Analyst Ariel Cunningham likes using the price/earnings ratio for valuation purposes because studies have shown it is very effective at identifying undervalued stocks. However, she has one main problem with the statistic – it doesn’t work when a company loses money. So Cunningham is considering switching to a different core valuation metric. Given Cunningham’s rationale for using the price/earnings ratio, which option would be her best alternative?

Bill Whelan and Chad Delft are arguing about the relative merits of valuation metrics.

Whelan: “My ratio is less volatile than most, and it works particularly well when I look at stocks in cyclical industries.”

Delft: “The problem with your ratio is that it doesn’t reflect differences in the cost structures of companies in different industries. I like to use a metric that strips out all the fluff that distorts true company performance.”

Whelan: “People can’t even agree how to calculate your ratio.”

Which valuation metric do the analysts most likely prefer?

An analyst focusing mostly on financial stocks is likely to prefer valuing stocks via the: