Skip to main content
The Globe and Mail
Support Quality Journalism.
The Globe and Mail
First Access to Latest
Investment News
Collection of curated
e-books and guides
Inform your decisions via
Globe Investor Tools
Just$1.99
per week
for first 24 weeks

Enjoy unlimited digital access
Enjoy Unlimited Digital Access
Get full access to globeandmail.com
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
var select={root:".js-sub-pencil",control:".js-sub-pencil-control",open:"o-sub-pencil--open",closed:"o-sub-pencil--closed"},dom={},allowExpand=!0;function pencilInit(o){var e=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1];select.root=o,dom.root=document.querySelector(select.root),dom.root&&(dom.control=document.querySelector(select.control),dom.control.addEventListener("click",onToggleClicked),setPanelState(e),window.addEventListener("scroll",onWindowScroll),dom.root.removeAttribute("hidden"))}function isPanelOpen(){return dom.root.classList.contains(select.open)}function setPanelState(o){dom.root.classList[o?"add":"remove"](select.open),dom.root.classList[o?"remove":"add"](select.closed),dom.control.setAttribute("aria-expanded",o)}function onToggleClicked(){var l=!isPanelOpen();setPanelState(l)}function onWindowScroll(){window.requestAnimationFrame(function() {var l=isPanelOpen(),n=0===(document.body.scrollTop||document.documentElement.scrollTop);n||l||!allowExpand?n&&l&&(allowExpand=!0,setPanelState(!1)):(allowExpand=!1,setPanelState(!0))});}pencilInit(".js-sub-pencil",!1); // via darwin-bg var slideIndex = 0; carousel(); function carousel() { var i; var x = document.getElementsByClassName("subs_valueprop"); for (i = 0; i < x.length; i++) { x[i].style.display = "none"; } slideIndex++; if (slideIndex> x.length) { slideIndex = 1; } x[slideIndex - 1].style.display = "block"; setTimeout(carousel, 2500); } //

CHRIS WATTIE/Reuters

Norman Rothery is the value investor for Globe Investor's Strategy Lab. Follow his contributions here and view his model portfolio here.

Next time you're in the bathtub, consider the dynamics of the rubber duck – an easy-to-submerge toy that quickly pops to the surface when it is released.

In much the same way, value investors buy stocks that the market has pushed deep underwater because they expect these firms to turn around and head back to more normal levels.

Story continues below advertisement

The problem is that rubber ducks are much more reliable . Some stocks sink to the bottom and stay there. Nonetheless, most companies that suffer from periods of poor performance go on to rehabilitate themselves. That's why buying stocks when they are underwater – at least in terms of their usual valuations – can be a good investing strategy.

To make this work, though, you have to know what you're buying – and what a return to normalcy might look like. That's why I like to track how a stock's price-to-book-value (P/B) multiple has developed over time.

Book value provides a gauge of how much a firm's assets exceed its liabilities (although there are numerous accounting technicalities that make it only a rough estimate). Past patterns in the P/B ratio provide an indication of how much the market is willing to pay for a company both in good times and bad.

Take National Bank of Canada. It hit a P/B high of 2.59 in 2006 and a low of 0.86 in 2008 according to S&P Capital IQ. Recently, the bank's P/B came in at 1.9, which is just a touch above the middle of its historical range since the start of 2006.

A particularly optimistic investor might hope for the bank to move back to its old highs while a bargain hunter might be keen for a return to the depths of 2008.

Whichever way you lean, a look at past P/B ratios allows you to put reasonable limits on your hopes. Based on its recent book value of $41.02 a share, the optimist can dream of prices near $106 a share (2.59 times $41.02) while the bargain hunter would prefer prices near $35 a share (0.86 times $41.02).

This is not an exact science. Picking off a stock at its extreme low then selling at its extreme high would be grand but a stock rarely retraces its history that exactly. Instead, it's sensible to look to more moderate multiples. For instance, you might consider a buy when a stock trades in the lower 20 per cent of its P/B range. Or exiting if it's in the upper 80 per cent of the range.

Story continues below advertisement

Such levels are, of course, a matter of preference. You might decide that 25 per cent and 75 per cent are better. The very thrifty might buy near the lows and then look to sell when a stock returns to the middle of its P/B range.

Let's look at how all of the large stocks in the S&P/TSX60 index stack up. The table shows the 60 stocks in the index, along with their current P/B ratios, and where the ratios fall in the firms' high-low P/B range since the start of 2006. A firm trading at 0 per cent is at its lowest P/B ratio since 2006; a firm trading at 100 per cent is at its highest.

To help those who want to save their pennies, the table is ordered by P/B range. Stocks with low ratios compared to their historical levels are shown at the top of the table and high multiple stocks are at the bottom. (Only the top 20 stocks are shown in print; the remainder are available online.)

You'll notice that some of the stocks near the top of the table don't have low P/B ratios in an absolute sense. They're only low in comparison to their past histories. As a result, value investors might skip over these firms and stick to stocks with low ratios over all and low ratios compared to their own history.

Just keep in mind that, unlike the physics behind rubber ducks, multiple analysis isn't a precise science. It is best to use it to get a sense of where a stock has been.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies