The purpose of this thesis has been to determine, why the target price of Pandora has a high degree of variation, and if the method and views of the analyst has a significant impact on the price. To determine this, a valuation has been performed to understand the internal and external processes in Pandora, which influence the valuation. It is also used to show, if it is a generic problem with the valuation model. This has been compared to the valuation reports from the analysts. This provides us with the method they have applied, and what the target price is. In the comparison, the focus has been to determine if they should choose the valuation model or the value drivers. The analyst’s view on market development and risk profile will indicate whether the target price should be high or low. The DCF-model priced Pandora at DKK 1301 per share, where the multiple model priced it at DKK 867. It was compared with a sensitivity analysis, which showed that the price should have been between DKK 740,95 – 1801,67, depending on how positive or negative expectations are to the future development of Pandora. This can explain the variance in the target price. To further explain the differences among the analysts, I have reviewed and compared the figures from Danske Bank, Jyske Bank, SEB, RBC, Kepler, Morgan Stanley, Sydbank and HSBC. I found, that everybody used the same DCF model, and most of them are using a multiple analysis to confirm the level of P/E that the company will be trading at. This means that it is not possible to conclude, if the model or value drivers has an influence on where the target price ends. Later in the process the WACC, turnover growth and marginal was compared. I found that the price is not determined by one, but by a mix between them. This means that it is not possible to conclude that one of the factors alone can explain the high or the low price. This answers my question from just before. The WACC must be the key driver. And when you decompress the WACC you see that it included many underlying factors, which might be very different from inventor to inventor due to its willingness to take risk etc. The conclusion is, that it is not possible to determine, if the way to value has an influence on the spread in the evaluation. However, the WACC contributes with most of the difference and then the turnover growth and least by the margins.
|Educations||MSc in Auditing, (Graduate Programme) Final Thesis|
|Number of pages||103|