Leaderboard

I think the limitation of being a valuation expert is that most stocks are efficiently priced based on the general consensus as to their prospects and their track record etc. What you will be missing is the non-consensus insights that make the difference and is where the real money is made as that requires deep industry knowledge, expert judgement, predictive powers and pattern recognition that only the special few have. For fun over the years I used to read investment pitches in Outstanding Investor Digest, Value Investor Insight, Value Investors Club and so on. Most of them were well written and convincing and identified either deep undervaluation or obscene overvaluation. But if you were to see how things turned out in most cases these ideas would have done no better and often worse than just holding the S&P 500. Also the DCF framework which is orthodoxy in modern finance while theoretically correct has some serious practical limitations and the quest for false precision which is necessary for an intellectually satisfactory valuation is going to inevitably result in mistakes. To me it makes a lot more sense to just pay what looks like a fair price for a company that is fairly certain to see its earnings increase over the next 5, 10, 20 years. That doesn't really require a formal DCF and shortcuts such as PE multiples can often do just fine after adjusting earnings for any obvious distortions. Or alternatively look for situations where investors are clearly being far too pessimistic and short-sighted resulting in cheap valuations and good profit potential for a clear-minded and patient investor happy to wait for the dust to clear and sentiment to improve. It isn't textbook but it seems to be how good investors tend to do it in practice.