Investing The Peter Lynch Way

Published in Investing Strategy on 9 June 2009

We search for bargains using Peter Lynch's formula.

Recently, as part of my series of articles on the great investors, I looked at the career of Peter Lynch and his success at Fidelity. Lynch used an interesting rule of thumb to find cheap growth stocks, so I thought I'd see if it would turn up any bargains in the current UK market.

What Lynch did was to take the expected long-term growth rate, add the dividend yield, and divide the total by the price/earnings ratio (P/E). This is basically the inverse of Jim Slater's PEG ratio, adjusted to account for dividend yield.

Problems with growth

The main difficulty in this process is arriving at a long-term growth figure. How long is long term? In practice we are limited to the time horizons of the analysts following the stocks, so our visibility is usually restricted to two years ahead.

And to call it 'visibility' is according it too much credence. As Neil Faulkner wrote recently, even at the best of times, analysts struggle to forecast earnings with any degree of accuracy. And let's face it, these are not the best of times.

Another problem is that the earnings forecasts for many companies are showing huge growth from depressed earnings figures, and clearly that is not sustainable over the long term. In an attempt to weed these out, I've removed any companies with growth exceeding 50% in either of the next two years, and any companies on trailing P/E in excess of 20.

I've also excluded companies below £10m in size, because I know it will annoy those who think I shouldn't.

The results

The following table shows all companies with a 'Lynch Ratio' greater than 2.0, which was Peter Lynch's guideline.

CompanyMarket Cap (£m)Price (p)P/EDividend YieldAnnual GrowthLynch Ratio
Jetion Holdings (LSE: JHL)43.859.04.3-33.27.72
GLOBO (LSE: GBO)12.49.56.1-35.85.87
Velti (LSE: VEL)49.4146.58.4-34.64.12
Brit Insurance (LSE: BRE)601.2191.58.97.85%34.93.93
RCG Holdings (LSE: RCG)196.577.53.4-13.03.82
China Medical System (LSE: CMSH)77.5164.08.45.61%29.83.56
Eros International (LSE: EROS)125.1108.55.1-17.53.43
Hargreaves Services (LSE: HSP)129.3490.09.42.10%26.52.82
Aero Inventory (LSE: AI)98.0187.02.818.64%7.52.73
Formation Group (LSE: FRM)15.47.07.0-18.32.62
Petmin (LSE: PTMN)83.015.313-31.82.45
Old Mutual (LSE: OML)3983.975.56.23.25%15.02.43
OMG (LSE: OMG)17.126.313.50.44%32.02.37
Amino Technologies (LSE: AMO)34.559.515.2-34.22.25
Fiberweb (LSE: FWEB)77.863.58.86.46%18.32.08
Alkane Energy (LSE: ALK)21.623.310.7-21.42.00

It's a very mixed bag, in terms of sizes and industries. In some cases the companies have no dividend, so we're looking at something approximating to the inverse of the PEG. Personally I'd prefer to focus on those companies that are, or at least have been, paying a dividend.

As with any trawling exercise, this is not a buy list, rather a starting point for further research. There is always the possibility that some of these figures are out of date, or simply wrong. And even if they are correct there will be many other factors, positive and negative, that are not revealed in the numbers.

Happy hunting!

More from Padraig O'Hannelly:

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

Calara 09 Jun 2009 , 9:08pm

Interesting article - particularly as it turns up one of the companies I've been tracking for a while.

However - and I may be being stupid here - but there seems to be something amiss with the maths (or are you just an accountant!!!?).

For example take the first company on the list, Jetion. The expected long-term growth rate is 33.2 and the dividend yield is 0, so that just leaves 33.2 Now divide the total by the P/E - 4.3. According to my calculator 33.2/4.3 is 7.72 but you have managed to arrive at 9.77.

Similarly System C - (29.6 + 1.11)/18.9 = 1.62 in the real world. Is there another weighting that you're not telling us about?

Calara

Esquilax100 10 Jun 2009 , 10:20am

Calara, thanks for flagging that up.

I'm looking into it.

- Padraig

Esquilax100 10 Jun 2009 , 11:48am

Table amended ... thanks again to Calara, and sorry for the error.

(The PE figure is historical, but I had accidentally done the calculation using forward PE, hence the discrepancy. Have re-calculated the LR using historical PE, as using forward PE effectively counts the growth twice. As a result, we lose a few from the list.)

- Padraig

Join the conversation

Please take note - some tags have changed.

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: [b]bolded text[/b], [i]italicised text[/i]. All other tags will be removed from your post.

If you want to add a link, please ensure you type it as http://www.fool.co.uk as opposed to www.fool.co.uk.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.