The models you've learned cover most companies — but not the ones where the most retail money gets lost. Banks, REITs, resource cyclicals and money-losing growth stories each break the standard toolkit. Here's how to adapt.
~11 min read · Not started
By the end of this module you'll be able to
Explain why DCF breaks for banks and REITs — and what to use instead.
Value growth money-losers honestly, without false precision.
Normalise cyclical earnings and avoid the peak-P/E trap.
Handle dual-listed and foreign-currency stocks.
High-growth, unprofitable companies
A company with negative earnings and negative free cash flow can't be run through a naive DCF — you'd be discounting cash flows that don't exist yet, and any “fair value” would be pure assumption. The honest approach: value on EV/Sales versus peers, examine the path to profitability and gross-margin trajectory, and use the Rule of 40 for software (revenue growth + margin should top ~40%). Above all, reverse the question — what growth and margins would justify today's price? — and judge whether that's believable.
A feature, not a bugThe right answer here is often to refuse a fair-value number altogether. For a negative-earnings, negative-FCF company, report the revenue multiple and the implied growth instead, and say plainly why you stopped there. False precision on a pre-profit stock is exactly how people lose money; declining to give it is the honest choice.
Banks and insurers
For a bank, debt isn't a financing decision — deposits and borrowings are the raw material it lends out. That makes enterprise value and free cash flow meaningless, so the DCF is off the table. Value financials instead on:
Price-to-tangible-book vs ROE. A bank sustainably earning a high return on equity deserves a higher multiple of tangible book. Plot P/TBV against ROE across peers and the cheap/dear names pop out.
Dividend discount model. The Canadian Big Six are steady, growing payers — ideal DDM candidates (Module 5).
Peer P/E as a cross-check.
Mini worked example — a bankA Big Six bank earns a 14% ROE and trades at 1.6× tangible book while peers earning similar ROEs trade at ~1.8×. That gap, plus a 4.5% dividend yield with a sustainable payout, frames a P/TBV-and-DDM case — no DCF required. Route financials straight to these models and leave the DCF alone.
REITs
Real-estate depreciation is an enormous non-cash charge that makes REIT net income (and EPS) understate reality. So REITs are valued on funds from operations (FFO) — net income with depreciation added back — and adjusted FFO (AFFO), which also nets out maintenance capex. Key tools: P/AFFO versus the sector, NAV per unit (the market value of the properties less debt), and cap-rate sensitivity. A Canadian note: REIT distributions can mix income, capital gains and return of capital, each taxed differently — check the breakdown for a taxable account.
Mini worked example — a REITA retail REIT trades at $22 with AFFO of $1.40 per unit — a P/AFFO of ~16×, roughly the sector norm — while paying a well-covered distribution. Cross-check against NAV per unit and you have a value case built on cash the properties actually throw off, not depreciation-distorted EPS.
Resource & energy companies
For miners and oil & gas producers, much of the value sits in the ground. Analysts use reserves-based NAV — the cash proven reserves can generate at assumed commodity prices, net of costs and debt — which is acutely sensitive to the price assumption. Trailing P/E is treacherous here: earnings swing with commodity prices, so P/E looks lowest at the top of the cycle. Value these on mid-cycle, normalised earnings.
The low-P/E-at-the-top trap: a cyclical looks cheapest exactly when its earnings are least sustainable. Normalise across the cycle.
Cyclicals generally
The lesson extends beyond commodities to any cyclical — autos, chemicals, semiconductors. Value them on normalised earnings averaged across a full cycle (the company-level cousin of Shiller's cyclically-adjusted P/E). The mistake to avoid is buying a low headline P/E at a cyclical peak, just as earnings are about to roll over.
Dual-listed and foreign stocks
Many TSX names also trade in New York, and ADRs bring foreign companies to US exchanges. The rule: run the whole model in the company's reporting currency, then convert the final per-share value to the currency you care about. Mixing currencies mid-model introduces errors. For a cross-listed name, quote both at the end — e.g. “US$62.10 ≈ C$84.90.”
The routing map: identify the company type first, then apply the models that actually fit — and suppress the ones that don't.
💡 Researching Canadian banks and REITs? See our coverage in Articles and screen names with Quorum.