A company falls from 40.00 to 20.00 while its estimated annual earnings fall from 4.00 to 1.00 per share. The price has halved, but the price-to-earnings ratio has doubled from ten to twenty. John Templeton’s interest in unpopular investments raises a question that the percentage decline can’t answer: what value remains?
The John Templeton Foundation’s account describes his global search for bargains, his 1934 graduation from Yale and the establishment of the Templeton Growth Fund in 1954. It also recounts his early investment of 100 shares in each of 104 companies priced at one dollar or less, four of which became worthless.
That history invites examination of pessimism and diversification. It doesn’t turn every unpopular asset into a bargain. The numbers below are hypothetical teaching examples, independent of Templeton’s historical holdings or returns.
John Templeton and the price of a damaged business
In the opening example, the earnings estimate has fallen 75%, from 4.00 to 1.00. Price has fallen only 50%. A lower quotation can coexist with a higher valuation multiple when the business deteriorates faster than its share price.
I put the two earnings estimates beside 40.00 and 20.00 because the earlier price alone creates a misleading reference point. Returning to 40.00 would require a 100% gain from 20.00, but there is no reason to assume that the old quotation still represents fair value.
A hypothetical analyst could examine several earnings paths. At 1.00 per share, a multiple of twelve implies 12.00; at 2.00, it implies 24.00. The difference depends on a business forecast and a valuation assumption. Neither becomes more reliable because the market mood is gloomy.
The related Benjamin Graham profile offers another point of comparison for price and estimated value. Both quantities deserve their own evidence. A chart can report what the market has paid; an estimate of value requires assumptions about what the investment may deliver.
Pessimism is difficult to date in real time
Suppose a stock falls from 20.00 to 15.00 after poor results, then to 10.00 after a refinancing announcement. A commentary written at 15.00 might describe sentiment as extreme. The later decline shows that an emotionally uncomfortable moment needn’t be the final one.
A sentiment measure can help define the observation, but it doesn’t establish a floor. An unusually negative survey reading is evidence about that survey and its respondents. It doesn’t resolve the company’s funding needs or reveal how much further its cash flows might weaken.
Nor can a chart label pessimism as irrational on its own. If debt comes due before a business recovers, the share price may reflect a real financing problem. An investor’s willingness to disagree with the crowd doesn’t remove the obligation to understand that problem.
The market structure guide can help describe whether price continues to make lower lows or begins to stabilise. Those are different observations from a valuation estimate. Combining them is possible, provided each retains its own meaning and neither is presented as proof of the other.
A waiting period has financial requirements
Imagine a company with 60 million in cash and an expected cash outflow of 10 million per quarter. Under that simplified assumption, cash covers six quarters. A thesis requiring three years for recovery reaches beyond the available runway unless cash flow improves or new financing arrives.
This calculation leaves out many details, including debt payments, seasonal spending and asset disposals. Its purpose is to make the timing question explicit. A cheap valuation based on eventual recovery can fail if the business can’t reach that recovery without a material change in ownership claims.
New shares can alter the outcome even when the business survives. If a firm doubles its share count while total earnings remain unchanged, earnings per share halve. The original shareholder’s recovery depends on the resulting claim per share. Continued operations alone leave that ownership question unresolved.
Patience therefore has two sides. The investor needs a suitable horizon, and the investment needs a plausible route through that horizon. Calling a position long term doesn’t answer either question. A documented review date and a list of assumptions can make the waiting period easier to examine honestly.
Diversification makes room for individual mistakes
Templeton’s early 104-company example is striking partly because it includes failures. The Foundation reports four holdings becoming worthless. That account supports discussion of a spread of outcomes without requiring an unsupported reconstruction of every position or its exact contribution.
For an independent illustration, consider twenty equal positions of 1,000 each. If one becomes worthless and the others are unchanged, the portfolio loses 5%. With five equal positions instead, one total loss costs 20%. The arithmetic shows how concentration changes the impact of one mistake.
It doesn’t show that twenty holdings are sufficiently diversified. If all twenty depend on the same commodity price or financing source, many can decline together. Equal weights distribute money across names; they don’t establish that the underlying risks are independent.
I would record both the 1,000 position amount and the shared exposure in this example. The number of names is an incomplete description of what can go wrong. A portfolio can look broad on a holdings list while relying heavily on a single recovery scenario.
Looking overseas changes the comparison
Two hypothetical companies each report earnings of 2.00 per share and trade at 16.00. Their apparent valuation multiple is eight. That superficial match leaves accounting treatment, debt, capital spending, taxes and shareholder rights unresolved.
Currency adds another layer. An overseas investment gaining 15% locally while its currency falls 10% produces a 3.5% home-currency gain before costs: 1.15 multiplied by 0.90, minus one. The local chart’s recovery is real, but the account experiences a different result.
The sector and relative strength guide is useful for comparing market performance. A strong relative chart still doesn’t establish that accounting figures from different jurisdictions are directly comparable. Technical leadership and valuation research answer separate questions.
A global search broadens the field of candidates and the work needed to understand them. Familiarity with a domestic reporting convention can’t simply be carried across borders. A price discount may compensate for risks that the initial comparison hasn’t captured.
The thesis needs a way to become wrong
Suppose a hypothetical valuation assumes earnings recover to 2.00 within two years, debt remains stable and no large share issue occurs. Those three assumptions give the research a structure. If debt doubles and new shares dilute ownership, the original calculation needs revision even if the price remains below its old high.
A vague thesis such as “the market is too pessimistic” is harder to challenge. Every decline can appear to strengthen it, while every delay becomes an argument for patience. Without observable conditions, there may be no event capable of changing the investor’s mind.
That problem differs from ordinary price volatility. A fall from 20.00 to 18.00 might occur with the business assumptions unchanged. A stable price at 20.00 might coexist with a serious deterioration in those assumptions. The market quotation and the research record can disagree in both directions.
A useful review preserves the original assumptions and the later evidence. Replacing the original thesis after each setback makes it difficult to learn whether the initial reasoning was sound. The discipline is allowing the estimate to change, including when the revised estimate leaves little apparent discount.
A recovery chart cannot supply the missing balance sheet
In a hypothetical sequence, price holds 18.00 twice and closes at 21.00 after several months below 20.00. A chart researcher can describe the higher close and repeated low. Those observations don’t establish that debt has become manageable or that future earnings will recover.
A trader using a defined technical setup might study the sequence separately from a long-term valuation case. Mixing the two after a loss creates a moving standard: the technical trade becomes an investment just when its original conditions fail.
Templeton’s patient perspective is most useful when it prompts a clearer account of what the waiting is for. The evidence that would justify another year of ownership may be very different from the evidence that would justify another week in a chart-based trade.
For the hypothetical 20.00 holding, a review might preserve the original earnings estimate, the revised estimate and the date of each change. That small record makes the source of a changed valuation visible. It also distinguishes a business forecast that disappointed from an ownership claim diluted by new financing.
Books for studying John Templeton
Investing the Templeton Way examines John Templeton’s approach. McGraw Hill credits Lauren C. Templeton as the author of the linked paperback and lists an introduction by Sir John Templeton. The publisher also uses the short title Templeton Way (PB) for this edition. Its bargain-hunting subject complements the 20.00-versus-earnings comparison above.
As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.
Investing the Templeton Way. Paperback edition.
(US) Investing the Templeton Way
(UK) Investing the Templeton Way
(DE) Investing the Templeton Way
The discount must survive a revised estimate
A quotation of 20.00 looks very different beside estimated value of 30.00 than beside estimated value of 12.00. The useful contrarian question concerns the evidence behind that estimate. Disagreement with a frightened market becomes substantive when the business, financing and ownership assumptions can withstand examination.
Learn the pattern. Ride the trend. Keep the gains.
Educational content only. Not investment advice. Trading involves risk. You are responsible for your decisions.
Get the free Market Wisdom e-book
Join Trends and Breakouts — historical winners, breakout studies, and risk lessons. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.