All Cap Index & Sectors: Free Cash Flow Yield Falls Through 8/12/22

Sep. 26, 2022 5:30 PM ETSPY, IVV, VOO, VTI, DIA, IWM, QQQ

Summary

  • While free cash flow remains at an above-average level on a trailing basis, the decline in the NC 2000’s FCF yield is alarming given the macroeconomic headwinds firms are currently facing.
  • The trailing FCF yield for the NC 2000 fell from 1.7% as of 6/30/22 to 1.5% as of 8/12/22.
  • With a 10.6% FCF Yield, investors are getting more FCF for their investment dollar in the Telecom Services sector than any other sector.
  • Looking for a helping hand in the market? Members of Value Investing 2.0 get exclusive ideas and guidance to navigate any climate. Learn More »

Businessman working on Financial Report of corporate operations, balance

ridvan_celik

While free cash flow ("FCF") remains at an above average-average level on a trailing basis, the decline in the NC 2000’s FCF yield is alarming given the macroeconomic headwinds firms are currently facing.

This report is an abridged version of All Cap Index & Sectors: Free Cash Flow Yield Falls Through 8/12/22, one of our quarterly reports on fundamental market and sector trends.[1],[2]

NC 2000 Trailing FCF Yield Falls in 2Q22

The trailing FCF yield for the NC 2000 fell from 1.7% as of 6/30/22 to 1.5% as of 8/12/22.

Five NC 2000 sectors saw an increase in trailing FCF yield from 6/30/22 to 8/12/22.

Key Details on Select NC 2000 Sectors

With a 10.6% FCF Yield, investors are getting more FCF for their investment dollar in the Telecom Services sector than any other sector as of 8/12/22. On the flip side, the Real Estate sector, at -3.8%, currently has the lowest trailing FCF yield of all NC 2000 sectors.

The Telecom Services, Energy, Healthcare, Basic Materials, and Industrials sectors each saw an increase in trailing FCF yield from 6/30/22 to 8/12/22.

Below, we highlight the Energy sector's trailing FCF yield.

The full version provides the same details for every sector as this report does for the Energy Sector.

Sample Sector Analysis: Energy

Figure 1 shows trailing FCF yield for the Energy sector rose from 4.3% as of 6/30/22 to 5.3% as of 8/12/22. The Energy sector FCF rose from $122.8 billion in 1Q22 to $159.3 billion in 2Q22, while enterprise value increased from $2.9 trillion as of 6/30/22 to $3.0 trillion as of 8/12/22.

Figure 1: Energy Trailing FCF Yield: Dec 1998 – 8/12/22

NC 2000 Energy Sector FCF Yield Through 2Q22

NC 2000 Energy Sector FCF Yield Through 2Q22 (New Constructs, LLC)

Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings. The August 12, 2022 measurement period uses price data as of that date and incorporates the financial data from 2Q22 10-Qs, as this is the earliest date for which all the 2Q22 10-Qs for the NC 2000 constituents were available.

Figure 2 compares the trends in FCF and enterprise value for the Energy sector since 1998. We sum the individual NC 2000/sector constituent values for free cash flow and enterprise value. We call this approach the “Aggregate” methodology, and it matches S&P Global’s (SPGI) methodology for these calculations.

Figure 2: Energy FCF & Enterprise Value: Dec 1998 – 8/12/22

NC 2000 Energy Sector FCF & Enterprise Value Through 2Q22

NC 2000 Energy Sector FCF & Enterprise Value Through 2Q22 (New Constructs, LLC)

Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings. The August 12, 2022 measurement period uses price data as of that date and incorporates the financial data from 2Q22 10-Qs, as this is the earliest date for which all the 2Q22 10-Qs for the NC 2000 constituents were available.

The Aggregate methodology provides a straightforward look at the entire NC 2000/sector, regardless of market cap or index weighting, and matches how S&P Global calculates metrics for the S&P 500.

For additional perspective, we compare the Aggregate method for free cash flow with two other market-weighted methodologies. Each method has its pros and cons, which are detailed in the Appendix.

Figure 3 compares these three methods for calculating the Energy sector’s trailing FCF yields.

Figure 3: Energy Trailing FCF Yield Methodologies Compared: Dec 1998 – 8/12/22

NC 2000 Energy Sector FCF Yield Analysis Through 2Q22

NC 2000 Energy Sector FCF Yield Analysis Through 2Q22 (New Constructs, LLC)

Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings. The August 12, 2022 measurement period uses price data as of that date and incorporates the financial data from 2Q22 10-Qs, as this is the earliest date for which all the 2Q22 10-Qs for the NC 2000 constituents were available.

This article originally published on August 30, 2022.

Disclosure: David Trainer, Kyle Guske II, Matt Shuler, and Brian Pellegrini receive no compensation to write about any specific stock, style, or theme.

Appendix: Analyzing Trailing FCF Yield with Different Weighting Methodologies

We derive the metrics above by summing the individual NC 2000/sector constituent values for free cash flow and enterprise value to calculate trailing FCF yield. We call this approach the “Aggregate” methodology.

The Aggregate methodology provides a straightforward look at the entire NC 2000/sector, regardless of market cap or index weighting, and matches how S&P Global calculates metrics for the S&P 500.

For additional perspective, we compare the Aggregate method for free cash flow with two other market-weighted methodologies. These market-weighted methodologies add more value for ratios that do not include market values, e.g., ROIC and its drivers, but we include them here, nonetheless, for comparison:

  1. Market-weighted metrics – calculated by market-cap-weighting the trailing FCF yield for the individual companies relative to their sector or the overall NC 2000 in each period. Details:
    1. Company weight equals the company’s market cap divided by the market cap of the NC 2000/ its sector
    2. We multiply each company’s trailing FCF yield by its weight
    3. NC 2000/Sector trailing FCF yield equals the sum of the weighted trailing FCF yields for all the companies in NC 2000/sector
  2. Market-weighted drivers – calculated by market-cap-weighting the FCF and enterprise value for the individual companies in each sector in each period. Details:
    1. Company weight equals the company’s market cap divided by the market cap of the NC 2000/ its sector
    2. We multiply each company’s free cash flow and enterprise value by its weight
    3. We sum the weighted FCF and weighted enterprise value for each company in the NC 2000/each sector to determine each sector’s weighted FCF and weighted enterprise value
    4. NC 2000/Sector trailing FCF yield equals weighted NC 2000/sector FCF divided by weighted NC 2000/sector enterprise value

Each methodology has its pros and cons, as outlined below:

Aggregate method

Pros:

  • A straightforward look at the entire NC 2000/sector, regardless of company size or weighting
  • Matches how S&P Global calculates metrics for the S&P 500.

Cons:

  • Vulnerable to impact of companies entering/exiting the group of companies, which could unduly affect aggregate values. Also susceptible to outliers in any one period.

Market-weighted metrics method

Pros:

  • Accounts for a firm’s market cap relative to the NC 2000/sector and weights its metrics accordingly.

Cons:

  • Vulnerable to outlier results from a single company disproportionately impacting the overall trailing FCF yield.

Market-weighted drivers method

Pros:

  • Accounts for a firm’s market cap relative to the NC 2000/sector and weights its free cash flow and enterprise value accordingly.
  • Mitigates the disproportionate impact of outlier results from one company on the overall results.

Cons:

  • More volatile as it adds emphasis to large changes in FCF and enterprise value for heavily weighted companies.

[1] We calculate these metrics based on S&P Global’s methodology, which sums the individual NC 2000 constituent values for free cash flow and enterprise value before using them to calculate the metrics. We call this the “Aggregate” methodology.

[2] Our research is based on the latest audited financial data, which is the 2Q22 10-Q in most cases. Price data is as of 8/12/22.

Get our long and short/warning ideas. Access to top accounting and finance experts.

Deliverables:

1. Daily – long & short idea updates as necessary, forensic accounting insights, chat features

2. Weekly - exclusive access to top-ranked long & short ideas

3. Monthly - 40 large, 40 small cap ideas from the Most Attractive & Most Dangerous Stocks Model Portfolios

4. Quarterly – Best & Worst ETFs and Mutual Funds in each Sector & Style

See the difference that real diligence makes.

This article was written by

David Trainer profile picture
15.95K Followers
Best fundamental research: most rigorous long & short ideas
New Constructs is an independent research technology firm that provides unrivaled insights into the fundamentals and valuation of private & public businesses. Combining human expertise with machine learning and NLP, the firm shines light into the dark corners (e.g. footnotes) of millions of financial filings and provides superior investment research. The firm's Robo-Analyst technology is the first-ever vertically integrated investment research platform: performing data collection, financial modeling and assigning investment ratings to over 10,000 securities - automatically. This new technology is research automation at its best according to:


   1. Harvard Business School & MIT Sloan prove our fundamental data is superior.


   2. Ernst & Young proves the superiority of our financial analytics over Capital IQ & Bloomberg.


   3. Indiana Kelly School of Business proves our stock ratings outperform human analysts.



If these prestigious institutions trust us so much that they decided to publish official papers to prove the superiority of our research, then you can safely trust us, too.

New Constructs' clients include investors of all types from quant funds like GSAM who subscribe to proprietary data feeds, advisors and individuals who subscribe to our investment research directly through our website.


David is CEO of New Constructs (www.newconstructs.com). David is a distinguished investment strategist and corporate finance expert. He was a 5-yr member of FASB's Investors Advisory Committee. He is author of the Chapter “Modern Tools for Valuation” in The Valuation Handbook (Wiley Finance 2010). 


Disclosure: I/we have no stock, option or similar derivative position in any of the companies mentioned, and no plans to initiate any such positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Recommended For You

Comments

To ensure this doesn’t happen in the future, please enable Javascript and cookies in your browser.
Is this happening to you frequently? Please report it on our feedback forum.
If you have an ad-blocker enabled you may be blocked from proceeding. Please disable your ad-blocker and refresh.