5% 1.2% 0.3% 0.0%
(50)-(40) 3.4% 2.2% 1.2% 0.0% (50)-(40) 3.6% 2.9% 1.4% 0.0% (50)-(40) 2.1% 1.1% 0.6% 0.1%
(40)-(30) 4.2% 3.4% 1.9% 0.2% (40)-(30) 5.1% 4.5% 2.0% 0.2% (40)-(30) 3.0% 2.0% 1.3% 0.3%
(30)-(20) 5.8% 5.7% 5.0% 1.6% (30)-(20) 5.9% 5.6% 5.4% 1.9% (30)-(20) 4.5% 3.7% 2.7% 1.0%
(20)-(10) 7.6% 9.7% 9.8% 6.7% (20)-(10) 8.2% 10.2% 10.4% 6.2% (20)-(10) 7.0% 7.3% 6.5% 4.2%
(10)-0 11.6% 16.7% 20.4% 24.0% (10)-0 11.2% 17.3% 22.3% 27.6% (10)-0 11.9% 16.3% 17.9% 18.7%
0-10 14.6% 21.9% 28.9% 41.8% 0-10 15.1% 21.2% 29.6% 41.7% 0-10 18.5% 26.8% 34.1% 47.8%
10-20 13.4% 16.4% 17.0% 18.3% 10-20 12.1% 15.4% 14.8% 14.1% 10-20 15.0% 18.4% 20.3% 20.5%
20-30 7.4% 8.6% 8.0% 5.3% 20-30 7.0% 7.5% 6.0% 6.1% 20-30 9.0% 9.5% 8.8% 5.1%
30-40 5.4% 4.8% 3.1% 1.7% 30-40 4.8% 3.9% 3.1% 1.9% 30-40 5.9% 5.1% 3.4% 1.5%
40-50 3.2% 2.8% 1.8% 0.2% 40-50 2.9% 3.3% 1.8% 0.2% 40-50 3.8% 2.7% 1.7% 0.6%
50-60 2.2% 1.4% 1.1% 0.1% 50-60 2.3% 1.4% 1.6% 0.1% 50-60 2.6% 1.6% 0.9% 0.2%
60-70 1.7% 1.2% 0.5% 0.0% 60-70 1.5% 1.3% 0.4% 0.0% 60-70 1.9% 1.1% 0.5% 0.1%
70-80 1.5% 0.8% 0.3% 0.0% 70-80 1.4% 1.0% 0.4% 0.0% 70-80 1.5% 0.7% 0.3% 0.0%
80-90 1.1% 0.5% 0.3% 0.0% 80-90 1.0% 0.6% 0.3% 0.0% 80-90 1.1% 0.6% 0.2% 0.0%
>90 9.2% 2.0% 0.4% 0.0% >90 9.0% 2.0% 0.3% 0.0% >90 7.6% 1.8% 0.5% 0.0%
Mean 40.8% 7.3% 4.7% 4.3% Mean 34.6% 5.8% 3.6% 3.8% Mean 88.8% 10.3% 7.3% 5.8%

September 26, 2016
worth keeping in mind. The first is that the median growth rates tend to decline as firm size increases, as does
the standard deviation of the growth rates. This point has been well established empirically.21 Exhibit 5 shows
this pattern for annualized net income growth rates over three years. Exhibit 6 reveals that the variance in net
income growth rates for ten years declines with size, underscoring that it is sensible to temper expectations
about net income growth for large companies.
Exhibit 5: Three-Year Median Net Income Growth Rates Decline with Size
Mean Median
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >$50B >$100B Full
Universe
Decile (Smallest to Largest by Sales) Mega
®
Exhibit 6: Variances in Ten-Year Net Income Growth Rates Decline with Size
150
100
50
-50
-100
0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000
Sales Base Year ($ Millions)
®
Note: Base year sales are in 2015 U.S. Dollars.

September 26, 2016
Next, net income growth follows gross domestic product (GDP) growth reasonably closely in the U.S. (see
Exhibit 7). The correlation coefficient is 0.48 between annual GDP growth and after-tax corporate profit from
the national income and product accounts (NIPA). Over the 69-year period from 1947 to 2015, U.S. GDP
grew 3.2 percent per year, adjusted for inflation, with a standard deviation of 2.6 percent. Net income, also
adjusted for inflation, grew at 3.2 percent with a standard deviation of 13.1 percent.
Exhibit 7: Net Income Growth Rate Is Correlated with GDP Growth (1947-2015)
30 r = 0.48
Annual Real Corporate Profit Growth (Percent)
25
20
15
10
0
-5 0 5 10 15
-5
-10
-15
-20
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, September 8, 2016: Real Gross Domestic
Product, Corporate Profits After Tax (without IVA and CCAdj), and Gross Domestic Product: Implicit Price Deflator.
Warren Buffett, the chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, admonishes companies to avoid predicting
rapid growth. Here’s what he wrote in his letter to shareholders in 2000:22
Charlie [Munger] and I think it is both deceptive and dangerous for CEOs to predict growth rates for
their companies. They are, of course, frequently egged on to do so by both analysts and their own
investor relations departments. They should resist, however, because too often these predictions lead
to trouble.
percentage of large businesses. Here’s a test: Examine the record of, say, the 200 highest earning
companies from 1970 or 1980 and tabulate how many have increased per-share earnings by 15%
annually since those dates. You will find that only a handful have. I would wager you a very significant
sum that fewer than 10 of the 200 most profitable companies in 2000 will attain 15% annual growth
in earnings-per-share over the next 20 years.

September 26, 2016
We ran a version of Buffett’s test. We started by identifying the 200 companies with the highest net income in
1990. By 2000, only 162 of those companies were still around (mergers and acquisitions claimed most of the
others). Of those, less than 9 percent (14 of 162) grew net income at a rate of 15 percent or more from
1990-1999. None of those 14 companies grew at higher than a 15 percent rate for the decade ended in
2009. Buffett’s sense of the base rate is accurate.
The reason that unrealistic expectations are worrisome is that executives may start to change their behavior
for the worse. His letter continues:
Charlie and I tend to be leery of companies run by CEOs who woo investors with fancy predictions. A
few of these managers will prove prophetic — but others will turn out to be congenital optimists, or
even charlatans. Unfortunately, it’s not easy for investors to know in advance which species they are
dealing with.
had a negative growth rate in net income year over year, after an adjustment for inflation. Further, 31 percent
of the firms realized lower net income for 3 years, 29 percent for 5 years, and 24 percent for 10 years.
Earnings and Total Shareholder Returns
Net income is hard to forecast but there is a solid positive correlation between net income growth and total
shareholder return. Exhibit 8 shows that the correlation coefficient is 0.20 for 1 year, 0.39 for 3 years, and
0.40 for 5 years. So there is a potential payoff from successfully predicting net income growth, but the ability
to do so is challenging.

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 8: Correlation between Net Income Growth Rates and Total Shareholder Returns over 1-, 3-,
and 5-Year Horizons
r = 0.20 r = 0.39 r = 0.40
150 70 50

125 60
40
50
100
40 30
75
30
20
50 20
10
25 10
0 0
0 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100
-10 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-25 -10
-20
-50 -30 -20

Net Income Growth 1 Year (Percent) Net Income Growth 3 Years (Percent) Net Income Growth 5 Years (Percent)

Note: Calculations use annual data on a rolling 1-, 3-, and 5-year basis; Winsorized at 2nd and 98th percentiles; Growth rates and TSRs annualized.
Using Base Rates to Model Earnings Growth
Studying base rates for net income growth is logical for three reasons. First, net income growth, despite its
flaws, is the most popular measure of corporate results. Second, net income growth does have a decent
correlation with total shareholder return. Net income growth is not persistent, but it is predictive of changes in
stock price. Finally, earnings are a significant component of many incentive compensation programs.
Exhibit 9 shows that the correlation coefficient is -0.05 for the year-to-year net income growth rate. This
includes the top 1,000 global companies by market capitalization from 1950 to 2015. Nearly 50,000
company years are in the data, and all of the figures are adjusted for inflation.
You can interpret this result as follows: for a population of companies with net income growth that is far from
average in a particular year, the expected value of the next year’s net income growth is close to the average.
For companies with high growth, the expected value is actually slightly below the average growth rate, and for
companies with low growth the expected value is slightly above the average growth rate. You can refine this
analysis by examining sectors and industries, which shrinks the sample size but increases its relevance.

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 9: Correlation of One-Year Net Income Growth Rates
250
r = -0.05
Net Income Growth Next Year (Percent)

200
150
100
50
0
-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
-50
-100
Net Income Growth 1 Year (Percent)
®
Note: Winsorized at 2nd and 98th percentiles.
The correlations decline as we consider longer time periods, which is not surprising. Exhibit 10 shows the
correlation coefficients for 1-, 3-, and 5-year horizons for the full population of companies. The lesson is that
the base rate for the reference classes, the median net income growth rate, should receive the majority of the
weight for forecasts of three years or longer. In fact, you might start with the base rate and seek reasons to
move away from it. In addition, companies with net income growth above the average have a slight tendency
to swing to growth below the average, and vice versa.
Exhibit 10: Correlation of Net Income Growth Rates for 1-, 3-, and 5-Year Horizons
Period
0.00
-0.05
Correlation
(r)
-0.23
-0.24
-0.40
®
Note: Calculations use annual data on a rolling 1-, 3-, and 5-year basis; Winsorized at 2nd and 98th percentiles.

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 1 showed the current expectations for net income growth over three years for the largest thousand
public companies in the world. The median expected growth rate is seven percent, which is roughly consistent
with GDP growth of two to three percent.
Exhibit 11 shows the three-year net income growth rates, adjusted for inflation, which analysts expect for ten
of historical net income growth rates for mega companies.
Exhibit 11: Three-Year Expected Net Income Growth Rates for Ten Mega Companies
25
Microsoft
20 BASF Home Depot
Frequency (Percent)
Wal-Mart Samsung
Toyota UnitedHealth
15 Alphabet
Phillips 66
10
5 PetroChina
0
0-10
20-30
10-20
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90
<(50)
(10)-0
>90
(50)-(40)
(40)-(30)
(30)-(20)
(20)-(10)
CAGR (Percent)
®
Source: Credit Suisse HOLT and FactSet.

September 26, 2016
Appendix: Observations for Each Base Rate by Decile, 1950-2015

<(50) 158 33 10 0 <(50) 145 34 10 2 <(50) 158 30 11 0
(50)-(40) 77 37 15 0 (50)-(40) 68 34 20 2 (50)-(40) 84 34 24 1
(40)-(30) 107 58 37 7 (40)-(30) 135 57 36 9 (40)-(30) 127 86 50 13
(30)-(20) 170 120 71 26 (30)-(20) 181 133 84 25 (30)-(20) 222 148 91 35
(20)-(10) 289 273 190 115 (20)-(10) 347 312 244 144 (20)-(10) 313 322 247 150
(10)-0 586 714 694 574 (10)-0 667 800 803 683 (10)-0 602 753 773 710
0-10 1,117 1,401 1,698 2,224 0-10 1,202 1,632 1,945 2,452 0-10 1,051 1,376 1,671 2,079
10-20 883 1,061 1,293 1,390 10-20 942 1,090 1,183 1,110 10-20 813 951 1,006 836
20-30 562 666 671 535 20-30 513 534 498 242 20-30 441 457 364 190
30-40 447 378 297 195 30-40 346 274 170 61 30-40 318 237 155 38
40-50 277 227 174 100 40-50 228 130 76 21 40-50 196 134 78 11
50-60 181 156 98 33 50-60 143 87 42 5 50-60 140 66 30 4
60-70 127 107 75 25 60-70 111 65 21 4 60-70 104 48 18 1
70-80 112 62 49 4 70-80 92 35 12 3 70-80 66 34 12 0
80-90 90 64 27 3 80-90 71 22 11 0 80-90 59 15 7 0
>90 625 207 76 4 >90 316 78 18 0 >90 291 66 15 1
<(50) 148 51 18 0 <(50) 168 47 9 0 <(50) 226 62 19 1
(50)-(40) 77 40 18 2 (50)-(40) 77 35 27 2 (50)-(40) 106 37 21 3
(40)-(30) 135 91 50 5 (40)-(30) 128 78 48 13 (40)-(30) 148 102 56 5
(30)-(20) 197 150 90 31 (30)-(20) 175 141 118 36 (30)-(20) 224 182 120 38
(20)-(10) 341 320 258 144 (20)-(10) 344 283 239 159 (20)-(10) 363 314 309 160
(10)-0 555 701 710 677 (10)-0 568 712 734 700 (10)-0 584 810 838 710
0-10 902 1,226 1,531 1,892 0-10 896 1,204 1,445 1,679 0-10 920 1,226 1,446 1,703
10-20 763 833 852 717 10-20 710 801 728 569 10-20 744 804 804 631
20-30 450 419 380 134 20-30 422 374 334 111 20-30 474 424 318 103
30-40 290 217 128 28 30-40 245 242 123 26 30-40 277 217 122 32
40-50 173 122 72 7 40-50 169 86 50 8 40-50 173 108 41 13
50-60 109 74 19 4 50-60 117 59 19 2 50-60 134 60 23 2
60-70 91 44 10 1 60-70 86 41 12 1 60-70 84 42 11 1
70-80 65 21 11 0 70-80 60 18 6 0 70-80 67 27 6 1
80-90 42 19 5 0 80-90 52 20 7 0 80-90 45 22 5 0
>90 305 46 5 0 >90 310 58 16 2 >90 343 61 18 0

September 26, 2016

<(50) 239 69 15 2 <(50) 330 88 29 0 <(50) 396 95 20 0
(50)-(40) 119 70 32 3 (50)-(40) 160 60 31 4 (50)-(40) 173 84 41 2
(40)-(30) 162 99 52 14 (40)-(30) 212 126 76 9 (40)-(30) 230 121 88 19
(30)-(20) 254 190 117 48 (30)-(20) 291 239 165 39 (30)-(20) 346 250 165 51
(20)-(10) 421 370 319 169 (20)-(10) 404 427 369 178 (20)-(10) 457 464 372 192
(10)-0 615 814 873 789 (10)-0 743 922 865 790 (10)-0 780 929 986 751
0-10 975 1,271 1,484 1,597 0-10 1,001 1,412 1,620 1,714 0-10 947 1,281 1,385 1,451
10-20 775 870 807 609 10-20 846 865 883 678 10-20 768 916 885 643
20-30 492 428 305 133 20-30 507 476 378 169 20-30 514 431 379 152
30-40 266 212 123 36 30-40 348 258 158 46 30-40 315 242 133 53
40-50 196 105 48 15 40-50 218 149 75 11 40-50 201 146 59 18
50-60 148 65 42 5 50-60 160 77 34 4 50-60 147 68 34 8
60-70 92 43 14 1 60-70 111 48 17 5 60-70 110 56 31 3
70-80 91 27 10 1 70-80 84 38 15 1 70-80 86 45 16 3
80-90 63 29 11 1 80-90 56 28 9 3 80-90 67 30 6 2
>90 385 78 17 0 >90 452 83 21 1 >90 520 107 38 0
<(50) 406 86 10 0 <(50) 195 39 3 0 <(50) 2,374 595 151 5
(50)-(40) 176 98 46 1 (50)-(40) 79 53 21 0 (50)-(40) 1,117 529 275 20
(40)-(30) 219 151 72 5 (40)-(30) 112 82 30 2 (40)-(30) 1,603 969 565 99
(30)-(20) 302 253 188 39 (30)-(20) 131 104 83 18 (30)-(20) 2,362 1,806 1,209 368
(20)-(10) 400 435 371 166 (20)-(10) 181 188 159 58 (20)-(10) 3,679 3,520 2,918 1,577
(10)-0 610 743 773 592 (10)-0 246 318 340 259 (10)-0 6,310 7,898 8,049 6,976
0-10 768 978 1,097 1,028 0-10 334 390 452 392 0-10 9,779 13,007 15,322 17,819
10-20 702 733 646 450 10-20 268 283 226 133 10-20 7,946 8,924 9,087 7,633
20-30 387 382 305 130 20-30 154 138 92 57 20-30 4,762 4,591 3,932 1,899
30-40 283 216 119 43 30-40 105 72 48 18 30-40 3,135 2,493 1,528 558
40-50 168 124 70 5 40-50 63 60 27 2 40-50 1,999 1,331 743 209
50-60 114 62 41 2 50-60 51 26 25 1 50-60 1,393 774 382 69
60-70 88 54 19 0 60-70 34 24 6 0 60-70 1,004 548 228 42
70-80 80 37 10 0 70-80 31 18 6 0 70-80 803 344 147 13
80-90 59 22 10 0 80-90 23 11 5 0 80-90 604 271 98 9
>90 484 88 16 1 >90 199 36 4 0 >90 4,031 872 240 9

September 26, 2016
Cash Flow Return on

Investment (CFROI)
Regression toward the Mean for CFROI
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Year

September 26, 2016
Why CFROI Is Important
Cash Flow Return on Investment (CFROI) reflects a company’s economic return on capital deployed by
considering a company’s inflation-adjusted cash flow and operating assets. CFROI aims to remove the
vagaries of accounting figures in order to provide a metric that allows for comparison of corporate
performance across a portfolio, a market, or a universe (cross sectional) as well as over time (longitudinal).1
CFROI is important for a few reasons. First, it shows which companies are creating value using a sound
economic framework. The model also allows you to get a sense of market expectations, or what is priced into
the shares. Finally, CFROI provides for direct comparability across time, industries, and geographies.
The calculation of CFROI starts with a measure of inflation-adjusted gross cash flows available to all capital
owners and compares that to the inflation-adjusted gross investment made by the capital owners. It then
translates this ratio into an internal rate of return by recognizing the finite economic life of depreciating assets
and the residual value of non-depreciating assets.
CFROI is appropriate for industrial and service firms. However, Cash Flow Return on Equity (CFROE®) is a
better measure for financial companies. Similar to CFROI, CFROE reflects economic adjustments but also
reflects that lenders utilize the liability side of the balance sheet to generate value.
Persistence of CFROI
Exhibit 1 shows that CFROI is reasonably persistent over one- and four-year periods. The correlation between
CFROI in the current year and four years in the future has a coefficient, r, of 0.56 (right panel of Exhibit 1). The
one-year correlation is even higher, at 0.78 (left panel).
This universe includes global companies with a market cap of $250 million scaled over time and covers the years
1983-2015. The sample includes dead companies.
Exhibit 1: Persistence of CFROI, 1983-2015


September 26, 2016
Exhibit 2 shows the stability of CFROI.2 We start by sorting companies into quintiles based on CFROI minus the
median of the universe at the beginning of a year. For example, if a company has a 17 percent CFROI and the
median is 6 percent, the spread would be 11 percentage points and the company would be in the highest quintile.
We then follow the CFROI for each of the 5 cohorts for 10 years. There is modest regression toward the mean. The
spread from the highest to the lowest quintile shrinks from 18 to 9 percentage points.
Exhibit 2: Regression toward the Mean for CFROI

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Year
Base Rates of CFROI by Sector
We can refine our analysis by examining CFROI at the sector level. This reduces the size of the sample but
increases its relevance. We present a guide for calculating the rate of regression toward the mean, as well as the
proper mean to use, for ten sectors.
Exhibit 3 examines operating margin in the consumer staples and energy sectors. The panels at the top show the
persistence of CFROI for the consumer staples sector. On the left, we see that the correlation coefficient (r)
between CFROI from one year to the next is 0.89, and on the right we observe that the correlation between the
current year and four years in the future is 0.78.
The panels at the bottom of exhibit 3 show the same relationships for the energy sector. On the left, we see that the
correlation between CFROI from one year to the next is 0.64, and on the right we observe that the correlation
between the current year and four years in the future is just 0.35. Intuitively, you would expect that a sector with
stable demand, such as consumer staples, would have a higher r than an industry exposed to commodity markets,
such as energy. This is precisely what the data show.

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 3: Correlation Coefficients for CFROI in Consumer Staples and Energy, 1983-2015
Consumer Staples Consumer Staples
45
r = 0.89 45
r = 0.78
40 40

35 35
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
-10 -5
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 -10 -5
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
-10 -10
Energy Energy
30
r = 0.64 r = 0.35
30
20 20
10 10
0 0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-10 -10
-20 -20
-30 -30
-40 -40

Note that the correlation coefficient for the four-year change in CFROI is higher than what you would expect
by looking solely at the r for the one-year change. Take consumer staples as an illustration. Say a company
has a CFROI that is 10 percentage points above average. Using the one-year r, you’d forecast the excess
CFROI spread in 4 years to be 6.3 (0.894 * 10 = 6.3). But using the four-year r, you’d forecast the spread to
be 7.8 (0.78 * 10 = 7.8). So using a one-year correlation coefficient overstates the rate of regression toward
the mean.3
Exhibit 4 shows the average correlation coefficient for the four-year change in CFROI for ten sectors from
1983-2015, as well as the standard deviation for each series. There are two aspects of the exhibit worth
emphasizing. The first is the ranking of r from the highest to the lowest. This provides a sense of the rate of
regression toward the mean by sector. Consumer-oriented sectors are generally at the top of the list, and
those sectors that have exposure to commodities tend to be at the bottom.
Also important is how the r’s change from year to year. While the ranking is reasonably consistent through
time, there is a large range in the standard deviation of r for each sector. For example, the r for the consumer
staples sector was 0.78 from 1983-2015 and had a standard deviation of just 0.04. This means that 68
percent of the observations fell within a range of 0.74 and 0.82. The r for the energy sector, by contrast, was

September 26, 2016
0.35 and had a standard deviation of 0.12. This means that most observations fell between 0.23 and 0.47.
Appendix A shows all of the one-year and four-year r’s for each of the ten sectors.
Exhibit 4: Correlation Coefficients for CFROI for Ten Sectors, 1983-2015

Four-Year Correlation Standard
Utilities 0.57 0.11
Financials 0.43 0.10
Materials 0.41 0.07
Energy 0.35 0.12
Exhibit 5 visually translates r’s into the downward slopes for excess CFROIs that they suggest. It shows the
rate of regression toward the mean based on four-year r’s of 0.78 and 0.35, the numbers that bound our
empirical findings. We assume a company is earning a CFROI ten percentage points above the sector average,
and show how those returns fade given the assumptions.15
Exhibit 5: The Rate of Regression toward the Mean Assuming Different Four-Year r’s
12
CFROI - Sector Average (Percent)
10
r = 0.78
8
6
r = 0.35
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Years

September 26, 2016
The second issue we must address is the mean, or average, to which results regress. For some measures,
such as sports statistics and the heights of parents and children, the means remain relatively stable over time.
But for other measures, including corporate performance, the mean can change from one period to the next.
In assessing the stability of the mean, you want to answer two questions. The first is: How stable has the
mean been in the past? In cases where the average has been consistent over time and the environment isn’t
expected to change much, you can safely use past averages to anticipate future averages.
The blue lines in the middle of each chart of exhibit 6 are the mean (solid) and median (dashed) CFROI for
each year for the consumer staples and energy sectors. The consumer staples sector had an average CFROI
of 9.3 percent from 1983-2015, with a standard deviation of 0.6 percent. The energy sector had an average
CFROI of 4.9 percent, with a standard deviation of 1.7 percent over the same period. So the CFROI in the
energy sector was lower than that for consumer staples and moved around a lot more.
It comes as no surprise that the CFROI for energy is lower and more volatile than that for consumer staples.
This helps explain why regression toward the mean in energy is more rapid than that for consumer staples.
You can associate high volatility and low CFROIs with low valuation multiples, and low volatility and high
CFROIs with high valuation multiples. This is what we see empirically for these sectors.
Also in exhibit 6 are gray dashed lines that capture the CFROI for the 75th and 25th percentile companies
within the sector. If you ranked 100 companies in a sector from 100 (the highest) to 1 (the lowest) based on
CFROI, the 75th percentile would be the CFROI of company number 75. So plotting the percentiles allows you
to see the dispersion in CFROIs for the sector. Appendix B shows the same chart for all ten sectors.
Another way to show dispersion is with the coefficient of variation, which is the standard deviation of the
CFROIs divided by the mean of the CFROIs. The coefficient of variation for 1983-2015 was 0.07 for
consumer staples and 0.34 for energy. For every 100 basis points of CFROI, there’s much more variance in
energy than in consumer staples.
Exhibit 6: Mean and Median CFROI and 75th and 25th Percentiles – Consumer Staples and Energy
Consumer Staples Energy
75th % Mean Median 25th % 75th % Mean Median 25th %
18 18
16 16
14 14
CFROI (Percent)
CFROI (Percent)
12 12
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
-2 -2
-4 -4
-6 -6
1983 1991 1999 2007 2015 1983 1991 1999 2007 2015

September 26, 2016
The second question is: What are the factors that affect the mean CFROI? For example, the CFROI for the
energy sector might be correlated to swings in oil prices, or returns for the financial sector might be dictated
by changes in regulations. Analysts must answer this question sector by sector.
As regression toward the mean is a concept that applies wherever correlations are less than perfect, thinking
about this second question can frame debates. Currently, for instance, there’s a contested debate about
whether operating profit margins in the U.S. are sustainable.16 The answer lies in what factors drive the level
of profit margins—including labor costs, depreciation expense, financing costs, and tax rates—and what is
happening to each. There will obviously be regression toward the mean for the operating profit margins of
companies within a sector or industry. The question is whether aggregate profit margins will decline in coming
years following a strong rise since the depths of the recession.
for ten sectors based on more than twenty years of data.
Exhibit 7: Rate of Regression and toward What Mean CFROIs Revert for Ten Sectors, 1983-2015
Four-Year Correlation Standard Coefficient
Sector Coefficient Median (%) Average (%) Deviation (%) of Variation
Health Care 0.64 8.3 7.6 1.1 0.15
Industrials 0.62 6.7 7.6 1.0 0.12
Utilities 0.57 3.5 4.1 0.8 0.20
Financials 0.43 7.5 8.3 1.5 0.18
Materials 0.41 4.6 4.7 0.9 0.19
Energy 0.35 5.0 4.9 1.7 0.34
Note: “Standard deviation” is the standard deviation of the annual average CFROI for the sector; Includes global companies, live and dead, with market
capitalizations of $250 million-plus scaled; Winsorized at 1st and 99th percentiles.
The second column shows the average correlation coefficient, r, based on four-year changes in CFROI for
each sector from 1983-2015. These correlations tend to be reasonably stable and hence are a useful
approximation for the rate of regression toward the mean over a multi-year period. You can plug these r’s into
the formula to forecast expected outcomes. Remember that regression works on a population, not necessarily
on every individual company.
The third and fourth columns of the exhibit show the historical medians and means, and the fifth column
shows the standard deviation of the annual means. We show medians as well as means because the CFROIs
in many of these sectors do not match a normal distribution. Still, you can use the means and medians
interchangeably in most cases as they tend to be close to one another.
In some sectors, including consumer staples and consumer discretionary, the mean CFROIs are stable. Others,
including information technology and telecommunication services, have a great deal of volatility. For sectors
with CFROIs that have a low standard deviation, it is reasonable to assume that the historical mean is the
number to which CFROIs regress.

September 26, 2016
For sectors that are volatile, you should assess where the sector is in its cycle and aim to shade the historical
average up or down to reflect mid-cycle profitability. Note that even mid-cycle profitability changes if the
structure of the sector improves or deteriorates.
The column on the right shows the coefficient of variation, the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean, for
each sector based on data from 1983-2015. This is a measure of how much variance there is in the
distribution of returns for the sector.

September 26, 2016
Appendix A: Historical Correlation Coefficients for All Sectors
Exhibit 8 shows the average correlation coefficient for the year-over-year change in CFROI for ten sectors
from 1983-2015, as well as the standard deviation for each series. Exhibit 9 shows the average correlation
coefficient for the four-year change in CFROI for ten sectors from 1983-2015, as well as the standard
deviation for each series.
Exhibit 8: Year-over-Year Correlation Coefficients for CFROI in Ten Sectors, 1983-2015

Consumer Consumer Telecommunication Information
Staples Discretionary Health Care Industrials Utilities Services Technology Financials Materials Energy
1984 0.87 0.84 0.71 0.83 0.79 0.86 0.68 0.68 0.73 0.65
1985 0.92 0.87 0.63 0.79 0.39 0.94 0.52 0.73 0.73 0.42
1986 0.79 0.87 0.67 0.81 0.68 0.48 0.79 0.72 0.67 0.39
1987 0.80 0.76 0.78 0.82 0.67 0.66 0.81 0.78 0.68 0.48
1988 0.88 0.85 0.90 0.83 0.71 0.83 0.73 0.71 0.79 0.59
1989 0.90 0.82 0.87 0.81 0.76 0.87 0.83 0.67 0.78 0.64
1990 0.89 0.81 0.82 0.83 0.80 0.71 0.82 0.64 0.64 0.78
1991 0.91 0.88 0.92 0.81 0.75 0.84 0.86 0.72 0.70 0.71
1992 0.93 0.86 0.82 0.79 0.74 0.85 0.83 0.82 0.74 0.65
1993 0.93 0.87 0.82 0.82 0.80 0.90 0.79 0.73 0.70 0.68
1994 0.90 0.87 0.78 0.82 0.78 0.91 0.85 0.73 0.69 0.65
1995 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.82 0.79 0.83 0.76 0.74 0.66 0.58
1996 0.89 0.83 0.80 0.82 0.80 0.84 0.75 0.81 0.70 0.68
1997 0.89 0.81 0.85 0.83 0.78 0.77 0.77 0.78 0.73 0.51
1998 0.89 0.84 0.82 0.84 0.82 0.82 0.66 0.69 0.72 0.58
1999 0.87 0.86 0.84 0.84 0.75 0.80 0.77 0.71 0.72 0.48
2000 0.87 0.79 0.87 0.80 0.76 0.61 0.66 0.73 0.63 0.55
2001 0.87 0.82 0.86 0.79 0.74 0.76 0.59 0.66 0.69 0.71
2002 0.91 0.85 0.88 0.78 0.71 0.76 0.67 0.66 0.70 0.51
2003 0.89 0.85 0.89 0.81 0.80 0.74 0.78 0.61 0.68 0.54
2004 0.90 0.88 0.82 0.81 0.81 0.87 0.78 0.75 0.75 0.67
2005 0.89 0.87 0.87 0.84 0.87 0.85 0.80 0.71 0.77 0.69
2006 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.86 0.81 0.89 0.81 0.73 0.71 0.72
2007 0.90 0.87 0.88 0.86 0.79 0.86 0.83 0.70 0.74 0.75
2008 0.90 0.86 0.84 0.83 0.72 0.83 0.77 0.52 0.64 0.61
2009 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.77 0.69 0.85 0.81 0.55 0.54 0.54
2010 0.92 0.87 0.83 0.80 0.78 0.87 0.79 0.70 0.67 0.71
2011 0.90 0.88 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.91 0.81 0.67 0.78 0.69
2012 0.91 0.88 0.85 0.87 0.72 0.86 0.86 0.67 0.70 0.62
2013 0.91 0.90 0.87 0.89 0.76 0.89 0.84 0.71 0.70 0.69
2014 0.90 0.90 0.88 0.88 0.81 0.91 0.84 0.75 0.74 0.68
2015 0.90 0.87 0.86 0.87 0.80 0.78 0.84 0.82 0.69 0.41
Average 0.89 0.86 0.83 0.83 0.76 0.82 0.77 0.71 0.70 0.61
St. Dev. 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.10


September 26, 2016
Exhibit 9: Four-Year Correlation Coefficients for CFROI in Ten Sectors, 1983-2015

Consumer Consumer Telecommunication Information
Staples Discretionary Health Care Industrials Utilities Services Technology Financials Materials Energy
1987 0.84 0.63 0.65 0.58 0.39 0.76 0.32 0.31 0.64 0.20
1988 0.87 0.71 0.41 0.53 0.25 0.29 0.42 0.28 0.47 0.34
1989 0.70 0.67 0.68 0.61 0.47 0.52 0.56 0.42 0.40 0.32
1990 0.77 0.66 0.71 0.64 0.37 0.49 0.65 0.31 0.33 0.13
1991 0.76 0.59 0.51 0.63 0.32 0.61 0.61 0.25 0.51 0.45
1992 0.80 0.67 0.43 0.63 0.62 0.65 0.63 0.29 0.49 0.39
1993 0.80 0.70 0.58 0.60 0.53 0.47 0.48 0.39 0.34 0.53
1994 0.81 0.78 0.61 0.60 0.44 0.69 0.50 0.45 0.51 0.42
1995 0.79 0.71 0.71 0.55 0.57 0.63 0.50 0.63 0.40 0.46
1996 0.82 0.68 0.59 0.55 0.62 0.32 0.46 0.63 0.59 0.37
1997 0.80 0.67 0.59 0.59 0.68 0.59 0.45 0.57 0.41 0.15
1998 0.69 0.68 0.53 0.60 0.48 0.58 0.49 0.44 0.45 0.08
1999 0.73 0.66 0.59 0.70 0.56 0.55 0.42 0.49 0.44 0.24
2000 0.78 0.60 0.68 0.65 0.49 0.49 0.40 0.45 0.40 0.24
2001 0.79 0.64 0.63 0.61 0.69 0.61 0.31 0.44 0.53 0.33
2002 0.78 0.71 0.59 0.58 0.68 0.28 0.46 0.40 0.52 0.36
2003 0.77 0.64 0.68 0.57 0.67 0.36 0.48 0.47 0.44 0.41
2004 0.79 0.66 0.67 0.61 0.55 0.46 0.40 0.51 0.42 0.36
2005 0.80 0.68 0.65 0.59 0.60 0.32 0.43 0.47 0.40 0.41
2006 0.76 0.64 0.66 0.61 0.55 0.69 0.46 0.43 0.46 0.32
2007 0.81 0.63 0.61 0.66 0.48 0.74 0.48 0.41 0.49 0.13
2008 0.81 0.67 0.71 0.59 0.56 0.64 0.55 0.32 0.44 0.24
2009 0.75 0.65 0.64 0.56 0.67 0.53 0.58 0.37 0.41 0.24
2010 0.79 0.63 0.70 0.63 0.61 0.68 0.59 0.53 0.44 0.46
2011 0.77 0.70 0.65 0.67 0.53 0.54 0.61 0.41 0.42 0.42
2012 0.78 0.73 0.68 0.67 0.46 0.66 0.65 0.40 0.41 0.42
2013 0.84 0.69 0.69 0.64 0.61 0.69 0.60 0.47 0.45 0.41
2014 0.80 0.69 0.61 0.66 0.52 0.72 0.57 0.59 0.45 0.38
2015 0.77 0.70 0.62 0.71 0.54 0.66 0.63 0.59 0.28 0.27
Average 0.78 0.67 0.62 0.61 0.53 0.56 0.51 0.44 0.45 0.33
St. Dev. 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.11 0.14 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.12


September 26, 2016
Appendix B: Historical CFROIs for All Sectors
The charts in exhibit 10 show the average CFROI for each sector from 1983-2015. The charts in exhibit 11
portray the CFROI trends. The blue lines in the middle are the mean (solid) and median (dashed) CFROI. The
gray dashed lines capture the CFROI for the 75th and 25th percentile companies within the sector, with the
100th percentile being the highest. Plotting the percentiles allows you to see the dispersion in CFROI for the
sector.

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 10: Mean CFROI for All Sectors, 1983-2015

Consumer Staples Consumer Discretionary Health Care Industrials
18 18 18 18
16 16 16 16
14 14 14 14
12 12 12 12
10 10 10 10
8 8 8 8
6 6 6 6
4 4 4 4
2 2 2 2
0 0 0 0
CFROI (Percent)
CFROI (Percent)
CFROI (Percent)
CFROI (Percent)
-2 -2 -2 -2
-4 -4 -4 -4
-6 -6 -6 -6
1983 1991 1999 2007 2015 1983 1991 1999 2007 2015 1983 1991 1999 2007 2015 1983 1991 1999 2007 2015
Utilities Telecommunication Services Information Technology

18 18 18
16 16 16
14 14 14
12 12 12
10 10 10
8 8 8
6 6 6
4 4 4
2 2 2
0 0 0
CFROI (Percent)
CFROI (Percent)
CFROI (Percent)
-2 -2 -2
-4 -4 -4
-6 -6 -6
1983 1991 1999 2007 2015 1983 1991 1999 2007 2015 1983 1991 1999 2007 2015
Financials Materials Energy

18 18 18
16 16 16
14 14 14
12 12 12
10 10 10
8 8 8
6 6 6
4 4 4
2 2 2
0 0 0
CFROI (Percent)
CFROI (Percent)
CFROI (Percent)
-2 -2 -2
-4 -4 -4
-6 -6 -6
1983 1991 1999 2007 2015 1983 1991 1999 2007 2015 1983 1991 1999 2007 2015

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 11: Mean and Median CFROI and 75th and 25th Percentiles for All Sectors, 1983-2015
Consumer Staples Consumer Discretionary Health Care Industrials
75th % Mean Median 25th % 75th % Mean Median 25th % 75th % Mean Median 25th % 75th % Mean Median 25th %
18 18 18 18
16 16 16 16
14 14 14 14
12 12 12 12
10 10 10 10
8 8 8 8
6 6 6 6
4 4 4 4
2 2 2 2
0 0 0 0
CFROI (Percent)
CFROI (Percent)
CFROI (Percent)
CFROI (Percent)
-2 -2 -2 -2
-4 -4 -4 -4
-6 -6 -6 -6
1983 1991 1999 2007 2015 1983 1991 1999 2007 2015 1983 1991 1999 2007 2015 1983 1991 1999 2007 2015
Utilities Telecommunication Services Information Technology

75th % Mean Median 25th % 75th % Mean Median 25th % 75th % Mean Median 25th %
18 18 18
16 16 16
14 14 14
12 12 12
10 10 10
8 8 8
6 6 6
4 4 4
2 2 2
0 0 0
CFROI (Percent)
CFROI (Percent)
CFROI (Percent)
-2 -2 -2
-4 -4 -4
-6 -6 -6
1983 1991 1999 2007 2015 1983 1991 1999 2007 2015 1983 1991 1999 2007 2015
Financials Materials Energy

75th % Mean Median 25th % 75th % Mean Median 25th % 75th % Mean Median 25th %
18 18 18
16 16 16
14 14 14
12 12 12
10 10 10
8 8 8
6 6 6
4 4 4
2 2 2
0 0 0
CFROI (Percent)
CFROI (Percent)
CFROI (Percent)
-2 -2 -2
-4 -4 -4
-6 -6 -6
1983 1991 1999 2007 2015 1983 1991 1999 2007 2015 1983 1991 1999 2007 2015


September 26, 2016
Managing the Man

Overboard Moment
Number of Observations of 10%+ Relative Stock Price Declines, January 1990-June 2014
50
45
40
Number of Observations
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014

September 26, 2016
The Value of a Framework under Adversity
A key part of successful investing is the ability to keep emotions in check in the face of adversity. One
example, the focus of this report, is when one of the stocks in your portfolio drops sharply. If you are the
portfolio manager, you might feel frustrated, upset about the hit to returns, and worried about the business
implications. If you are the analyst, you might feel anger, disappointment, and shame. None of those feelings
are conducive to good decision making.
This kind of event precipitates what has been called a “man overboard” moment.1 These moments demand
immediate attention, are stressful, and require swift action. In an investment firm it is common for a number of
professionals to stop what they are doing in order to discern a suitable course of action.
The use of a checklist is one approach to making good decisions under pressure. In his superb book, The
Checklist Manifesto, Dr. Atul Gawande describes two types of checklists.2 The first is called DO-CONFIRM.
Here you do your job from memory but pause periodically to make sure that you have done everything you’re
supposed to do. The second is called READ-DO. Here, you simply read the checklist and do what it says.
READ-DO checklists are particularly helpful in stressful situations because they prevent you from being
overcome by emotion as you decide how to act.
You can think of your emotional state and the ability to make good decisions as sitting on opposite sides of a
seesaw. If your state of emotional arousal is high, your capacity to decide well is low. A checklist helps take
out the emotion and moves you toward a proper choice. It also keeps you from succumbing to decision
paralysis. A psychologist studying emergency checklists in aviation said the goal is to “minimize the need for a
lot of effortful analysis when time may be limited and workload is high.”3
The goal of this report is to provide you with analytical guidance if one of your stocks declines 10 percent or
more, relative to the S&P 500, in one day. More directly, we want to answer the question of whether you
should buy, hold, or sell the stock following one of these big down moves.
Exhibit 1 shows the number of such observations from January 1990 through mid-2014. There were more
than 5,400 occurrences in all, with clusters around the deflating of the dot-com bubble in the early 2000s and
the financial crisis in 2008-2009. The bubble periods contain about 40 percent of the observations. These
sharp drops happen frequently enough that they deserve a thoughtful process to deal with them but
infrequently enough that few investment firms have developed such a process.

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 1: Number of Observations of 10%+ Relative Stock Price Declines, January 1990-June 2014
50
45
Number of Observations 40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014
Base Rates of Large Drawdowns in Stock Price
We use base rates to show how stocks perform after they have dropped sharply. To do this, we calculate the
“cumulative abnormal return” for the 30, 60, and 90 trading days after the time of the decline. An abnormal
return is the difference between the total shareholder return and the expected return. A stock’s expected
return reflects the change in a broader stock market index, the S&P 500 in our case, adjusted for risk. The
cumulative abnormal return, then, is simply the sum of the abnormal returns during the period we measure.
We refine the large sample into relevant categories in an effort to increase the usefulness of the base rates.4
The first refinement is to segregate earnings and non-earnings announcements. Earnings releases constitute
about one-quarter of our sample. Non-earnings announcements include releases of information that are
scheduled, such as same-store sales updates, as well as unanticipated announcements, including a change in
management or an earnings warning. In general, the cumulative abnormal returns following disappointing
earnings releases are worse than for other announcements.
The second refinement is the introduction of three factors—momentum, valuation, and quality—that consider
corporate fundamentals and stock market measures. All companies receive a score for each factor. The
scores are relative to a company’s peers in the same sector. You can find a detailed definition of the factors in
Appendix A, but here’s a quick summary:
Momentum predominantly considers two drivers, change in cash flow return on investment (CFROI) as
the result of earnings revisions, and stock price momentum. Good momentum is associated with rising
CFROI and strong stock price appreciation.
Valuation reflects the gap between the current stock price and the warranted value in the HOLT® model.
Valuation also incorporates adjusted measures of price-to-earnings and price-to-book ratios. Together,
these metrics help assess whether a stock is relatively cheap or expensive.
Quality captures the company’s recent level of CFROI and whether the company has consistently made
investments that create value. Firms with high CFROIs and strong value creation score well on quality.

September 26, 2016
The final refinement is a separation between the full sample and the periods excluding the bubbles. We show
the full sample including all events in exhibits 2 and 3, and the narrower sample excluding the bubble periods
in exhibits 12 and 13. The bubble periods correlate with high volatility in the market, as measured by the
Chicago Board Options Exchange Market Volatility Index (VIX). When you compare the full sample to the ex-
bubble sample for earnings announcements, you will see that the average stock price changes for the
equivalent branches are directionally the same more than 80 percent of the time. For the other events, the
directional overlap is close to 90 percent.
The upside of adding refinements is that you can find a base rate that closely matches the case you are
considering. The downside is that the sample size (N) shrinks with each refinement. We have tried to maintain
healthy sample sizes even in the end branches, and we display the Ns along the way so that you can assess
the trade-off between fit and prior occurrences.
We are almost ready to turn to the checklist and numbers, but we need to cover one additional item. All of our
summary exhibits show the average, or mean, stock price return. That average represents a full distribution of
results. For most of the distributions, the median return—the return that separates the top half from the
bottom half of the sample—is less than the mean, which suggests the distributions have a right skew.
Further, the standard deviations of most of the distributions are in the range of 35-45 percent. While our
summary figures show a tidy average, recognize that the figure belies a rich distribution. Appendix B shows
the distributions for a handful of events. The base rate data can be extremely helpful in making a sound
decision even if the outcome is probabilistic.
We’re now ready to turn to the checklist and the numbers that show the base rates.

September 26, 2016
The Checklist
You come into the office and one of the stocks in your portfolio is down 10 percent or more relative to the
S&P 500. Here’s what you do:
Earnings or non-earnings. Determine whether the precipitating announcement is an earnings release or

a non-earnings disclosure and go to the appropriate exhibit;
Momentum. Check the HOLT Lens™ screen to determine if the stock had strong, weak, or neutral
momentum going into the announcement. You can either go to the momentum section of the exhibit or
continue;
Valuation. Check to see if the valuation is cheap, expensive, or neutral. You can either go to the section in
the exhibit that combines momentum and valuation or continue;
Quality. Check to see if the quality is high, low, or neutral. Go to section in the exhibit that incorporates all
of the factors.
We have two detailed case studies that we’ll present in a moment, but let’s run through an example to see
how this works. The first item is to determine whether the announcement was a scheduled earnings release or
not. Let’s say it was an earnings event. That means we would refer to the data in exhibit 2.
Step two is to assess the momentum. We’ll assume that momentum is strong. If you look at the left side of
the exhibit you’ll see the section that reflects momentum. If you focus on the results of the companies with
strong momentum, you’ll see a few figures. You’ll notice that the 408 stocks in that reference class declined
14.9 percent, on average, the day of the event. You’ll also see that those stocks modestly underperformed
the market, with a cumulative abnormal return of -1.6 percent, in the prior 30 trading days.
You’ll also see that the stocks in that class struggled in the subsequent quarter, with cumulative abnormal
returns of -1.5 percent in the next 30 trading days, -1.9 percent in 60 trading days, and -0.6 percent in 90
trading days. We selected 90 trading days as the extent of this analysis because we felt it is a sufficient
amount of time for an investment team to thoroughly reassess the stock’s merit. We designed the READ-DO
checklist to provide immediate guidance.
We now turn to valuation, which you can find in the middle of the exhibit, to see if we can sharpen the analysis.
Let’s assume the valuation was expensive. If we look 60 days out, we see that the 167 stocks in this group
have an average cumulative abnormal return of -4.5 percent.
As a final check, we consider quality, which you can find on the right of the exhibit. Let’s say quality is high.
We’ve now shrunk our sample size to 62, and see that the 60-day cumulative abnormal return is -3.5 percent.

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 2: Earnings Event – Cumulative Abnormal Returns

Momentum Valuation Quality
Days Days
-30 Event N = +30 +60 +90
High -4.2% -14.2% 42 -1.1% 0.8% 4.6%
Neutral -0.9% -14.6% 23 -3.1% 3.2% 4.5%
Days Days Days Days Low -2.2% -14.5% 58 0.7% 1.1% 2.5%
-30 Event N= +30 +60 +90 -30 Event N= +30 +60 +90
Cheap -2.6% -14.4% 123 -0.6% 1.4% 3.6% High -2.4% -15.9% 44 -0.2% 3.4% 3.6%
Strong -1.6% -14.9% 408 -1.5% -1.9% -0.6% Neutral -1.0% -14.6% 118 -1.3% -1.6% -1.4% Neutral -1.2% -13.5% 29 -1.7% -4.0% -5.0%
Expensive -1.2% -15.4% 167 -2.4% -4.5% -3.2% Low 0.6% -14.1% 45 -2.3% -5.0% -4.0%
High 0.4% -14.8% 62 -3.2% -3.5% -3.1%

Neutral -3.1% -17.0% 49 -0.7% -3.7% -5.3%
Low -1.3% -14.6% 56 -2.9% -6.3% -1.4%
Days Days
-30 Event N = +30 +60 +90
High -5.9% -16.8% 51 7.2% 10.2% 11.4%
Neutral -3.7% -14.6% 59 0.8% 4.1% 7.7%
-30 Event N= +30 +60 +90 -30 Event N= +30 +60 +90
Cheap -4.6% -15.2% 162 2.9% 5.0% 7.1% High -3.1% -14.6% 43 -0.3% 1.6% 6.7%
Neutral -2.8% -14.7% 434 0.8% 2.4% 4.0% Neutral -1.8% -14.4% 146 0.8% 2.4% 4.8% Neutral -0.5% -14.6% 38 1.4% 5.4% 5.7%
Expensive -1.7% -14.4% 126 -1.7% -1.0% -0.9% Low -1.7% -14.2% 65 1.1% 1.2% 3.0%
High -3.3% -14.3% 48-4.1% -4.8% -0.7%

Neutral -1.2% -13.9% 39-2.2% 3.1% 6.2%
Low -0.2% -14.9% 39 1.6% -0.5% -3.1%
Days Days
-30 Event N = +30 +60 +90
High -1.4% -16.1% 79 5.5% 7.7% 14.1%
Neutral -2.3% -15.3% 111 2.2% 4.1% 10.4%
-30 Event N= +30 +60 +90 -30 Event N= +30 +60 +90
Cheap -3.4% -15.1% 299 3.7% 5.5% 10.9% High 2.5% -13.7% 59 -2.5% 1.3% 1.3%
Weak -1.0% -14.9% 600 2.7% 5.1% 8.4% Neutral 0.8% -14.8% 177 0.5% 3.3% 3.5% Neutral -0.7% -14.8% 38 -0.9% 7.3% 9.0%
Expensive 2.3% -14.7% 124 3.5% 6.8% 9.4% Low 0.2% -15.5% 80 3.3% 2.9% 2.5%
High 1.3% -15.6% 34 0.8% 8.8% 11.0%

Neutral 6.9% -15.7% 33 4.7% 9.5% 9.1%
Low 0.1% -13.5% 57 4.5% 4.1% 8.7%
Note: The abnormal return for the event reflects only the day of the event.

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 3: Non-Earnings Event – Cumulative Abnormal Returns

Days Days
-30 Event N= +30 +60 +90
High -11.7% -13.8% 99 4.9% 9.9% 16.7%
Neutral -8.1% -15.7% 83 3.2% 6.5% 9.7%
-30 Event N= +30 +60 +90 -30 Event N= +30 +60 +90
Cheap -8.5% -13.7% 280 5.1% 10.1% 14.3% High -8.4% -14.0% 79 5.3% 7.7% 10.2%
Strong -4.6% -13.8% 1,041 3.7% 4.9% 6.2% Neutral -5.0% -14.2% 289 4.7% 6.8% 7.9% Neutral -7.3% -15.1% 109 3.5% 6.8% 2.7%
Expensive -2.0% -13.7% 472 2.2% 0.8% 0.4% Low 0.2% -13.4% 101 5.5% 6.0% 11.6%
High -4.5% -13.4% 225 1.9% -2.8% -3.2%

Neutral 4.8% -14.4% 107 2.9% 3.0% -0.3%
Low -3.0% -13.5% 140 2.1% 4.7% 6.8%
Days Days
-30 Event N = +30 +60 +90
High -14.1% -15.3% 140 7.9% 21.7% 20.9%
Neutral -13.9% -15.2% 121 8.9% 13.6% 20.5%
-30 Event N= +30 +60 +90 -30 Event N= +30 +60 +90
Cheap -9.3% -14.6% 395 7.5% 17.1% 18.7% High -5.5% -13.5% 127 3.0% 7.5% 9.8%
Neutral -5.9% -14.4% 1,067 4.7% 9.4% 11.3% Neutral -4.6% -13.8% 328 6.4% 9.8% 12.2% Neutral -5.7% -14.3% 93 5.1% 10.6% 11.5%
Expensive -3.1% -14.6% 344 -0.2% 0.1% 2.0% Low -2.6% -13.8% 108 11.5% 11.8% 15.5%
High -7.0% -14.5% 132 -2.5% -4.5% -3.7%

Neutral 3.8% -14.8% 83 1.0% 2.5% 5.4%
Low -3.6% -14.6% 129 1.5% 3.3% 5.7%
Days Days
-30 Event N = +30 +60 +90
High -11.0% -15.1% 282 10.4% 14.9% 23.0%
Neutral -5.8% -13.8% 295 15.9% 23.3% 26.0%
-30 Event N= +30 +60 +90 -30 Event N= +30 +60 +90
Cheap -9.5% -14.3% 1,008 13.9% 19.1% 22.1% High -8.7% -14.6% 127 4.6% 11.2% 11.7%
Weak -6.2% -14.2% 1,867 11.1% 17.0% 18.8% Neutral -2.6% -14.4% 457 4.9% 11.2% 12.0% Neutral 2.1% -13.8% 154 6.6% 14.4% 15.5%
Expensive -2.0% -13.8% 402 11.2% 18.5% 18.1% Low -2.4% -14.7% 176 3.7% 8.4% 9.1%
High -4.5% -12.8% 127 18.1% 25.7% 27.1%

Neutral -1.3% -14.8% 98 10.3% 22.3% 24.7%
Low -0.6% -14.0% 177 6.9% 11.2% 8.1%

September 26, 2016
Case Studies
We now turn to two case studies that provide detail about the analysis.
Symantec Corporation
Symantec Corporation announced that it fired its president and chief executive officer, Steve Bennett, after
the stock market closed on March 20, 2014. The following day, March 21, the stock declined from $20.905
to $18.20, or 12.9 percent. The S&P 500 was down 0.3 percent. This was a non-earnings event.
Since we use cumulative abnormal return (CAR) for all of the stock performance data, it is worth taking a
moment to explain the methodology. We calculate daily abnormal return using a simplified market model,
which compares the actual return of a stock to its expected return. The expected return equals the total
shareholder return of the benchmark, the S&P 500, times the stock’s beta. The abnormal return is the
difference between the actual return and the expected return.
We calculate beta by doing a regression analysis with the S&P 500’s total returns as the independent variable
(x-axis) and Symantec’s total returns as the dependent variable (y-axis). We use monthly total returns for the
prior 60 months. Beta is the slope of the best-fit line. Exhibit 4 shows that the beta for Symantec for the 60
months ended February 2014 was about 0.8. This is the beta we use for our calculations of daily abnormal
returns during the month of March 2014.
Exhibit 4: Beta Calculation for Symantec

Monthly Returns
March 2009 - February 2014
20% y = 0.812x - 0.005
15%
10%
5%
Symantec
0%
-20% -10% 0% 10% 20%
-5%
-10%
-15%
-20%
S&P 500

September 26, 2016
Using the 30 trading days following the event, we calculate a CAR of 9.3 percent as follows:
CAR = Actual return – expected return

= 10.3% - (Beta * Market Return)
= 10.3% - (0.8 * 1.2%)
CAR = 10.3% - 1.0% = 9.3%
Exhibit 5 shows the chart of the stock’s performance for the 30 trading days prior to the event through 90
trading days following the event. The top line shows the stock price itself. The middle line is the cumulative
abnormal return. We reset the cumulative abnormal return to zero on the event date. The bars are the daily
abnormal returns. It’s evident that buying Symantec on the day after this event would have yielded good
returns in the subsequent 90 days. Let’s go through the checklist to see how we would have assessed the
situation in real time.
Exhibit 5: Symantec Stock Price and Cumulative Abnormal Returns (February 6 – July 30, 2014)
Daily abnormal return SYMC Price Cumulative abnormal return
25 -30 trading days +90 trading days 40%
30%
20
CEO fired
Stock falls 13%
20%
Abnormal Return
15
Stock Price
10%
10
0%
5
-10%
0 -20%
05/15/14
02/06/14
02/13/14
02/20/14
02/27/14
03/06/14
03/13/14
03/20/14
03/27/14
04/03/14
04/10/14
04/17/14
04/24/14
05/01/14
05/08/14
05/22/14
05/29/14
06/05/14
06/12/14
06/19/14
06/26/14
07/03/14
07/10/14
07/17/14
07/24/14

September 26, 2016
The first item on the checklist is the determination of whether the event was a scheduled earnings release. We
know that this is an event not related directly to an earnings announcement, so we refer to exhibit 3 for
guidance.
The next step is determining how the stock scores with regard to momentum, valuation, and quality through
HOLT Lens. (Please contact your HOLT or Credit Suisse representative if you do not have access to Lens
and would like to use it.) At the welcome page, search for the company of the stock under consideration. This
takes you to the homepage for that company, which includes a Relative Wealth Chart. Toward the top of the
page you will find a link called “Scorecard Percentile.” If you click on it, you will see numerical scores, from 0
to 100, on momentum, valuation, and operational quality, among other items.
To best align with the base rates, which reflect factor scores from before the price gain, it is appropriate to use
the Scorecard on the day of the event as opposed to the days afterwards. On the day of the event, the factors
do not yet incorporate the price gain—HOLT makes those adjustments overnight. For the purposes of this
analysis, a score of 66 or more reflects strong momentum, cheap valuation, and high quality. A score of 33 or
less means weak momentum, expensive valuation, and low quality. Numbers from 34 to 65 are neutral for the
factors. Exhibit 6 shows you what this screen looked like for Symantec.
Exhibit 6: Symantec’s Factor Scores
SYMANTEC CORP Scorecard Analysis
Overall Percentile 69
Investment Style Contrarian
Operational Quality 71
Momentum 23
Valuation 80
Source: HOLT Lens.
We see that momentum is weak (23), valuation is cheap (80), and quality is high (71). This allows us to follow the
relevant branches in exhibit 3. Exhibit 7 extracts the branches that are relevant for Symantec.
Exhibit 7: The Branches that Lead to Symantec’s Appropriate Reference Class

Days Days
-30 Event N = +30 +60 +90
High -11.0% -15.1% 282 10.4% 14.9% 23.0%
Days Days Days Days
-30 Event N= +30 +60 +90 -30 Event N= +30 +60 +90
Cheap -9.5% -14.3% 1,008 13.9% 19.1% 22.1%
Weak -6.2% -14.2% 1,867 11.1% 17.0% 18.8%

September 26, 2016
The cumulative abnormal returns are consistently positive for each branch of the tree for all of the time periods
we measure. The final branch, with a sample size of 282 events, shows a 10.4 percent CAR for 30 days,
14.9 percent for 60 days, and 23.0 percent for 90 days. In this case, the base rates would suggest buying
the stock on the day following the decline.
We can compare those base rates with what actually happened. The CAR for Symantec shares was 9.3
percent in the 30 trading days following the event, 15.4 percent for 60 days, and 24.2 percent for 90 days.
The line for CAR in exhibit 5 also shows these returns.
While the results are consistent with the base rate, we must reiterate that the averages belie a more complex
distribution. Exhibit 8 shows the distribution of stock price returns for the 282 companies in Symantec’s
reference class. For each of the return distributions that follow the event (+30, +60, and +90 days), the mean,
or average, was greater than the median. The standard deviations are high at about 35 percent for 30 days,
40 percent for 60 days, and 45 percent for 90 days.

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 8: Distributions for Non-Earnings Events that have Weak Momentum, Cheap Valuation, High Quality
10% -30 Days 45% Event

9% Sample: 282 40% Sample: 282
8% Mean: -11.0% 35% Mean: -15.1%
7% Median: -7.2% Median: -12.7%
StDev.: 38.2% 30% StDev.: 7.9%
6%
25%
5%
20%
Frequency
Frequency
4%
15%
3%
2% 10%
1% 5%
0% 0%
2%
6%
9%
-3%
-7%
-4%
-1%
12%
27%
43%
58%
73%
88%
-95%
-80%
-65%
-49%
-34%
-19%
-39%
-36%
-33%
-29%
-26%
-23%
-20%
-17%
-14%
-10%
104%
-126%
-110%
Cumulative Abnormal Return Abnormal Return
10% +30 Days 10% +60 Days 10% +90 Days

9% Sample: 282 9% Sample: 282 9% Sample: 282
Mean: 10.4% Mean: 14.9% Mean: 23.0%
8% 8% 8%
Median: 7.6% Median: 10.0% Median: 18.2%
7% 7% 7% StDev.: 46.0%
StDev.: 34.7% StDev.: 40.4%
6% 6% 6%
5% 5% 5%
Frequency
Frequency
Frequency
4% 4% 4%
3% 3% 3%
2% 2% 2%
1% 1% 1%
0% 0% 0%
4%
7%
-9%
-5%
17%
31%
45%
59%
73%
87%
23%
39%
55%
71%
88%
14%
32%
51%
69%
87%
-94%
-80%
-66%
-52%
-38%
-24%
-10%
-90%
-74%
-58%
-42%
-25%
-97%
-78%
-60%
-41%
-23%
101%
114%
104%
120%
136%
106%
124%
143%
161%
-106%
-115%
Cumulative Abnormal Return Cumulative Abnormal Return Cumulative Abnormal Return

September 26, 2016
Tenet Healthcare Corporation
Before the stock market opened on the morning of November 4, 2008, Tenet Healthcare Corporation
reported disappointing earnings. This was a scheduled earnings event and the stock declined 36.7 percent.
The S&P 500 was up 4.1 percent.
Exhibit 9 shows the chart of Tenet Healthcare’s stock performance for the 30 trading days prior to the event
through 90 trading days following the event. The top line starting on the left shows the stock price, which not
only drops precipitously on the day of the disappointing earnings release but also shows a steep decline before
the announcement (-25.2 percent cumulative abnormal return). The stock continued to drift lower after the
release. The bars in the middle of the exhibit are the daily abnormal return, and the line at the bottom is the
cumulative abnormal return. This is a case where selling Tenet Healthcare stock, notwithstanding the weak
results, would have made sense. Let’s go through the checklist to see how we would have assessed the
situation as it occurred.
Exhibit 9: Tenet Healthcare Stock Price and CAR, September 23, 2008 – March 17, 2009
Daily abnormal return THC Price Cumulative abnormal return
100%
20 80%
Earnings report
Stock falls 37% 60%
Abnormal Return
15 40%
Stock Price
20%
10 0%
-20%
5 -40%
-60%
0 -80%
10/14/08
02/24/09
09/23/08
09/30/08
10/07/08
10/21/08
10/28/08
11/04/08
11/11/08
11/18/08
11/25/08
12/02/08
12/09/08
12/16/08
12/23/08
12/30/08
01/06/09
01/13/09
01/20/09
01/27/09
02/03/09
02/10/09
02/17/09
03/03/09
03/10/09
03/17/09

September 26, 2016
The first item on the checklist is the determination of whether the event was an earnings release. We know
that it was scheduled, so we refer to exhibit 2 for guidance.
The next step is to determine the scores with regard to momentum, valuation, and operational quality. To do
so, we go to the link, “Scorecard Percentile,” on HOLT Lens. Exhibit 10 shows the scores.
Exhibit 10: Tenet Healthcare’s Factor Scores

TENET HEALTHCARE CORP Scorecard Analysis
Investment Style Momentum Trap
Momentum 66
Valuation 9
Source: HOLT Lens.
For Tenet Healthcare, we see that momentum is at the low end of strong (66), valuation is expensive (9), and
quality is low (4). Despite Tenet Healthcare’s weak stock price in the short term, the overall momentum score
remained strong because of excellent stock price results, relative to peers, in the 52 weeks leading up to the
announcement. While the momentum factor barely qualified as strong, scores for valuation and quality are
unattractive. Exhibit 11 shows the branches in exhibit 2 that are relevant for Tenet Healthcare.
Exhibit 11: The Branches that Lead to Tenet Healthcare’s Appropriate Reference Class
Days Days
-30 Event N= +30 +60 +90
Days Days Days Days

-30 Event N= +30 +60 +90 -30 Event N= +30 +60 +90
Strong -1.6% -14.9% 408 -1.5% -1.9% -0.6%

Expensive -1.2% -15.4% 167 -2.4% -4.5% -3.2%
Low -1.3% -14.6% 56 -2.9% -6.3% -1.4%
The cumulative abnormal returns are consistently negative for each branch of the tree for all of the time
periods we consider. The final branch, with a sample size of 56 events, shows a -2.9 percent CAR for 30 days,
-6.3 percent for 60 days, and -1.4 percent for 90 days. In this case, the base rate would suggest selling the
stock on the day following the decline.
We can compare these base rates with what actually happened. The CAR for Tenet Healthcare’s shares was
-60.9 percent in the 30 trading days following the event, -54.4 percent for 60 days, and -51.2 percent for 90
days. Exhibit 9 reflects these returns. Once again, note that there is a distribution of returns for that reference
class, and the best we can do is make a probabilistic assessment.

September 26, 2016
Summary: Buy, Sell, or Hold
The goal of this analysis is to provide you with useful base rates in the case that you see a sharp drop—a
“man overboard” moment—in one of the stocks in your portfolio. These base rates are meant to offer some
guidance in determining whether you should buy, sell, or do nothing the day following the event. You should
keep this report handy, and when an event occurs you can pull it out and follow the steps in the checklist. The
results contained here are a useful complement to fundamental analysis.
Because these events tend to be infrequent, most investors don’t have a systematic approach, or data, to
make a sound judgment. Further, large price drops almost always evoke a strong emotional reaction, which
complicates the process of decision making even more.
Our examination of exhibits 2 and 3 suggests that the following characteristics are consistent with buy and sell
signals:
Buy. For earnings releases, there is a clear and convincing buy signal for stocks with weak momentum prior to
the event. This buy signal is strengthened if the stock has a cheap valuation and is of high quality.
The buy signal for stocks with weak momentum is even more pronounced for non-earnings events than it is
for earnings releases, although these stocks had worse shareholder returns leading up to the event. This
signal is stronger for stocks that have a cheap valuation, and is further amplified if the companies are of high
or neutral quality. Symantec, the subject of our first case study, was a non-earnings event with weak
momentum, cheap valuation, and high quality, and hence the data suggested a buy.
Sell. For earnings releases, momentum alone does not indicate a strong buy or sell pattern. But there is a
fairly strong sell signal for stocks that have the combination of strong momentum and expensive valuation. The
sell signal holds for stocks with strong momentum, expensive valuation, and any quality score. Tenet
Healthcare, our second case, had strong momentum, expensive valuation, and low quality—factors that
suggested selling the shares.
For non-earnings events, the cumulative abnormal returns following an event are largely positive. But we must
note that these stocks as a group performed poorly prior to the event, down more than five percentage points
relative to the market. There are a couple of combinations that suggest selling the stock. The strongest sell
signal is for companies that combine strong or neutral momentum, expensive valuation, and high quality.
Strong or neutral momentum and expensive valuation alone do not indicate a sell signal.
Making decisions in the face of uncertainty is always a challenge, but it is inherent to investing. Deciding what
to do with a stock following a sharp decline is particularly difficult because emotions tend to run high after
those events. This report provides grounding in the form of base rates in an effort to better inform decisions.

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 12: Ex-Bubble Earnings Event – Cumulative Abnormal Returns

Days Days
-30 Event N = +30 +60 +90
High -3.9% -13.8% 34 -0.2% -2.4% 0.0%
Neutral -3.9% -15.2% 17 -6.5% -0.3% 2.7%
-30 Event N= +30 +60 +90 -30 Event N= +30 +60 +90
Cheap -3.1% -14.2% 100 -0.5% -0.3% 0.9% High -2.6% -16.0% 37 -0.2% 4.1% 4.0%
Strong -1.5% -14.7% 322 -1.4% -2.0% -1.1% Neutral -1.9% -14.8% 93 -1.2% -1.5% -0.2% Neutral -3.6% -13.7% 20 -1.3% -3.2% -1.6%
Expensive 0.0% -15.0% 129 -2.2% -3.8% -3.3% Low -0.2% -14.1% 36 -2.1% -6.2% -3.8%
High 0.9% -14.8% 45 -1.1% -1.9% -0.6%

Neutral -1.3% -16.7% 36 -2.3% -2.5% -8.0%
Low 0.0% -13.9% 48 -3.1% -6.5% -2.4%
Days Days
-30 Event N = +30 +60 +90
High -6.9% -15.0% 40 0.1% -0.5% 2.5%
Neutral -3.2% -14.1% 44 1.0% 0.8% 5.2%
Days Days Days Days Low -4.6% -13.5% 36 -2.6% -2.9% -1.0%
-30 Event N= +30 +60 +90 -30 Event N= +30 +60 +90
Cheap -4.9% -14.2% 120 -0.4% -0.8% 2.5% High -1.1% -14.9% 32 -1.4% -1.7% -2.4%
Neutral -2.9% -14.2% 320 0.0% -0.4% 1.4% Neutral -1.8% -14.2% 109 0.9% 0.9% 2.2% Neutral -1.3% -14.0% 29 1.7% 4.2% 7.2%
Expensive -1.5% -14.1% 91 -0.7% -1.4% -1.1% Low -2.7% -13.9% 48 2.0% 0.7% 2.2%
High -3.1% -14.3% 38 -2.6% -3.1% 3.0%

Neutral -0.6% -13.7% 25 0.0% 2.5% 2.0%
Low 0.0% -14.2% 28 1.3% -2.6% -9.4%
Days Days
-30 Event N = +30 +60 +90
High -6.3% -15.0% 53 3.8% 6.3% 0.7%
Neutral -2.6% -14.9% 84 2.0% 2.2% 6.4%
-30 Event N= +30 +60 +90 -30 Event N= +30 +60 +90
Cheap -4.3% -14.5% 215 3.2% 2.8% 6.8% High 2.7% -14.2% 39 -1.5% 1.8% 3.8%
Weak -0.9% -14.6% 436 1.4% 1.9% 3.9% Neutral 1.0% -14.8% 125 -1.0% -0.5% -1.0% Neutral -0.8% -14.2% 29 -3.8% -2.0% -1.2%
Expensive 4.3% -14.5% 96 0.6% 3.1% 4.1% Low 0.7% -15.5% 57 0.9% -1.2% -4.3%
High 3.7% -15.5% 23 -3.9% 2.5% 2.0%

Neutral 8.0% -15.5% 26 1.6% 4.8% 3.5%
Low 2.5% -13.5% 47 2.4% 2.4% 5.4%

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 13: Ex-Bubble Non-Earnings Event – Cumulative Abnormal Returns

Days Days
-30 Event N = +30 +60 +90
High -6.8% -14.2% 50 5.1% 8.1% 11.6%
Neutral -14.4% -18.3% 48 -0.1% 4.3% 6.3%
-30 Event N= +30 +60 +90 -30 Event N= +30 +60 +90
Cheap -8.8% -15.3% 153 4.4% 10.3% 12.8% High -4.2% -15.0% 47 3.8% 2.7% 2.8%
Strong -2.6% -14.5% 631 2.1% 2.1% 1.5% Neutral -1.5% -14.6% 169 3.7% 3.5% 3.1% Neutral -1.8% -15.3% 67 5.0% 7.3% 3.4%
Expensive -0.1% -14.0% 309 0.1% -2.8% -4.9% Low 1.0% -13.5% 55 2.1% -0.5% 3.0%
High -2.8% -13.4% 153 -0.1% -7.6% -8.0%

Neutral 5.7% -15.8% 65 3.3% 5.7% -0.4%
Low 0.5% -13.6% 91 -1.8% -0.7% -2.8%
Days Days
-30 Event N = +30 +60 +90
High -10.8% -16.0% 73 2.8% 6.0% 6.5%
Neutral -9.0% -15.7% 70 2.8% 6.2% 11.4%
-30 Event N= +30 +60 +90 -30 Event N= +30 +60 +90
Cheap -8.9% -15.4% 202 2.1% 4.8% 7.9% High -7.2% -13.7% 73 -0.5% 0.4% 0.8%
Neutral -4.7% -15.0% 605 0.7% 1.8% 3.0% Neutral -4.9% -14.1% 189 0.6% 1.9% 2.9% Neutral -1.9% -14.0% 55 -0.2% 3.1% 4.4%
Expensive -0.5% -15.3% 214 -0.3% -1.1% -1.3% Low -4.8% -14.7% 61 2.6% 2.6% 4.0%
High -2.3% -15.7% 74-4.3% -8.8% -11.0%

Neutral 4.9% -15.5% 52 2.6% 4.7% 5.0%
Low -2.1% -14.8% 88 1.2% 2.1% 3.0%
Days Days
-30 Event N = +30 +60 +90
High -8.9% -16.1% 143 5.2% 8.9% 9.5%
Neutral -7.6% -14.1% 143 4.8% 9.3% 10.3%
-30 Event N= +30 +60 +90 -30 Event N= +30 +60 +90
Cheap -8.9% -15.0% 473 6.2% 9.3% 8.1% High -8.8% -16.8% 73 1.7% 7.1% 9.4%
Weak -5.4% -15.1% 921 5.0% 8.0% 8.0% Neutral -3.6% -15.2% 255 1.2% 4.9% 7.3% Neutral 2.9% -14.3% 81 1.9% 7.0% 11.8%
Expensive 0.7% -15.0% 193 7.2% 9.0% 8.6% Low -5.0% -14.8% 101 0.5% 1.7% 2.2%
High -2.0% -14.6% 45 3.4% 4.6% 1.7%

Neutral 4.5% -16.9% 45 11.8% 16.9% 18.7%
Low 0.2% -14.4% 103 6.9% 7.5% 7.2%

September 26, 2016
Appendix A: Definition of the Factors
Momentum: Momentum is a gauge of market sentiment. Stocks that score well have rising levels of
expected CFROI as the result of upward earnings revisions, positive stock price momentum, and good liquidity.
CFROI Key Momentum, 13-week (60%) - CFROI Key Momentum measures change in the level of
expected CFROI following revisions in consensus earnings per share.
Price Momentum (52-week) (30%) - Price Momentum is based on the percentage change in
market value over the past 52 weeks.
Daily Liquidity Average (10%) - Daily Liquidity Average reflects the number of shares traded in the
last quarter, divided by 63 trading days, multiplied by the stock price at the end of the most recent
week, divided by market capitalization.
Valuation: Valuation assesses the difference between the stock’s warranted value, based on the HOLT
framework®, and the stock’s current market price. Stocks with the most upside are cheap, and those with the
least upside, or downside, are expensive.
Percentage Change to Best Price (50%) - Percentage Change to Best Price measures the
difference between HOLT’s warranted value and the current stock price. By using a discounted cash
flow approach that standardizes financial figures, the HOLT model generates values that allow for the
comparison of firms across regions, sectors, and accounting standards.
Economic P/E (30%) – Economic P/E is HOLT’s version of a price-to-earnings ratio. You can
compare Economic P/E across companies and industries because the value-to-cost ratio is divided by
CFROI, normalizing results. Specifically, Economic P/E = (Enterprise Value / Inflation Adjusted Net
Assets) / CFROI.
Value-to-Cost Ratio (10%) – Value-to-Cost Ratio is analogous to price/book value, but reflects a
number of adjustments that reduce volatility and better reflect firm value. These include inflation
adjustments for old plant and inventory in gross investment, capitalized research and development
(R&D), capitalized operating leases, the reflection of the contingent claim for stock options in debt,
pension debt, preferred stock, and liabilities related to capitalized operating leases. The Value-to-Cost
Ratio = (Market Value of Equity + Minority Interest + HOLT Debt) / Inflation Adjusted Net Assets
Dividend Yield (10%) – Dividend Yield is the dividends paid in the last 12 months divided by the
most recent share price.
Quality: Quality measures a company’s record of generating cash and managing growth, independent of
expectations about the future. Firms that score well have high CFROIs and have shown the ability to grow
profitable businesses or the willingness to shrink unprofitable ones.
CFROI Last Fiscal Year (50%) - CFROI Last Fiscal Year is the ratio of gross cash flow to gross
investment and is expressed as an internal rate of return. We use the CFROI for the last reported
fiscal year.
Managing for Value (30%) - Managing for Value equals the spread between CFROI and the
Discount Rate, multiplied by the inflation-adjusted gross investment. This allows us to determine
whether the company’s growth creates value and is sustainable. Growth in businesses that earn a
CFROI in excess of the cost of capital is value creating, while growth in businesses with a negative
spread destroys value.
Change in Value Creation (20%) - Change in Value Creation measures the improvement in
economic profit in the most recent fiscal year. A positive value indicates the company either increased
the spread between CFROI and the discount rate, or grew in a business with a positive spread.
Change in Value Creation = (CFROI – Discount Rate * Growth Rate) – Prior Fiscal Year Spread.

September 26, 2016
Once on HOLT Lens, you can find the scores on the homepage of each company by clicking on “Scorecard
Percentile.” For more detail on the scores, you can select “More Information.” You will see a screen similar to
exhibit 14.
Exhibit 14: Detailed Breakdown of Symantec’s Factor Scores

HOLT Scorecard Metholdology
Enter Ticker: SYMC SYMANTEC CORP
Enter Date 2/28/2014
SYMANTEC CORP41698
Operational Quality Value Percentile Weight Lens Scorecard: Re Value Weight Lens Scorecard: Region Value
CFROI LFY 22.4 74 50% Operational Quality 66 33% Overall 55
Managing For Value 300.2 89 30% Percentile 71% 71 Percentile 69% 69
Change in Value Creation -4.6 10 20%
-4 588886
Momentum Value Percentile Weight Lens Scorecard: Re Value Weight
CFROI Revisions (13Wk) -0.3 33 60% Momentum 29 33%
Price Momentum (52Wk) -1.7 11 30% Percentile 23% 23
Size Relative Daily Liq. Avg % 1.0 59 10%
0 989809
Valuation Value Percentile Weight Lens Scorecard: Re Value Weight
% Upside / Downside 24.7 62 50% Valuation 70 34%
Economic PE 14.4 81 30% Percentile 80% 80
Dividend Yield 2.8 92 10%
HOLT Price to Book 3.3 55 10%
Source: HOLT Lens.

September 26, 2016
Appendix B: Distributions of Stock Price Changes
This appendix reviews the distributions that apply to Symantec, one of our case studies. These distributions
reflect non-earnings announcements and contain all events, including the bubble periods. We also provide
some statistical properties for each distribution, including the sample size, mean, median, and standard
deviation.
Exhibit 15 shows all the cases with weak momentum and displays five distributions of cumulative abnormal
returns, including the 30 trading days prior to the event, the event itself, and the cumulative abnormal returns
for the 30, 60, and 90 trading days subsequent to the event. This is the first branch of the Symantec case
study.
Exhibit 16 shows weak momentum and cheap valuation, which trims the sample size by nearly one-half. Here
again we include the 30 trading days prior to the event, the event itself, and the cumulative abnormal returns
for the 30, 60, and 90 trading days after the event. This is the second branch of the Symantec case study.
Exhibit 17 shows the final branch in the Symantec case study: weak momentum, cheap valuation, and high
quality. The sample size is just over one-quarter of the prior branch. You can see the 30 trading days prior to
the event, the event itself, and the cumulative abnormal returns for the 30, 60, and 90 trading days after the
event.

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 15: Distributions for the First Branch of the Symantec Case Study
Weak Momentum

9% Sample: 1,867 40% Sample: 1,867
8% Mean: -6.2% 35% Mean: -14.2%
7% Median: -5.4% Median: -12.3%
StDev.: 34.1% 30% StDev.: 7.3%
6%
25%
5%
20%
Frequency
Frequency
4%
15%
3%
2% 10%
1% 5%
0% 0%
1%
2%
5%
8%
-7%
-4%
-1%
14%
28%
42%
55%
69%
82%
96%
-95%
-81%
-68%
-54%
-40%
-27%
-13%
-36%
-33%
-30%
-27%
-24%
-22%
-19%
-16%
-13%
-10%
-108%
10% +30 Days 10% +60 Days 10% +90 Days

9% Sample: 1,867 9% Sample: 1,867 9% Sample: 1,867
8% Mean: 11.1% 8% Mean: 17.0% 8% Mean: 18.8%
7% Median: 7.0% 7% Median: 12.2% 7% Median: 13.7%
StDev.: 33.7% StDev.: 40.6% StDev.: 46.5%
6% 6% 6%
5% 5% 5%
Frequency
Frequency
Frequency
4% 4% 4%
3% 3% 3%
2% 2% 2%
1% 1% 1%
0% 0% 0%
4%
9%
9%
-7%
-9%
-9%
25%
41%
58%
74%
90%
18%
31%
45%
58%
72%
85%
99%
28%
47%
65%
84%
-90%
-77%
-63%
-50%
-36%
-23%
-89%
-72%
-56%
-40%
-24%
-84%
-65%
-46%
-28%
106%
123%
139%
112%
103%
121%
140%
158%
-105%
-121%
-102%

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 16: Distributions for the Second Branch of the Symantec Case Study
Weak Momentum, Cheap Valuation

9% Sample: 1,008 40% Sample: 1,008
8% Mean: -9.5% 35% Mean: -14.3%
7% Median: -8.4% Median: -12.3%
StDev.: 36.0% 30% StDev.: 7.5%
6%
25%
5%
20%
Frequency
Frequency
4%
15%
3%
2% 10%
1% 5%
0% 0%
2%
5%
8%
-2%
-7%
-4%
-1%
12%
27%
41%
55%
70%
84%
99%
-89%
-74%
-60%
-46%
-31%
-17%
-37%
-34%
-31%
-28%
-25%
-22%
-19%
-16%
-13%
-10%
-118%
-103%
10% +30 Days 10% +60 Days 10% +90 Days

8% Mean: 13.9% 8% Mean: 19.1% 8% Mean: 22.1%
6% 6% 6%
5% 5% 5%
Frequency
Frequency
Frequency
4% 4% 4%
3% 3% 3%
2% 2% 2%
1% 1% 1%
0% 0% 0%
7%
-8%
-7%
-8%
21%
36%
50%
64%
79%
93%
10%
28%
46%
63%
81%
99%
12%
32%
52%
73%
93%
-94%
-80%
-66%
-51%
-37%
-22%
-96%
-78%
-61%
-43%
-25%
-89%
-69%
-49%
-28%
108%
122%
116%
134%
152%
113%
133%
153%
173%
-114%
-129%
-109%

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 17: Distributions for the Third Branch of the Symantec Case Study
Weak Momentum, Cheap Valuation, High Quality

9% Sample: 282 40% Sample: 282
8% Mean: -11.0% 35% Mean: -15.1%
7% Median: -7.2% Median: -12.7%
StDev.: 38.2% 30% StDev.: 7.9%
6%
25%
5%
20%
Frequency
Frequency
4%
15%
3%
2% 10%
1% 5%
0% 0%
2%
6%
9%
-3%
-7%
-4%
-1%
12%
27%
43%
58%
73%
88%
-95%
-80%
-65%
-49%
-34%
-19%
-39%
-36%
-33%
-29%
-26%
-23%
-20%
-17%
-14%
-10%
104%
-126%
-110%
10% +30 Days 10% +60 Days 10% +90 Days

9% Sample: 282 9% Sample: 282 9% Sample: 282
Mean: 10.4% Mean: 14.9% Mean: 23.0%
8% 8% 8%
7% 7% 7% StDev.: 46.0%
StDev.: 34.7% StDev.: 40.4%
6% 6% 6%
5% 5% 5%
Frequency
Frequency
Frequency
4% 4% 4%
3% 3% 3%
2% 2% 2%
1% 1% 1%
0% 0% 0%
4%
7%
-9%
-5%
17%
31%
45%
59%
73%
87%
23%
39%
55%
71%
88%
14%
32%
51%
69%
87%
-94%
-80%
-66%
-52%
-38%
-24%
-10%
-90%
-74%
-58%
-42%
-25%
-97%
-78%
-60%
-41%
-23%
101%
114%
104%
120%
136%
106%
124%
143%
161%
-106%
-115%

September 26, 2016
Celebrating the Summit

Number of Observations of 10%+ Relative Stock Price Increases, January 1990-July 2015
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014

September 26, 2016
The Value of a Framework under Success
A key to investing successfully is the ability to manage emotions in the face of highs and lows. The focus of
this report is when one of the stocks in your portfolio rises sharply relative to the market and is not an
acquisition target. As a portfolio manager you are likely to be pleased about the boost to investment returns
and flush with a sense of success. As the analyst you might feel proud and self-assured. Enjoying
achievement is fine to a point. But high emotional arousal is not conducive to good decision making.
A big winner can create what we call a “celebrating the summit” moment.1 The idea comes from Laurence
Gonzales, an author and expert on survival in extreme situations, who warns against excessive congratulation
after reaching a goal.2 He points out that mountain climbers commonly celebrate too much at the peak. This
causes them to let their guard down just as they are approaching the part of the expedition that may be the
most challenging. Gonzales points out that descent is technically more difficult than ascent and that most
mountaineering accidents occur on the way down. Likewise, selling can be harder than buying.
You can use a checklist to help make good decisions when emotions are running high. Atul Gawande
describes two types of checklists in his book, The Checklist Manifesto.3 The first is called DO-CONFIRM.
Here you do your job from memory but pause periodically to make sure that you have done everything you are
supposed to do. The second is called READ-DO. Here, you simply read the checklist and do what it says.
READ-DO checklists are particularly helpful when you are in the state of high emotional arousal because they
prevent you from being overcome by emotion as you decide how to act.
You can think of your emotional state and the ability to make good decisions as sitting on opposite sides of a
seesaw. If your state of emotional arousal is high, your capacity to decide well is low. A checklist helps take
out the emotion and moves you toward a proper choice. It also keeps you from succumbing to decision
paralysis. A psychologist studying emergency checklists in aviation said the goal is to “minimize the need for a
lot of effortful analysis when time may be limited and workload is high.”4
This report provides you with analytical guidance if one of your stocks rises 10 percent or more in one day
relative to the S&P 500. We limit the analysis to stock price rises unrelated to announced mergers and
acquisitions (M&A). More directly, we want to answer the question of whether you should buy, hold, or sell the
stock following one of these big moves to the upside.
Exhibit 1 shows the number of such observations for the S&P 500 from January 1990 through mid-2015.
There were roughly 6,800 occurrences, with noteworthy clusters around the dot-com bubble and the financial
crisis in 2008-2009. The bubble periods contain 36 percent of the observations. These sharp gains happen
frequently enough that they deserve a thoughtful process to deal with them but infrequently enough that few
investment firms have developed such a process. Assuming an average number of stock holdings in a mutual
fund that is benchmarked against the S&P 500, a portfolio manager of a typical mutual fund would encounter
5-15 “celebrating the summit” moments per year in low volatility years (e.g., 1994-1997 and 2012-2015)
and more than 100 such moments in high volatility years (2000-2002 and 2008-2009).

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 1: Number of Observations of 10%+ Relative Stock Price Increases, January 1990-July 2015
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014
Base Rates of Large Gains in Stock Price
We use base rates to show how stocks perform after they have risen sharply. To do this, we calculate the
“cumulative abnormal return” for the 30, 60, and 90 trading days after the time of the increase. An abnormal
return is the difference between the total shareholder return and the expected return. A stock’s expected
return reflects the change in a broader stock market index, the S&P 500 in our case, adjusted for risk. The
cumulative abnormal return, then, is simply the sum of the abnormal returns during the period that we
measure.
Exhibit 2 shows the results for the full sample. The first thing to note is that weak relative stock price results
generally precede the large positive moves. The stocks in the sample rose nearly 14 percentage points versus
the S&P 500 on the event date, but fell almost 6 percentage points relative to the market in the 30 days prior
to the event. Second, the excess returns following a large price gain are on average strongly positive.
Exhibit 2: Full Sample – Cumulative Abnormal Returns

Days Days Days Days
-30 Event N= +30 +60 +90 -30 Event N= +30 +60 +90
Earnings -3.3% 14.5% 1,505 2.7% 3.7% 4.1%
Full Sample -5.9% 13.8% 6,797 3.5% 6.1% 7.0%
Non-Earnings -6.6% 13.6% 5,292 3.8% 6.8% 7.9%

We refine the large sample into relevant categories in an effort to increase the usefulness of the base rates.5
The first refinement, which exhibit 2 shows, is segregation between earnings and non-earnings events.

September 26, 2016
The full sample of cumulative abnormal returns for earnings events, which constitute about one-fifth of our
sample, is in exhibit 3. Cumulative abnormal returns for non-earnings announcements, which include releases
of information that are scheduled, such as same-store sales updates, as well as unanticipated announcements,
including a change in management or an earnings update, are found in exhibit 4. On balance, returns
subsequent to non-earnings announcements are greater than those following earnings releases.
There is strong evidence in the U.S. markets for “post-earnings-announcement drift.”6 This is a positive
relationship between announced earnings surprises and subsequent stock price changes. For companies that
report an upside earnings surprise, cumulative abnormal returns tend to continue to drift up.
The second refinement is the application of three factors—momentum, valuation, and quality—that consider
corporate fundamentals and stock market measures. All companies receive a score for each factor. The
scores are relative to a company’s peers in the same sector. You can find a detailed definition of the factors in
Appendix A of the “Managing the Man Overboard Section” of this book, but here’s a quick summary:
Momentum predominantly considers two drivers, change in cash flow return on investment (CFROI)
forecasts and stock price momentum. Good momentum is associated with rising CFROI forecasts and
strong relative stock price appreciation.
Valuation reflects the gap between the current stock price and the warranted value in the HOLT®
valuation model. Valuation also incorporates adjusted measures of price-to-earnings and price-to-book
ratios. Together, these metrics help assess whether a stock is relatively cheap or expensive.
Quality captures the company’s recent level of CFROI and whether the company has consistently made
investments that create value. Firms with high CFROIs and strong value creation score well on quality.
The upside of adding refinements is that you can find a base rate that closely matches the case you are
considering. The downside is that the sample size (N) shrinks with each refinement. We have tried to maintain
healthy sample sizes even in the end branches, and we display the Ns along the way so that you can assess
the trade-off between fit and prior occurrences.
We are almost ready to turn to the checklist and numbers, but we need to cover one additional item. All of our
summary exhibits show the average, or mean, abnormal shareholder return. That average represents a full
distribution of results. For most of the distributions, the median return, the return that separates the top half
from the bottom half of the sample, is less than the mean, which tells you that the distributions are skewed to
the right.
Further, the standard deviations of most of the distributions are in the range of 30-45 percent. While our
summary figures show a tidy average, recognize that the figure belies a rich distribution. The appendix shows
the distributions for a handful of events. The base rate data can be extremely helpful in making a sound
decision even if the outcome is probabilistic.
We’re now ready to turn to the checklist and the base rates.

September 26, 2016
The Checklist
You come into the office and one of the stocks in your portfolio is up 10 percent or more relative to the S&P
500. The move is unrelated to announced M&A. Here’s what you do:
Earnings or non-earnings. Determine whether the precipitating announcement is an earnings release or

a non-earnings disclosure and go to the appropriate exhibit;
Momentum. Check the appropriate HOLT Lens™ page to determine if the stock had strong, weak, or
neutral momentum going into the announcement. You can either go to the momentum section of the exhibit
or continue;
Valuation. Check to see if the valuation is cheap, expensive, or neutral. You can either go to the section in
the exhibit that combines momentum and valuation or continue;
Quality. Check to see if the quality is high, low, or neutral. Go to section in the exhibit that incorporates all
of the factors.
We have two detailed case studies that we’ll present in a moment, but let’s run through an example to see
how this works. The first item is to determine whether the announcement was a scheduled earnings release or
not. Let’s say it was an earnings event. That means we would refer to the data in exhibit 3.
Step two is to assess the momentum. We’ll assume that momentum is weak. If you look at the left side of the
exhibit you’ll see the section that reflects momentum. If you focus on the results of the companies with weak
momentum, you’ll see a few figures. You’ll notice that the 665 stocks in that reference class increased 15.2
percent, on average, the day of the event. You will also see that those stocks greatly underperformed the
market, with a cumulative abnormal return of -5.7 percent in the prior 30 trading days.
You’ll also see that the stocks in that class did well in the subsequent period, with cumulative abnormal returns
of 4.1 percent in the next 30 trading days, 4.7 percent in 60 trading days, and 5.2 percent in 90 trading days.
We selected 90 trading days as the extent of this analysis because we felt it is a sufficient amount of time for
an investment team to thoroughly reassess the stock’s merit. We designed the READ-DO checklist to provide
immediate guidance.
We now turn to valuation, which you can find in the middle of the exhibit, to see if we can sharpen the analysis.
Let’s assume the valuation was expensive. If we look 60 days out, we see that the 164 instances in this
group have an average cumulative abnormal return of 5.7 percent.
As a final check, we consider quality, which you can find on the right of the exhibit. Let’s say quality is low.
We’ve now shrunk our sample size to 72, and see that the 60-day cumulative abnormal return is 12.6 percent.

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 3: Earnings Event – Cumulative Abnormal Returns

Days Days
-30 Event N= +30 +60 +90
High -5.9% 14.6% 37 0.2% 4.4% 9.4%
Neutral -3.6% 13.9% 27 3.7% 5.4% 7.5%
Days Days Days Days Low -0.7% 14.0% 45 6.1% 9.0% 7.1%
-30 Event N= +30 +60 +90 -30 Event N= +30 +60 +90
Cheap -3.2% 14.2% 109 3.5% 6.6% 8.0% High -0.9% 13.3% 48 0.3% 0.5% 0.1%
Strong -1.3% 13.9% 411 1.1% 1.9% 2.3% Neutral -1.2% 14.0% 149 1.0% 1.7% 3.3% Neutral -3.6% 14.4% 44 2.3% 0.0% 1.9%
Expensive 0.0% 13.7% 153 -0.6% -1.4% -2.8% Low 0.4% 14.2% 57 0.5% 4.1% 7.1%
High -0.6% 13.8% 65 -2.3% -1.7% -6.0%

Neutral -0.4% 13.5% 32 1.5% -0.6% -1.8%
Low 0.9% 13.8% 56 0.1% -1.5% 0.5%
Days Days
-30 Event N = +30 +60 +90
High -6.3% 15.6% 51 2.5% 9.0% 8.0%
Neutral -1.7% 13.0% 41 4.7% 8.8% 8.2%
Days Days Days Days Low -2.8% 14.1% 55 3.6% -1.3% 2.5%
-30 Event N= +30 +60 +90 -30 Event N= +30 +60 +90
Cheap -3.7% 14.4% 147 3.5% 5.1% 6.0% High -3.5% 12.7% 47 2.0% 3.7% 1.9%
Neutral -1.6% 14.1% 429 2.1% 3.9% 4.2% Neutral -1.3% 13.3% 137 2.3% 5.0% 4.0% Neutral 0.9% 13.0% 40 0.3% 2.5% 1.6%
Expensive 0.2% 14.5% 145 0.6% 1.7% 2.6% Low -0.9% 14.0% 50 4.3% 8.3% 7.8%
High 2.4% 14.8% 45 2.0% 5.9% 8.0%

Neutral 0.3% 14.3% 45-0.8% -0.7% 1.5%
Low -1.6% 14.4% 55 0.5% 0.3% -0.9%
Days Days
-30 Event N = +30 +60 +90
High -11.2% 15.0% 109 4.1% 1.6% 5.5%
Neutral -5.6% 14.6% 86 2.4% 3.2% 4.4%
-30 Event N= +30 +60 +90 -30 Event N= +30 +60 +90
Cheap -9.8% 15.9% 304 5.9% 3.7% 5.2% High -0.7% 13.5% 54 1.2% 3.7% 6.4%
Weak -5.7% 15.2% 665 4.1% 4.7% 5.2% Neutral -3.5% 14.5% 197 2.3% 5.5% 5.8% Neutral -3.3% 13.2% 57 2.2% 3.3% 0.1%
Expensive -0.8% 14.7% 164 2.7% 5.7% 4.5% Low -5.3% 15.9% 86 3.2% 8.1% 9.1%
High -1.1% 14.6% 44 -1.0% 0.9% -0.1%

Neutral 5.0% 13.9% 48 1.6% -0.4% 0.9%
Low -4.6% 15.3% 72 5.7% 12.6% 9.7%

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 4: Non-Earnings Event – Cumulative Abnormal Returns

Days Days
-30 Event N = +30 +60 +90
High -15.2% 12.8% 122 7.3% 10.9% 10.2%
Neutral -8.1% 12.6% 98 -3.2% 1.6% 4.5%
-30 Event N= +30 +60 +90 -30 Event N= +30 +60 +90
Cheap -9.8% 12.6% 347 3.4% 6.7% 8.6% High -9.7% 12.4% 105 -0.5% 1.7% 1.4%
Strong -7.5% 12.7% 1,137 1.2% 1.5% 1.7% Neutral -5.7% 12.8% 334 0.5% 4.4% 5.5% Neutral -4.2% 12.9% 94 -0.7% 3.3% 1.3%
Expensive -7.0% 12.8% 456 0.0% -4.5% -6.2% Low -3.6% 13.1% 135 2.1% 7.3% 11.5%
High -10.7% 12.9% 209 0.0% -7.0% -7.9%

Neutral -2.3% 13.0% 116 -0.6% -4.7% -9.4%
Low -5.5% 12.4% 131 0.5% -0.4% -0.7%
Days Days
-30 Event N = +30 +60 +90
High -13.9% 13.9% 187 4.0% 9.3% 7.9%
Neutral -19.7% 14.3% 183 6.3% 15.0% 19.5%
-30 Event N= +30 +60 +90 -30 Event N= +30 +60 +90
Cheap -13.0% 14.1% 543 4.7% 10.0% 10.4% High -5.9% 12.5% 128 2.7% 4.7% 6.1%
Neutral -7.5% 13.5% 1,383 2.8% 6.2% 7.1% Neutral -4.6% 12.8% 373 2.3% 4.3% 3.8% Neutral -1.6% 12.3% 103 -1.1% 1.3% 0.0%
Expensive -3.2% 13.6% 467 1.1% 3.5% 5.8% Low -5.6% 13.3% 142 4.4% 6.1% 4.4%
High -3.8% 13.1% 120 -0.3% 4.2% 4.3%

Neutral 1.8% 13.2% 147 1.1% 7.4% 11.0%
Low -6.7% 14.2% 200 1.9% 0.1% 3.0%
Days Days
-30 Event N = +30 +60 +90
High -12.4% 14.4% 370 5.9% 9.4% 13.1%
Neutral -7.7% 14.4% 445 9.0% 13.3% 15.4%
-30 Event N= +30 +60 +90 -30 Event N= +30 +60 +90
Cheap -10.5% 14.4% 1,270 7.6% 11.4% 13.5% High -7.7% 13.1% 217 5.6% 11.7% 11.9%
Weak -5.8% 14.0% 2,772 5.3% 9.1% 10.8% Neutral -3.8% 13.9% 810 4.5% 8.9% 10.9% Neutral 1.9% 14.1% 232 5.1% 8.9% 12.5%
Expensive 0.5% 13.2% 692 2.1% 5.4% 5.5% Low -5.1% 14.4% 361 3.6% 7.3% 9.3%
High 0.1% 12.6% 149 0.3% 4.4% 3.1%

Neutral 4.9% 13.7% 175 4.7% 9.3% 12.6%
Low -1.5% 13.1% 368 1.6% 3.9% 3.0%

September 26, 2016
Case Studies
We now turn to two case studies that provide detail about the analysis.
Harman International Industries, Incorporated
At an investors' day on August 8, 2013, Harman International Industries, Inc. provided guidance for sales,
earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA), and earnings per share for the 2014
and 2016 fiscal years (ended June 30). The stock rose 10.7 percent that day, from $58.62 to $64.90. The
S&P 500 was down 0.4 percent. This was a non-earnings event.
Since we use cumulative abnormal return (CAR) for all of the stock performance data, it is worth taking a
moment to explain how we do the calculation. We determine daily abnormal return using a simplified market
model, which compares the actual return of a stock to its expected return. The expected return equals the
total shareholder return of the benchmark, the S&P 500, times the stock’s beta. The abnormal return is the
difference between the actual return and the expected return.
We calculate beta by doing a regression analysis with the S&P 500’s total returns as the independent variable
(x-axis) and Harman’s total returns as the dependent variable (y-axis). We use monthly total returns for the
prior 60 months. Beta is the slope of the best-fit line. Exhibit 5 shows that the beta for Harman for the 60
months ended July 2013 was 2.2. This is the beta we use for our calculations of daily abnormal returns during
the month of August 2013. Similarly, the beta for September 2013 would use returns for the 60 months
ended August 2013.
Exhibit 5: Beta Calculation for Harman

Monthly Returns
August 2008 - July 2013
y = 2.21x + 0.00
20%
Harman International Industries
15%
10%
5%
0%
-20% -10% 0% 10% 20%
-5%
-10%
-15%
-20%
S&P 500

September 26, 2016
Using the 90 trading days following the event, we calculate a CAR of 11.8 percent as follows:
CAR = Actual return – expected return

= 25.3% - (Beta * Market Return)
= 25.3% - (2.2 * 6.1%)
CAR = 25.3% - 13.5% = 11.8%
Exhibit 6 shows the chart of the stock’s performance for the 30 trading days prior to the event through 90
trading days following the event. The top line shows the stock price itself. The middle line is the cumulative
abnormal return. We reset the cumulative abnormal return to zero on the event date. The bars are the daily
abnormal returns. It’s evident that buying Harman on the day after this event would have yielded good returns
in the subsequent 90 days. Let’s go through the checklist to see how we would have assessed the situation in
real time.
Exhibit 6: Harman Stock Price and Cumulative Abnormal Returns, June 26 – December 16, 2013
Daily abnormal return HAR Price Cumulative abnormal return

95
90
85 Provides 30%
80 encouraging
75 guidance
Stock gains 11%
70
20%
65
Abnormal Return
60
Stock Price
55
50 10%
45
40
35
0%
30
25
20
-10%
15
10
5
0 -20%
08/07/13
09/04/13
06/26/13
07/03/13
07/10/13
07/17/13
07/24/13
07/31/13
08/14/13
08/21/13
08/28/13
09/11/13
09/18/13
09/25/13
10/02/13
10/09/13
10/16/13
10/23/13
10/30/13
11/06/13
11/13/13
11/20/13
11/27/13
12/04/13
12/11/13

September 26, 2016
The first item on the checklist is the determination of whether the event was a scheduled earnings release.
We know that this is an event not related directly to an earnings announcement, so we refer to exhibit 4.
The next step is determining how the stock scores with regard to momentum, valuation, and quality through
HOLT Lens. (Please contact your HOLT or Credit Suisse representative if you do not have access to Lens
and would like to use it.) At the welcome page, search for the company of the stock under consideration. This
takes you to the summary page for that company, which includes a Relative Wealth Chart. Toward the top of
the page you will find a link called “Scorecard Percentile.” If you click on it, you will see numerical scores, from
0 to 100, for momentum, valuation, and operational quality, among other items.
To best align with the base rates, which reflect factor scores from before the price gain, it is appropriate to
use the Scorecard on the day of the event as opposed to the days afterwards. On the day of the event, the
factors do not yet incorporate the price gain—HOLT makes those adjustments overnight. For the purposes of
this analysis, a score of 67 or more reflects strong momentum, cheap valuation, and high quality. A score of
33 or less means weak momentum, expensive valuation, and low quality. Numbers from 34 to 66 are neutral
for the factors. Exhibit 7 shows you this screen for Harman on the date of the event.
Exhibit 7: Harman’s Factor Scores

HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDS Scorecard Analysis
Investment Style Value Trap
Momentum 30
Valuation 83
Source: HOLT Lens.
We see that momentum is weak (30), valuation is cheap (83), and quality is low (22). This allows us to follow
the relevant branches in exhibit 4. Exhibit 8 extracts the branches that are relevant for Harman.
Exhibit 8: The Branches That Lead to Harman’s Reference Class

Days Days
-30 Event N= +30 +60 +90
-30 Event N= +30 +60 +90 -30 Event N = +30 +60 +90
Cheap -10.5% 14.4% 1,270 7.6% 11.4% 13.5%
Weak -5.8% 14.0% 2,772 5.3% 9.1% 10.8%
The cumulative abnormal returns are consistently positive for each branch of the tree for all of the time periods
we measure. The final branch, with a sample size of 455 events, shows a 7.6 percent CAR for 30 days, 11.0

September 26, 2016
percent for 60 days, and 12.0 percent for 90 days. In this case, the base rates would suggest buying the
stock on the day following the increase.
We can compare those base rates with what actually happened. The CAR for Harman shares was -1.0
percent in the 30 trading days following the event, 15.5 percent for 60 days, and 10.5 percent for 90 days.
The line for CAR in exhibit 6 also shows these returns.
While the results are consistent with the base rate, we must reiterate that the averages belie a more complex
distribution. Exhibit 9 shows the distribution of stock price returns for the 455 companies in Harman’s
reference class. For each of the return distributions that follow the event (+30, +60, and +90 days), the mean,
or average, was greater than the median. The standard deviations are high at about 30 percent for 30 days,
40 percent for 60 days, and 45 percent for 90 days.

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 9: Distributions for Non-Earnings Events That Have Weak Momentum, Cheap Valuation, Low Quality

Sample: 455 Sample: 455
10% Mean: -11.6% Mean: 14.3%
20%
Median: -9.5% Median: 12.3%
8% StDev.: 37.9% StDev.: 7.8%
15%
6%
Frequency
Frequency
10%
4%
5%
2%
0% 0%
3%
7%
-7%
-7%
-2%
16%
39%
61%
84%
12%
17%
21%
26%
31%
35%
40%
45%
50%
54%
59%
64%
68%
73%
-98%
-75%
-52%
-29%
107%
130%
152%
175%
198%
-189%
-166%
-143%
-120%
12% +30 Days 12% +60 Days 12% +90 Days

Sample: 455 Sample: 455 Sample: 455
10% Mean: 7.6% 10% Mean: 11.0% 10% Mean: 12.0%
8% StDev.: 32.0% 8% StDev.: 38.8% 8% StDev.: 46.1%
6% 6% 6%
Frequency
Frequency
Frequency
4% 4% 4%
2% 2% 2%
0% 0% 0%
1%
-6%
-5%
20%
39%
59%
78%
97%
18%
41%
64%
87%
23%
51%
78%
-95%
-76%
-57%
-37%
-18%
-99%
-75%
-52%
-29%
-88%
-60%
-32%
116%
136%
155%
174%
193%
111%
134%
157%
180%
204%
227%
250%
273%
297%
106%
134%
161%
189%
217%
244%
272%
300%
327%
-134%
-114%
-143%
-115%

September 26, 2016
W.W. Grainger
On the morning of July 18, 2012, W.W. Grainger reported strong earnings. This was a scheduled earnings
event and the stock increased 11.4 percent. The S&P 500 was up 0.7 percent.
Exhibit 10 shows the chart of W.W. Grainger’s stock performance for the 30 trading days prior to the event
through 90 trading days following the event. The top line starting on the left shows the stock price, which
spikes on the day of the earnings release, then stays in a holding pattern for the next 60 trading days, and
then eventually declines sharply over the full 90 days. The bars in the middle of the exhibit are the daily
abnormal return, and the line at the bottom is the cumulative abnormal return. This is a case where selling
W.W. Grainger stock would have made sense. Let’s go through the checklist to see how we would have
assessed the situation as it occurred.
Exhibit 10: W.W. Grainger’s Stock Price and CAR, June 5, 2012 – November 27, 2012
Daily abnormal return GWW Price Cumulative abnormal return

215
210
30%
205
Earnings report
200
Stock gains 11%
195
20%
190
Abnormal Return
Stock Price
185
180 10%
175
170
0%
165
160
155
-10%
150
145
140 -20%
09/04/12
06/05/12
06/12/12
06/19/12
06/26/12
07/03/12
07/10/12
07/17/12
07/24/12
07/31/12
08/07/12
08/14/12
08/21/12
08/28/12
09/11/12
09/18/12
09/25/12
10/02/12
10/09/12
10/16/12
10/23/12
10/30/12
11/06/12
11/13/12
11/20/12
11/27/12

September 26, 2016
The first item on the checklist is the determination of whether the event was an earnings release. We know
that it was scheduled, so we refer to exhibit 3.
The next step is to determine the scores with regard to momentum, valuation, and operational quality. To do
so, we go to the link, “Scorecard Percentile,” on HOLT Lens. Exhibit 11 shows the scores.
Exhibit 11: W.W. Grainger’s Factor Scores

GRAINGER (W W) INC Scorecard Analysis
Investment Style Quality at Any Price
Momentum 80
Valuation 19
Source: HOLT Lens.
For W.W. Grainger, we see that momentum is strong (80), valuation is expensive (19), and quality is high (68).
Exhibit 12 shows the branches in exhibit 3 that are relevant for W.W. Grainger.
Exhibit 12: The Branches That Lead to W.W. Grainger’s Reference Class
Days Days
-30 Event N= +30 +60 +90
Days Days Days Days

-30 Event N= +30 +60 +90 -30 Event N= +30 +60 +90
Strong -1.3% 13.9% 411 1.1% 1.9% 2.3%
Expensive 0.0% 13.7% 153 -0.6% -1.4% -2.8%
High -0.6% 13.8% 65 -2.3% -1.7% -6.0%
The cumulative abnormal returns are consistently negative for each branch of the tree for all of the time
periods we consider. The final branch, with a sample size of 65 events, shows a -2.3 percent CAR for 30
days, -1.7 percent for 60 days, and -6.0 percent for 90 days. In this case, the base rates would suggest
selling the stock on the day following the decline.
We can compare these base rates with what actually happened. The CAR for W.W. Grainger’s shares was
-5.2 percent in the 30 trading days following the event, -0.9 percent for 60 days, and -11.3 percent for 90
days. Exhibit 10 reflects these returns. Once again, note that there is a distribution of returns for this
reference class, and the best we can do is make a probabilistic assessment.

September 26, 2016
Summary: Buy, Sell, or Hold
The goal of this analysis is to provide you with useful base rates in the case that you see a sharp gain in one
of the stocks in your portfolio. Mountain climbers run a risk of “celebrating the summit,” enjoying the pleasure
without considering the rest of the journey. Likewise, investors should not bask in their success but rather
consider their next action.
The base rates in this report offer guidance in determining whether you should buy, sell, or do nothing in the
days following the event. You should keep this report handy, and when an event occurs you can pull it out and
follow the steps in the checklist. The results contained here are a useful complement to fundamental analysis.
Because these events tend to be infrequent, most investors don’t have a systematic approach, or data, to
make a sound judgment. Further, large price increases almost always evoke a strong emotional reaction,
which complicates the process of decision making even more.
Our examination of exhibits 3 and 4 suggests that the following characteristics are consistent with buy and sell
signals:
Buy. For earnings releases, there is a clear and convincing buy signal for stocks with weak or neutral
momentum prior to the event. This buy signal is strengthened if the stock has a cheap or neutral valuation.
The buy signal for stocks with weak momentum is even more pronounced for non-earnings events than it is
for earnings releases. This signal is stronger for stocks that have a cheap valuation, and is further amplified if
the companies are of high or neutral quality, although the returns for low quality are still very high. Harman,
the subject of our first case study, was a non-earnings event with weak momentum, cheap valuation, and low
quality, and hence the data suggested a buy.
Sell. For earnings releases, momentum alone does not indicate a strong buy or sell pattern. But there is a
fairly strong sell signal for stocks that have the combination of strong momentum and expensive valuation. The
sell signal holds for stocks with strong momentum, expensive valuation, and high or neutral quality. W.W.
Grainger, our second case, had strong momentum, expensive valuation, and high quality—factors that
suggested selling the shares.
For non-earnings events, the cumulative abnormal returns following an event are largely positive. But we must
note that these stocks as a group performed poorly prior to the event, down nearly seven percentage points
relative to the market. There are a couple of combinations that suggest selling the stock. The strongest sell
signal is for companies that combine strong momentum and expensive valuation. That signal is further
amplified if the companies are of high or neutral quality.
Making decisions in the face of uncertainty is always a challenge, but it is inherent to investing. Deciding what
to do with a stock following a sharp increase is particularly difficult because emotions tend to run high after
these events. This report provides grounding in the form of base rates in an effort to better inform decision
making.

September 26, 2016
Appendix: Distributions of Stock Price Changes
This appendix reviews the distributions that apply to Harman, one of our case studies. These distributions
reflect non-earnings announcements and contain all events, including the bubble periods. We also provide
some statistical properties for each distribution, including the sample size, mean, median, and standard
deviation.
Exhibit 13 shows all the cases with weak momentum and displays five distributions of cumulative abnormal
returns, including the 30 trading days prior to the event, the day of the event itself, and the 30, 60, and 90
trading days subsequent to the event. This is the first branch of the Harman case study.
Exhibit 14 shows weak momentum and cheap valuation, which trims the sample size by more than one-half.
Here again we include the 30 trading days prior to the event, the day of the event itself, and the 30, 60, and
90 trading days after the event. This is the second branch of the Harman case study.
Exhibit 15 shows the final branch in the Harman case study: weak momentum, cheap valuation, and low
quality. The sample size is just over one-third of the prior branch. You can see the 30 trading days prior to the
event, the day of the event itself, and the 30, 60, and 90 trading days after the event.

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 13: Distributions for the First Branch of the Harman Case Study
Weak Momentum

12% Sample: 2,772 Sample: 2,772
Mean: -5.8% 20% Mean: 14.0%
10% Median: -3.9% Median: 12.2%
StDev.: 33.0% StDev.: 6.8%
8% 15%
6%
Frequency
10%
Frequency
4%
5%
2%
0% 0%
3%
3%
-3%
30%
56%
82%
10%
17%
24%
30%
37%
44%
51%
57%
64%
71%
78%
84%
91%
-76%
-49%
-23%
-10%
109%
135%
162%
188%
214%
241%
267%
293%
-207%
-181%
-155%
-128%
-102%
14% +30 Days 14% +60 Days 14% +90 Days

Mean: 5.3% Mean: 9.1% Mean: 10.8%
8% 8% 8%
6% 6% 6%
Frequency
Frequency
Frequency
4% 4% 4%
2% 2% 2%
0% 0% 0%
2%
-4%
24%
47%
70%
92%
24%
52%
81%
23%
56%
90%
-88%
-66%
-43%
-21%
-89%
-60%
-32%
-77%
-43%
-10%
115%
137%
160%
183%
205%
228%
250%
273%
295%
109%
137%
165%
193%
221%
250%
278%
306%
334%
362%
391%
419%
123%
156%
190%
223%
256%
289%
323%
356%
389%
423%
456%
489%
-134%
-111%
-117%
-143%
-110%

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 14: Distributions for the Second Branch of the Harman Case Study
Weak Momentum, Cheap Valuation

12% Sample: 1,270 Sample: 1,270
Mean: -10.5% 20% Mean: 14.4%
10% Median: -8.2% Median: 12.3%
StDev.: 35.1% StDev.: 7.6%
8% 15%
6%
Frequency
Frequency
10%
4%
5%
2%
0% 0%
2%
8%
-4%
17%
46%
74%
14%
20%
26%
32%
38%
45%
51%
57%
63%
69%
75%
81%
87%
93%
-95%
-67%
-39%
-11%
-10%
102%
130%
158%
186%
214%
242%
271%
-207%
-179%
-151%
-123%
14% +30 Days 14% +60 Days 14% +90 Days

Mean: 7.6% Mean: 11.4% Mean: 13.5%
8% 8% 8%
6% 6% 6%
Frequency
Frequency
Frequency
4% 4% 4%
2% 2% 2%
0% 0% 0%
3%
9%
-2%
33%
68%
33%
63%
93%
32%
56%
80%
-73%
-38%
-87%
-57%
-27%
-86%
-62%
-39%
-15%
103%
138%
173%
209%
244%
279%
314%
349%
384%
420%
455%
123%
153%
183%
213%
244%
274%
304%
334%
364%
394%
103%
127%
151%
175%
198%
222%
246%
269%
-143%
-108%
-117%
-134%
-110%

September 26, 2016
Exhibit 15: Distributions for the Third Branch of the Harman Case Study
Weak Momentum, Cheap Valuation, Low Quality

Sample: 455 Sample: 455
10% Mean: -11.6% Mean: 14.3%
20%
Median: -9.5% Median: 12.3%
8% StDev.: 37.9% StDev.: 7.8%
15%
6%
Frequency
Frequency
10%
4%
5%
2%
0% 0%
3%
7%
-7%
-7%
-2%
16%
39%
61%
84%
12%
17%
21%
26%
31%
35%
40%
45%
50%
54%
59%
64%
68%
73%
-98%
-75%
-52%
-29%
107%
130%
152%
175%
198%
-189%
-166%
-143%
-120%
12% +30 Days 12% +60 Days 12% +90 Days

Sample: 455 Sample: 455 Sample: 455
10% Mean: 7.6% 10% Mean: 11.0% 10% Mean: 12.0%
8% StDev.: 32.0% 8% StDev.: 38.8% 8% StDev.: 46.1%
6% 6% 6%
Frequency
Frequency
Frequency
4% 4% 4%
2% 2% 2%
0% 0% 0%
1%
-6%
-5%
20%
39%
59%
78%
97%
18%
41%
64%
87%
23%
51%
78%
-95%
-76%
-57%
-37%
-18%
-99%
-75%
-52%
-29%
-88%
-60%
-32%
116%
136%
155%
174%
193%
111%
134%
157%
180%
204%
227%
250%
273%
297%
106%
134%
161%
189%
217%
244%
272%
300%
327%
-134%
-114%
-143%
-115%

September 26, 2016
Endnotes
Cover and Introduction

1
2
3
Daniel Gilbert, Stumbling on Happiness (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006), 231.
4
Maya Bar-Hillel, “The Base-Rate Fallacy in Probability Judgments,” Acta Psychologica, Vol. 44, No. 3, May
1980, 211-233. Also, see Daniel Kahneman and Dan Lovallo, “Timid Choices and Bold Forecasts: A
Cognitive Perspective on Risk Taking,” Management Science, Vol. 39, No. 1, January 1993, 17-31. Also,
Paul E. Meehl, Clinical versus Statistical Prediction: A Theoretical Analysis and a Review of the Evidence
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press), 1954.
5
Mark L. Sirower and Sumit Sahni, “Avoiding the ‘Synergy Trap’: Practical Guidance on M&A Decisions for
CEOs and Boards,” Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Vol. 18, No. 3, Summer 2006, 83-95.
6
Dan Lovallo, Carmina Clarke, and Colin Camerer, “Robust Analogizing and the Outside View: Two Empirical
Tests of Case-Based Decision Making,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 33, No. 5, May 2012, 496-512.
7
Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, “On the Psychology of Prediction,” Psychological Review, Vol. 80, No.
4, July 1973, 237-251.
8
Michael J. Mauboussin, The Success Equation: Untangling Skill and Luck in Business, Sports, and Investing
(Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press, 2012).
9
Bradley Efron and Carl Morris, “Stein’s Paradox in Statistics,” Scientific American, May 1977, 119-127.
10
The shrinkage factor can actually take a value from -1.0 to 1.0. A shrinkage factor of -1.0 would suggest
that a good result of a certain magnitude is followed by a poor result of similar magnitude. In other words, the
slope of the correlation between a past event and a present event is negative one.
11
William M.K. Trochim and James P. Donnelly, The Research Methods Knowledge Base, 3rd Edition (Mason,
OH: Atomic Dog, 2008), 166.
12
The actual correlation coefficient, r, is 0.08. See Michael J. Mauboussin, Dan Callahan, and Darius Majd,
“What Makes for a Useful Statistic? Not All Numbers are Created Equally,” Credit Suisse Global Financial
Strategies, April 5, 2016.
13
This section is based on Michael J. Mauboussin, Think Twice: Harnessing the Power of Counterintuition
(Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press, 2011), 13-16.
14
Stephen M. Stigler, Statistics on the Table: The History of Statistical Concepts and Methods (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), 173-188.
Sales Growth
1
Alfred Rappaport and Michael J. Mauboussin, Expectations Investing: Reading Stock Prices for Better
Returns (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2001).
2
Books, 2011).

September 26, 2016
3
Dunkelberg, “Entrepreneurs’ Perceived Chances for Success,” Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 3, No. 2,
Spring 1988, 97-108.
4
Massey, Simmons, and Armor, 2011.
5
Michael J. Mauboussin and Dan Callahan, “IQ versus RQ: Differentiating Smarts from Decision-Making
Skills,” Credit Suisse Global Financial Strategies, May 12, 2015.
6
7
8
Bent Flyvbjerg, Massimo Garbuio, Dan Lovallo, “Better Forecasting for Large Capital Projects,” McKinsey on
Finance, Autumn 2014, 7-13. Also, Bent Flyvbjerg, “Truth and Lies about Megaprojects,” Speech at Delft
9
Suisse Global Financial Strategies, April 16, 2014.
10
Madeleine I. G. Daepp, Marcus J. Hamilton, Geoffrey B. West, and Luís M. A. Bettencourt, “The mortality
of companies,” The Royal Society Publishing, Vol. 12, No. 106, April 1, 2015.
11
12
13
Companies, 6th Edition (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2015), 126-127.
14
15
Journal of Finance, Vol. 58, No. 2, April 2003, 643-684. Also, Michael J. Mauboussin, “The True Measures
of Success,” Harvard Business Review, October 2012, 46-56.
16
We winsorize the top and bottom two percent of the growth rates. Companies with growth rates in the top
two percent are generally extremely small firms or firms that engaged in a significant merger and acquisition
activity.
Gross Profitability
1
James B. Rea, “Remembering Benjamin Graham – Teacher and Friend,” Journal of Portfolio Management,
Vol. 3, No. 4, Summer 1977, 66-72. Also, see P. Blustein, “Ben Graham’s Last Will and Testament,” Forbes,
August 1, 1977, 43-45. Also, Charles M. C. Lee and Eric C. So, “Alphanomics: The Informational
Underpinnings of Market Efficiency,” Foundations and Trends in Accounting, Vol. 9, Nos. 2-3, December
2014, 59-258.
2
Robert Novy-Marx, “The Other Side of Value: The Gross Profitability Premium,” Journal of Financial
Economics, Vol. 108, No. 1, April 2013, 1-28. Credit Suisse’s HOLT team also analyzed this topic. See
Bryant Matthews, David A. Holland, and Richard Curry, “The Measure of Quality,” Credit Suisse HOLT Wealth
Creation Principles, February 2016.

September 26, 2016
3
Some researchers are critical of the claim that gross profit, the numerator of gross profitability, is a better
measure of earnings than other popular measures such as net income or operating income. They argue that
gross profitability and net income have similar predictive power when they are deflated the same way. See Ray
Ball, Joseph Gerakos, Juhani T. Linnainmaa, and Valeri V. Nikolaev, “Deflating Profitability,” Journal of
Financial Economics, Vol. 117, No. 2, August 2015, 225-248. Another study suggests operating leverage
explains the excess returns to gross profitability. See Michael Kisser, “What Explains the Gross Profitability
Premium?” Working Paper, November 2014.
4
Eugene F. Fama and Kenneth R. French, “A Five-Factor Asset Pricing Model,” Journal of Financial
5
Phil DeMuth, “The Mysterious Factor ‘P’: Charlie Munger, Robert Novy-Marx And The Profitability Factor,”
6
Lei Sun, Kuo-Chiang (John) Wei, and Feixue Xie, “On the Explanations for the Gross Profitability Effect:
2014.
7
Jason Zweig, “Have Investors Finally Cracked the Stock-Picking Code?” Wall Street Journal, March 1, 2013.
Operating Leverage
1
2
3
54, No. 6, November/December 1998, 35-42.
4
David Aboody, Shai Levi, and Dan Weiss, “Operating Leverage and Future Earnings,” Working Paper,
December 7, 2014. Also, Huong N. Higgins, “Earnings Forecasts of Firms Experiencing Sales Decline: Why
So Inaccurate?” Journal of Investing, Vol. 17, No. 1, Spring 2008, 26-33.
5
Boris Groysberg, Paul Healy, and Craig Chapman, “Buy-Side vs. Sell-Side Analysts’ Earnings Forecasts,”
Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 64, No. 4, July/August 2008, 25-39.
6
Robert Novy-Marx, “Operating Leverage,” Review of Finance, Vol. 15, No. 1, January 2011, 103-134. Also,
Jaewon Choi, “What Drives the Value Premium?: The Role of Asset Risk and Leverage,” Review of Financial
Studies, Vol. 26, No. 11, November 2013, 2845-2875.
7
Salvador Anton Clavé, The Global Theme Park Industry (Wallingford, UK: CABI, 2007), 361.
8
Mark C. Anderson, Rajiv D. Banker, and Surya N. Janakiraman, “Are Selling, General, and Administrative
Costs ‘Sticky’?” Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 41, No. 1, March 2003, 47-63.
9
Bruce Greenwald and Judd Kahn, Competition Demystified: A Radically Simplified Approach to Business
Strategy (New York: Portfolio, 2005), 43-45.
10
George Foster, Financial Statement Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1978), 268-271. Also,
Baruch Lev, “On the Association Between Operating Leverage and Risk,” Journal of Financial and
Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 9, No. 4, September 1974, 627-641. Also, Gershon N. Mandelker and S. Ghon
Rhee, “The Impact of the Degrees of Operating and Financial Leverage on Systematic Risk of Common
Stock,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 19, No. 1, March 1984, 45-57.
11
Boris Groysberg, Paul Healy, Nitin Nohria, and George Serapheim, “What Factors Drive Analyst Forecasts?”
12
Michael J. Mauboussin and Dan Callahan, “Total Addressable Market: Methods to Estimate a Company’s
Potential Sales,” Credit Suisse Global Financial Strategies, September 1, 2015.
13
Mariana Mazzucato, ed., Strategy for Business: A Reader (London: Sage Publications, 2002), 78-122.

September 26, 2016
14
Companies, Sixth Edition (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2015), 116-118.
15
Patrick Viguerie, Sven Smit, and Mehrdad Baghai, The Granularity of Growth: How to Identify the Sources
of Growth and Drive Enduring Company Performance (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2008).
16
Michael J. Mauboussin and Dan Callahan, “Capital Allocation—Updated: Evidence, Analytical Methods, and
Assessment Guidance,” Credit Suisse Global Financial Strategies, June 2, 2015.
17
Mariana Mazzucato, Firm Size, Innovation, and Market Structure: The Evolution of Industry Concentration
and Instability (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2000).
18
J. Scott Armstrong and Kesten C. Green, “Competitor-oriented Objectives: The Myth of Market Share,”
International Journal of Business, Vol. 12, No. 1, Winter 2007, 115-134.
19
Rappaport and Mauboussin, 40-46.
20
Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Staff Audiotape of Interview with Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway,
May 26, 2010. See http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_images/Buffett_FCIC_transcript.pdf. Also, Biz Carson,
“Marc Andreessen Has 2 Words of Advice for Struggling Startups,” Business Insider, June 2, 2016.
21
Gerard Tellis “The Price Elasticity of Selective Demand: A Meta-Analysis of Econometric Models of Sales,”
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 25, No. 4, November 1998, 331-341.
22
Company reports and presentations. See https://corporate.goodyear.com/documents/events-
presentations/DB%20Global%20Auto%20Presentation%202016%20FINAL.pdf.
23
David Besanko, David Dranove, and Mark Shanley, Economics of Strategy (New York: John Wiley & Sons,
2000), 436.
24
Lawrence D. Brown, “Analyst Forecasting Errors: Additional Evidence,” Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 53,
No. 6, November/December 1997, 81-88.
25
Chopra, 1998.
26
Amy P. Hutton, Lian Fen Lee, and Susan Z. Shu, “Do Managers Always Know Better? The Relative
Accuracy of Management and Analyst Forecasts,” Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 50, No. 5, December
2012, 1217-1244.
27
Matthias Kahl, Jason Lunn, and Mattias Nilsson, “Operating Leverage and Corporate Financial Policies,”
Working Paper, November 20, 2014. Also, QianQian Du, Laura Xiaolie Liu, and Rui Shen, “Cost Inflexibility
and Capital Structure,” Working Paper, March 14, 2012. Also, Zhiyao Chen, Jarrad Harford, and Avraham
Kamara, “Operating Leverage, Profitability, and Capital Structure,” Working Paper, November 7, 2014.
28
Juliane Begenau and Berardino Palazzo, “Firm Selection and Corporate Cash Holdings,” Harvard Business
School Working Paper, No. 16-130, May 2016.
29
The appendix relies heavily on Rappaport (1986).
Operating Profit Margin

1
Patrick O’Shaughnessy, “The Rich Are Getting Richer,” The Investor’s Field Guide Blog, May 2015. See
www.investorfieldguide.com/the-rich-are-getting-richer. Also, “Profit Margins in a ‘Winner Take All’ Economy,”
Philosophical Economics Blog, May 7, 2015. See www.philosophicaleconomics.com/2015/05/profit-
margins-in-a-winner-take-all-economy. Also John Owens, CFA, “The Corporate Profit Margin Debate,”
Morningstar Investment Services Commentary, February 2013.
Earnings Growth
1
John R. Graham, Campbell R. Harvey, and Shiva Rajgopal, “Value Destruction and Financial Reporting
2
Shreenivas Kunte, CFA, “Earnings Confessions: What Disclosures Do Investors Prefer?” CFA Institute:

September 26, 2016
3
Benjamin Lansford, Baruch Lev, and Jennifer Wu Tucker, “Causes and Consequences of Disaggregating
26–54 and Stanley Block, “Methods of Valuation: Myths vs. Reality,” The Journal of Investing, Winter 2010,
7-14.
4
Alfred Rappaport, Creating Shareholder Value: A Guide for Managers and Investors (New York: Free Press,
1998), 13-31.
5
6
William H. Beaver, “The Information Content of Annual Earnings Announcements,” Journal of Accounting
Research, Vol. 6, 1968, 67-92.
7
Wayne R. Landsman, Edward L. Maydew, and Jacob R. Thornock, “The Information Content of Annual
8
William H. Beaver, Maureen F. McNichols, Zach Z. Wang, “The Information Content of Earnings
9
Baruch Lev and Feng Gu, The End of Accounting and the Path Forward for Investors and Managers
(Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2016).
10
Ray Ball and Lakshmanan Shivakumar, “How Much New Information Is There in Earnings?” Journal of
11
Lansford, Lev, and Tucker.
12
Mark T. Bradshaw and Richard G. Sloan, “GAAP versus The Street: An Empirical Assessment of Two
Alternative Definitions of Earnings,” Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 40, No. 1, March 2002, 41-66;
Theo Francis and Kate Linebaugh, “U.S. Corporations Increasingly Adjust to Mind the GAAP,” Wall Street
Journal, December 14, 2015; and Dechow, Sloan, and Zha.
13
14
15
Scott A. Richardson, Richard G. Sloan, Mark T. Soliman, and Irem Tuna, “Accrual Reliability, Earnings
437-485.
16
The sample throughout the report includes the top 1,000 global companies by market capitalization,
including all sectors, since 1950. (The sample is somewhat smaller in the early years but reaches 1,000 by
the late 1960s.) When calculating growth rates, we exclude companies with negative net income. “Net
Income” is defined as “Income Before Extraordinary Items.” The Compustat annual data item number is 18.
Here’s the description: “This item represents the income of a company after all expenses, including special
items, income taxes, and minority interest – but before provisions for common and/or preferred dividends.
This item does not reflect discontinued operations or extraordinary items presented after taxes. This item, for
banks, includes net profit or loss on securities sold or redeemed after applicable deductions for tax and
minority interest.”
17
Paul Hribar and John McInnis, “Investor Sentiment and Analysts’ Earnings Forecast Errors,” Management
18
54, No. 6, November/December 1998, 35-42 and Andrew Stotz and Wei Lu, “Financial Analysts Were Only
Wrong by 25%,” SSRN Working Paper, November 25, 2015. See: www.ssrn.com/abstract=2695216.
19
20
Michael J. Mauboussin, “The True Measure of Success,” Harvard Business Review, October 2012, 46-56.

September 26, 2016
21
22
Cash Flow Return on Investment (CFROI)

1
Bartley J. Madden, CFROI Valuation: A Total System Approach to Valuing the Firm (Oxford, UK:
Butterworth-Heinemann, 1999).
2
HOLT uses a three-step process to fade the CFROI of all firms. The first step is the explicit fade period,
where the model fades the CFROI for a company over the next five years based on its position in the
corporate life cycle. The second step is the residual period, where the model eliminates ten percent of the
economic spread per year. The economic spread is the difference between the CFROI and the long-term
average. The final step is the terminal period, where the model assumes the company earns a return on
capital equal to the cost of capital and that the level of earnings will continue into perpetuity.
3
In theory, this is not the best way to model this problem. The equation we present is relevant mostly for one-
time adjustments. See John R. Nesselroade, Stephen M. Stigler, and Paul Baltes, “Regression Toward the
Mean and the Study of Change,” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88, No. 3, November 1980, 622-637.
Managing the Man Overboard Moment

1
Thanks to Ian McKinnon of Sandia Holdings LLC, the first person we heard use this phrase, for allowing us
to use it in the title of this section.
2
Atul Gawande, The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2009),
122-128. For checklists related to investing, see Mohnish Pabrai, Guy Spier, and Michael Shearn, “Keynote
Q&A Session on Investment Checklists,” Best Ideas 2014, Hosted by John and Oliver Mihaljevic, January 7,
2014. See http://www.valueconferences.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/ideas14-pabrai-spier-shearn-
transcript.pdf.
3
Barbara K. Burian, “Emergency and Abnormal Checklist Design Factors Influencing Flight Crew Response:
A Case Study,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Human–Computer Interaction in Aeronautics,
2004.
4
Celebrating the Summit

1
Laurence Gonzales, “How to Survive (Almost) Anything: 14 Survival Skills,” National Geographic Adventure,
August 2008.
2
Laurence Gonzales, Deep Survival: Who Lives, Who Dies, and Why (New York: W.W. Norton & Company,
2003), 119.
3
Atul Gawande, The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2009),
122-128. For checklists related to investing, see Mohnish Pabrai, Guy Spier, and Michael Shearn, “Keynote
Q&A Session on Investment Checklists,” Best Ideas 2014, Hosted by John and Oliver Mihaljevic, January 7,
2014. See http://www.valueconferences.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/ideas14-pabrai-spier-shearn-
transcript.pdf.

September 26, 2016
4
Barbara K. Burian, “Emergency and Abnormal Checklist Design Factors Influencing Flight Crew Response:
A Case Study,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Human–Computer Interaction in Aeronautics,
2004.
5
6

September 26, 2016
Resources
Books
Besanko, David, David Dranove, and Mark Shanley, Economics of Strategy (New York: John Wiley & Sons,
2000).
Clavé, Salvador Anton, The Global Theme Park Industry (Wallingford, UK: CABI, 2007).
Foster, George, Financial Statement Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1978).
Gawande, Atul. The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2009).
Gilbert, Daniel, Stumbling on Happiness (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006).
Gonzales, Laurence, Deep Survival: Who Lives, Who Dies, and Why (New York: W.W. Norton & Company,
2003).
Greenwald, Bruce, and Judd Kahn, Competition Demystified: A Radically Simplified Approach to Business
Strategy (New York: Portfolio, 2005).
Hagin, Robert L., Investment Management: Portfolio Diversification, Risk, and Timing—Fact and Fiction
Kahneman, Daniel, Thinking, Fast and Slow (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011).
Koller, Tim, Marc Goedhart, and David Wessels, Valuation: Measuring and Managing the Value of Companies,
Sixth Edition (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2015).
Lev, Baruch, and Feng Gu, The End of Accounting and the Path Forward for Investors and Managers
Madden, Bartley J., CFROI Valuation: A Total System Approach to Valuing the Firm (Oxford, UK:
Butterworth-Heinemann, 1999).
Mauboussin, Michael J., Think Twice: Harnessing the Power of Counterintuition (Boston, MA: Harvard
Business Review Press, 2011).
-----., The Success Equation: Untangling Skill and Luck in Business, Sports, and Investing (Boston, MA:
Harvard Business Review Press, 2012).
Mazzucato, Mariana, Firm Size, Innovation, and Market Structure: The Evolution of Industry Concentration and
Instability (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2000).
Mazzucato, Mariana, ed., Strategy for Business: A Reader (London: Sage Publications, 2002).
Meehl, Paul E., Clinical versus Statistical Prediction: A Theoretical Analysis and a Review of the Evidence
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press), 1954.

September 26, 2016
Rappaport, Alfred, Creating Shareholder Value: The New Standard for Business Performance (New York:
Free Press, 1986).
-----., Creating Shareholder Value: A Guide for Managers and Investors (New York: Free Press, 1998).
Rappaport, Alfred, and Michael J. Mauboussin, Expectations Investing: Reading Stock Prices for Better
Sharot, Tali, The Optimism Bias: A Tour of the Irrationally Positive Brain (New York: Pantheon Books, 2011).
Stigler, Stephen M., Statistics on the Table: The History of Statistical Concepts and Methods (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).
Trochim, William M.K., and James P. Donnelly, The Research Methods Knowledge Base, 3rd Edition (Mason,
OH: Atomic Dog, 2008).
Viguerie, Patrick, Sven Smit, and Mehrdad Baghai, The Granularity of Growth: How to Identify the Sources of
Growth and Drive Enduring Company Performance (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2008).

September 26, 2016
Articles and Papers
Aboody, David, Shai Levi, and Dan Weiss, “Operating Leverage and Future Earnings,” Working Paper,
December 7, 2014.
Amini, Shima, Bartosz Gebka, Robert Hudson, Kevin Keasey, “A review of the international literature on the
short term predictability of stock prices conditional on large prior price changes: Microstructure, behavioral and
risk related explanations,” International Review of Financial Analysis, Vol. 26, January 2013, 1-17.
Anderson, Mark C., Rajiv D. Banker, and Surya N. Janakiraman, “Are Selling, General, and Administrative
Costs ‘Sticky’?” Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 41, No. 1, March 2003, 47-63.
Armor, David A., Cade Massey, and Aaron M. Sackett, “Prescribed Optimism: Is It Right to Be Wrong About
the Future?” Psychological Science, Vol. 19, No. 4, April 2008, 329-331.
Armstrong, J. Scott, and Kesten C. Green, “Competitor-oriented Objectives: The Myth of Market Share,”
International Journal of Business, Vol. 12, No. 1, Winter 2007, 115-134.
Atkins, Allen B., and Edward A. Dyl, “Price Reversals, Bid-Ask Spreads, and Market Efficiency,” Journal of
Ball, Ray, and Lakshmanan Shivakumar, “How Much New Information Is There in Earnings?” Journal of
Ball, Ray, Joseph Gerakos, Juhani T. Linnainmaa, and Valeri V. Nikolaev, “Deflating Profitability,” Journal of
Financial Economics, Vol. 117, No. 2, August 2015, 225-248.
Bar-Hillel, Maya, “The Base-Rate Fallacy in Probability Judgments,” Acta Psychologica, Vol. 44, No. 3, May
1980, 211-233.
Beaver, William H., “The Information Content of Annual Earnings Announcements,” Journal of Accounting
Research, Vol. 6, 1968, 67-92.
Beaver, William H., Maureen F. McNichols, Zach Z. Wang, “The Information Content of Earnings
Begenau, Juliane, and Berardino Palazzo, “Firm Selection and Corporate Cash Holdings,” Harvard Business
School Working Paper, No. 16-130, May 2016.
Ben-David, Itzhak, John R. Graham, and Campbell R. Harvey, “Managerial Miscalibration,” Quarterly Journal
Bernard, Victor L., and Jacob K. Thomas, “Post-Earnings-Announcement Drift: Delayed Price Response or
Risk Premium?” Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 27, Supplement 1989, 1-36.
-----., “Evidence that Stock Prices Do Not Fully Reflect the Implications of Current Earnings for Future
Earnings,” Journal of Accounting and Economics, No. 13, Vol. 4, December 1990, 305-340.

September 26, 2016
Block, Stanley, “Methods of Valuation: Myths vs. Reality,” The Journal of Investing, Winter 2010, 7-14.
Blustein,P., “Ben Graham’s Last Will and Testament,” Forbes, August 1, 1977, 43-45.
Bradshaw, Mark T., and Richard G. Sloan, “GAAP versus The Street: An Empirical Assessment of Two
Alternative Definitions of Earnings,” Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 40, No. 1, March 2002, 41-66.
Bremer, Marc, and Richard J. Sweeney, “The Reversal of Large Stock-Price Decreases,” Journal of Finance,
Vol. 46, No. 2, June 1991, 747-754.
Bremer, Marc, Takato Hiraki, and Richard J. Sweeney, “Predictable Patterns after Large Stock Price
Changes on the Tokyo Stock Exchange,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 32, No. 3,
September 1997, 345-365.
Brown, Keith C., W.V. Harlow, and Seha M. Tinic, “Risk Aversion, Uncertain Information, and Market
Efficiency,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 22, No. 2, December 1998, 355-385.
Brown, Lawrence D., “Analyst Forecasting Errors: Additional Evidence,” Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 53,
No. 6, November/December 1997, 81-88.
Buffett, Warren E., “Letter to Shareholders,” Berkshire Hathaway Annual Report, 2000.
Burian, Barbara K., “Emergency and Abnormal Checklist Design Factors Influencing Flight Crew Response: A
Case Study,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Human–Computer Interaction in Aeronautics,
2004.
Carson, Biz, “Marc Andreessen Has 2 Words of Advice for Struggling Startups,” Business Insider, June 2,
2016.
Chan, Louis K.C., Jason Karceski, and Josef Lakonishok, “The Level and Persistence of Growth Rates,”
Chen, Zhiyao, Jarrad Harford, and Avraham Kamara, “Operating Leverage, Profitability, and Capital Structure,”
Working Paper, November 7, 2014.
Choi, Jaewon, “What Drives the Value Premium?: The Role of Asset Risk and Leverage,” Review of Financial
Studies, Vol. 26, No. 11, November 2013, 2845-2875.
Chopra, Vijay Kumar, “Why So Much Error in Analysts’ Earnings Forecasts?” Financial Analysts Journal, Vol.
54, No. 6, November/December 1998, 35-42.
Cooper, Arnold C., Carolyn Y. Woo, and William C. Dunkelberg, “Entrepreneurs’ Perceived Chances for
Success,” Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 3, No. 2, Spring 1988, 97-108.
Cox, Don R., and David R. Peterson, “Stock Returns following Large One-Day Declines: Evidence on Short-
Term Reversals and Longer-Term Performance,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 49, No. 1, March 1994, 255-267.
Daepp, Madeleine I. G., Marcus J. Hamilton, Geoffrey B. West, and Luís M. A. Bettencourt, “The mortality of
companies,” The Royal Society Publishing, Vol. 12, No. 106, April 1, 2015.

September 26, 2016
De Bondt, Werner F.M., and Richard Thaler, “Does the Stock Market Overreact?” Journal of Finance, Vol. 40,
No. 3, July 1985, 793-805.
Dechow, Patricia M., Richard G. Sloan, and Jenny Zha, “Stock Prices and Earnings: A History of Research,”
DeMuth, Phil, “The Mysterious Factor ‘P’: Charlie Munger, Robert Novy-Marx And The Profitability Factor,”
Du, QianQian, Laura Xiaolie Liu, and Rui Shen, “Cost Inflexibility and Capital Structure,” Working Paper,
March 14, 2012.
Efron, Bradley, and Carl Morris, “Stein’s Paradox in Statistics,” Scientific American, May 1977, 119-127.
Fama, Eugene F., and Kenneth R. French, “A Five-Factor Asset Pricing Model,” Journal of Financial
Flyvbjerg, Bent, “Truth and Lies about Megaprojects,” Speech at Delft University of Technology, September
26, 2007.
Flyvbjerg, Bent, Massimo Garbuio, Dan Lovallo, “Better Forecasting for Large Capital Projects,” McKinsey on
Finance, Autumn 2014, 7-13.
Friesen, Geoffrey, and Paul A. Weller, “Quantifying Cognitive Biases in Analyst Earnings Forecasts,” Journal
Gonzales, Laurence, “How to Survive (Almost) Anything: 14 Survival Skills,” National Geographic Adventure,
August 2008.
Graham, John R., Campbell R. Harvey, and Shiva Rajgopal, “Value Destruction and Financial Reporting
Groysberg, Boris, Paul Healy, and Craig Chapman, “Buy-Side vs. Sell-Side Analysts’ Earnings Forecasts,”
Groysberg, Boris, Paul Healy, Nitin Nohria, and George Serapheim, “What Factors Drive Analyst Forecasts?”
Jegadeesh, Narasimhan, “Evidence of Predictable Behavior of Security Returns,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 49,
No. 1, March 1994, 255-267.
Jegadeesh, Narasimhan, and Sheridan Titman, “Returns to Buying Winners and Selling Losers: Implications
for Stock Market Efficiency,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 48, No. 1, March 1993, 65-91.
Higgins, Huong N., “Earnings Forecasts of Firms Experiencing Sales Decline: Why So Inaccurate?” Journal of
Investing, Vol. 17, No. 1, Spring 2008, 26-33.
Hribar, Paul, and John McInnis, “Investor Sentiment and Analysts’ Earnings Forecast Errors,” Management

September 26, 2016
Hutton, Amy P., Lian Fen Lee, and Susan Z. Shu, “Do Managers Always Know Better? The Relative
Accuracy of Management and Analyst Forecasts,” Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 50, No. 5, December
2012, 1217-1244.
Kahl, Matthias, Jason Lunn, and Mattias Nilsson, “Operating Leverage and Corporate Financial Policies,”
Working Paper, November 20, 2014.
Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky, “On the Psychology of Prediction,” Psychological Review, Vol. 80, No.
4, July 1973, 237-251.
Kahneman, Daniel, and Dan Lovallo, “Timid Choices and Bold Forecasts: A Cognitive Perspective on Risk
Taking,” Management Science, Vol. 39, No. 1, January 1993, 17-31
Kisser, Michael, “What Explains the Gross Profitability Premium?” Working Paper, November 2014.
Kunte, Shreenivas, CFA, “Earnings Confessions: What Disclosures Do Investors Prefer?” CFA Institute:
Landsman, Wayne R., Edward L. Maydew, and Jacob R. Thornock, “The Information Content of Annual
Lansford, Benjamin, Baruch Lev, and Jennifer Wu Tucker, “Causes and Consequences of Disaggregating
26–54.
Lee, Charles M. C., and Eric C. So, “Alphanomics: The Informational Underpinnings of Market Efficiency,”
Foundations and Trends in Accounting, Vol. 9, Nos. 2-3, December 2014, 59-258.
Lehmann, Bruce N., “Fads, Martingales, and Market Efficiency,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 105,
No. 1, February 1990, 1-27.
Lev, Baruch, “On the Association Between Operating Leverage and Risk,” Journal of Financial and
Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 9, No. 4, September 1974, 627-641.
Lovallo, Dan, and Daniel Kahneman, “Delusions of Success: How Optimism Undermines Executives’
Lovallo,Dan, Carmina Clarke, and Colin Camerer, “Robust Analogizing and the Outside View: Two Empirical
Mandelker, Gershon N., and S. Ghon Rhee, “The Impact of the Degrees of Operating and Financial Leverage
on Systematic Risk of Common Stock,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 19, No. 1, March
1984, 45-57.
Massey, Cade, Joseph P. Simmons, and David A. Armor, “Hope Over Experience: Desirability and the
Persistence of Optimism,” Psychological Science, Vol. 22, No. 2, February 2011, 274-281.

September 26, 2016
Matthews, Bryant, David A. Holland, and Richard Curry, “The Measure of Quality,” Credit Suisse HOLT
Wealth Creation Principles, February 2016.
Mauboussin, Michael J., “The True Measures of Success,” Harvard Business Review, October 2012, 46-56.
Mauboussin, Michael J., and Dan Callahan, “Why Corporate Longevity Matters: What Index Turnover Tells Us
about Corporate Results,” Credit Suisse Global Financial Strategies, April 16, 2014.
-----., “IQ versus RQ: Differentiating Smarts from Decision-Making Skills,” Credit Suisse Global Financial
Strategies, May 12, 2015.
-----., “Capital Allocation—Updated: Evidence, Analytical Methods, and Assessment Guidance,” Credit Suisse
Global Financial Strategies, June 2, 2015.
-----., “Total Addressable Market: Methods to Estimate a Company’s Potential Sales,” Credit Suisse Global
Financial Strategies, September 1, 2015.
Mauboussin, Michael J., Dan Callahan, and Darius Majd, “What Makes for a Useful Statistic? Not All Numbers
are Created Equally,” Credit Suisse Global Financial Strategies, April 5, 2016.
Nesselroade, John R., Stephen M. Stigler, and Paul Baltes, “Regression Toward the Mean and the Study of
Change,” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88, No. 3, November 1980, 622-637.
Novy-Marx, Robert, “Operating Leverage,” Review of Finance, Vol. 15, No. 1, January 2011, 103-134.
-----., “The Other Side of Value: The Gross Profitability Premium,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 108,
No. 1, April 2013, 1-28.
Owens, John, CFA, “The Corporate Profit Margin Debate,” Morningstar Investment Services Commentary,
February 2013.
Pabrai, Mohnish, Guy Spier, and Michael Shearn, “Keynote Q&A Session on Investment Checklists,” Best
Ideas 2014, Hosted by John and Oliver Mihaljevic, January 7, 2014.
Perline, Rich, Robert Axtell, and Daniel Teitelbaum, “Volatility and Asymmetry of Small Firm Growth Rates
Over Increasing Time Frames,” Small Business Research Summary, No. 285, December 2006.
Rea, James B., “Remembering Benjamin Graham – Teacher and Friend,” Journal of Portfolio Management,
Vol. 3, No. 4, Summer 1977, 66-72.
Richardson, Scott A., Richard G. Sloan, Mark T. Soliman, and Irem Tuna, “Accrual Reliability, Earnings
437-485.
Savor, Pavel G., “Stock returns after major price shocks: The impact of information,” Journal of Financial
Economics, Vol. 106, No. 3, December 2012, 635-659.
Sirower, Mark L., and Sumit Sahni, “Avoiding the ‘Synergy Trap’: Practical Guidance on M&A Decisions for
CEOs and Boards,” Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Vol. 18, No. 3, Summer 2006, 83-95.

September 26, 2016
Stanley, Michael H. R., Luís A. N. Amaral, Sergey V. Buldyrev, Shlomo Havlin, Heiko Leschhorn,
Nature, Vol. 379, February 29, 1996, 804-806.
Stotz, Andrew, and Wei Lu, “Financial Analysts Were Only Wrong by 25%,” SSRN Working Paper, November
25, 2015.
Sun, Lei, Kuo-Chiang (John) Wei, and Feixue Xie, “On the Explanations for the Gross Profitability Effect:
2014.
Tellis, Gerard, “The Price Elasticity of Selective Demand: A Meta-Analysis of Econometric Models of Sales,”
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 25, No. 4, November 1998, 331-341.
Titman, Sheridan, K. C. John Wei, and Feixue Xie, “Capital Investments and Stock Returns,” The Journal of
Zweig, Jason, “Have Investors Finally Cracked the Stock-Picking Code?” Wall Street Journal, March 1, 2013.

Michael Mauboussin E28093 Base Rate Books 2015 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Michael Mauboussin E28093 Base Rate Books 2015 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Michael Mauboussin E28093 Base Rate Books 2015 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Michael Mauboussin – Base Rate Books (2015-2016)

YYMMDD Title Page #

Twitter @mjbaldbard mayur.jain1@gmail.com

The Base Rate Book – Sales Growth

michael.mauboussin@credit-suisse.com 35 Current Estimates

“‘Pallid’ statistical information is routinely discarded when it is incompatible

Successful active investing requires a forecast that is different than what

The Base Rate Book – Sales Growth 2

Exhibit 1: Overconfidence – Range of Sales Growth Rates Too Narrow

3-Year Sales CAGR (Percent)

The Base Rate Book – Sales Growth 3

Base Rates of Sales Growth

The Base Rate Book – Sales Growth 4

Exhibit 3: Three-Year CAGR of Sales for the S&P 1500 (1994-2014)

The Base Rate Book – Sales Growth 5

Exhibit 4: Base Rates by Decile for S&P 1500 (1994-2014)

The Base Rate Book – Sales Growth 6

$2,250-3,500 Mn Base Rates $3,500-6,000 Mn Base Rates $6,000-13,000 Mn Base Rates

The Base Rate Book – Sales Growth 7

Exhibit 5: Growth Rates and Standard Deviations Decline with Size

The Base Rate Book – Sales Growth 8

Exhibit 6: Median Sales Growth Rate Is Correlated with GDP Growth

Using Base Rates to Model Growth

Exhibit 7: Correlation of One-Year Sales Growth Rates

The Base Rate Book – Sales Growth 10

Correlation (r) 0.14

Exhibit 9: Apple’s Extraordinary Growth, Then (1981-1990) and Now (2003-2013)

1981-1990 36.4% 418 4 out of 833 0.48%

2003-2012 36.2% 7,463 2 out of 1251 0.16%

2004-2013 35.6% 8,396 2 out of 1251 0.16%

Gross Profit Margin (Percent)

The Base Rate Book – Sales Growth 12

Gross Profit Margin (Percent)

The Base Rate Book – Sales Growth 13

The Base Rate Book – Sales Growth 14

Gross Profit Margin (Percent)

The Base Rate Book – Sales Growth 15

Sales CAGR (Percent)

The Base Rate Book – Sales Growth 16

The Base Rate Book – Sales Growth 17

$2,250-3,500 Mn Observations $3,500-6,000 Mn Observations $6,000-13,000 Mn Observations

The Base Rate Book – Sales Growth 18

The Base Rate Book – Sales Growth 19

The Base Rate Book – Sales Growth 20

The Base Rate Book – Earnings Growth

3-Year Net Income CAGR (Percent)

“‘Pallid’ statistical information is routinely discarded when it is incompatible

The Base Rate Book – Earnings Growth 2

Exhibit 1: Overconfidence—Range of Net Income Growth Rates Too Narrow

3-Year Net Income CAGR (Percent)

Base Rates of Earnings Growth

The Base Rate Book – Earnings Growth 3

Exhibit 2: Base Rates of Net Income Growth (1950-2014)

Source: Credit Suisse HOLT®.

The Base Rate Book – Earnings Growth 4

Exhibit 3: Five-Year CAGR of Net Income (1950-2014)

The Base Rate Book – Earnings Growth 5

Exhibit 4: Base Rates by Decile (1950-2014)