plugin-ejefas 20 13

European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences ISSN 1450-2275 Issue 20 (2010) © EuroJournals, Inc. 2010 http://www.eurojournals.com

Validity of Capital Assets Pricing Model: Evidence

from KSE-Pakistan

Muhammad Hanif Fellow CMA Muhammad Hanif is Assistant Professor at FAST School of Business, NUCS, Islamabad

Uzair Bhatti

Uzair Bhatti is student of MBA Finance at FAST School of Business, NUCS, Islamabad I. Introduction Capital Assets Pricing Model (CAPM) is the widely tested, accepted (Lau & quay, 1974) and rejected (Eatzaz & Attiya, 2008), (Hanif, 2009) model of asset pricing. From its beginning (1964) it has occupied the prime place and still part of the text books on finance in leading business schools. This study is conducted in Pakistani institutional frame work covering six years period (2003 to 2008). Purpose of the research is to form an opinion about authenticity and validity of CAPM. Our methodology includes the βeta calculation through variance/covariance approach in order to predict the required return; consequently price the underlying security. Pricing of the security and risk calculation is required by investors in portfolio composition. In this study returns used are the capital gains only due to unavailability of information about the dividend paid. Historical returns are used for calculation of results.

Findings suggest that CAPM gives accurate results for a limited period and for few companies only. Out of 360 observations only 28 results supporting CAPM while 332 are against it, hence model is rejected in local institutional frame work. Our findings are in line with Eatzaz and Attiya, (2008) and Hanif, (2009) Pakistan, Hui and Christopher, (2008) Japan and United States, (Groenewold and Fraser, 1997) Australia, Quo and Perron, (2005) United states and (Fama and French 1992). Rest of the study proceeds as follow; section two is reviewing the literature followed by research objectives and methodology in section three. Results are discussed in section four while section five concludes. II. Literature Review It is generally agreed that investors demand a higher expected return for investing in riskier projects, or securities. Investors predict the risk of underlying securities with the help of different models. Capital Assets Pricing Model (CAPM) is mostly used by the finance managers and/or investors in finding the risk of the investment and to predict the expected return of the stock (Jagannathan & Wang, 1993). The CAPM, like any other models is based on certain assumptions; (Van Horne, 2006). Unsystematic risk can be avoided by the portfolio diversification; however investors are rewarded for the systematic risk of underlying security which cannot be diversified away; higher the systematic risk higher will be the return the investors expect (Lau & Quay, 1974). βeta is the measure of systematic risk and having positive correlation with return.

CAPM advocates; investors need to be rewarded in two ways: firstly for time value of money and secondly risk associated with the security. First half of formula represents risk free return (RF)that compensates the investors for placing money in any investment over a period of time.The other half of the formula represents [β (Rm-Rf)] risk premium for bearing additional risk. CAPM is the most widely used model for finding the investors return. However results have not always supported the model. Since the development of the CAPM, number of studies conducted for testing the validity of the model.

141 European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences - Issue 20 (2010)

CAMP is based on certain assumptions like any other model which provided ground for criticism. The assumptions of CAPM are Investors hold diversified portfolios, Single period transaction horizon, Investors can borrow and lend at the risk-free rate of return, perfect capital market (Tony Head, 2008). These assumptions are the weakness of this model. The CAPM consist of science and art (Adeyemi, 2006). The science is decision making relates to the construction of market portfolio. But the art relates to realistic considerations that are relevant at the margin of these decisions.

The CAP-Model is tested in various countries by different authors to find out the return of the stock. In 1974, Lau & quay applied CAPM on Tokyo stock market and concluded that the Model is applicable to the Tokyo stock market and gives the accurate results; the investors in stock market were compensated for bearing systematic risk. The study covered the period of five years (Oct 1964 to Sep 1969) with sample size of 100 companies. Bjorn and hordahl, (1998) in their paper examine the relation between expected return and time varying risk on the Swedish stock market covering fourteen years period (1977 to 1990) with the sample size of 80 firms. Results of CAPM were also compared with the results of traditional (GARCH) model. They concluded that their results are very different from international evidence of CAPM, where the traditional CAPM very often is rejected in favour of asset pricing models that rely on more general measures of risk.

The study conducted on the validity of CAPM by Huang, (2000) covers period of eight years (1986 to 1993) with sample size of 93 firms. It was applied on the two different sets a high risk and the other was low risk set. He found that the high risk sets are conflicting with CAPM whereas data from the low-risk set is consistent with CAPM. He concluded that the results of CAPM are not valid; the return calculated by the model does not interpret the actual position and could not be relied upon. There are some findings which support the argument that the return was not just based on the single risk factor (Scheicher, 2000). The study of Scheicher, (2000) covers period of twenty three years on a sample of twelve companies with 276 observations. The result of the study documents that the result of the GARCH or other multi risk factor models simply out performs the CAPM results.

The research conducted by Gomez and zapatro, (2003) covering 26 years period (1973 -1998) with sample size of 220 US securities from S&P 500 index. They use two risk factors one was standardized market systematic risk factor and other was active management risk. The interpretation of these results as evidence is in favour of the two Beta model. The same research applied on the UK stock market with sample of 64 securities gave the results in favour of this model because of the similarities in the market structure of UK and US.

Fraser and Hamelink, (2004) documented that in early researches the findings conclude that the results of CAPM are accurate and correct but as the time pass the more accurate tools like APT outperforms the CAPM result. The study covers twenty two years period (1975 to 1996) and the sample size was 7 sectors. The research conducted on the London stock exchange and results of CAPM were compared with the conditional GARCH model. The risk and return calculated by the GARCH model are correct that are negative in nature but when calculated through CAPM the finding didn’t match the actual situation which is correctly measured by the GARCH model. The same study conducted in the Australian stock market covering six years period (1988 to 1993) with sample size of 8 sectors, gave the same results. They concluded that the results of GARCH model and Arbitrage Pricing Theory (APT) model are same but the findings of the CAPM are different, hence, decisions taken on the basis of CAPM might be misleading (Groenewold and Fraser, 1997).

The asymmetric approach says that it focus on the single equation specification or single Beta which was corrected and explained in the research of the Quo and Perron, (2005). They conducted research covering period of twenty seven years (1978 to 2004) with the sample size of 50 securities on US stock market and concluded that the CAPM only identify single equation factor which leads to the wrong estimation of the results.

The literature also contains some of the researchs that shows CAPM takes into account two important features found in most time series, namely, nonlinearity and structural instability (asymmetry). The research conducted by hung and Wu, (2005) covering 81 years (1924-2004) sample


consist of 926 companies, takes into account the two above mentioned features. They concluded that the CAPM is the model that leads to inappropriate Betas, if not incorrect.

Another study conducted by Grigoris and Stavros, (2006) on Greek stock market covering five years period (1998-2000) with sample size was 100 securities listed on Athens Stock Exchange. The main finding of this study does not support basic statement like high risk and high level of return. The finding from the CAP-Model provides better results for some years but overall it did not support the model. Hui and Christopher, (2008) conducted a study covering eleven years (1996 to 2006) with sample size of 95 companies in United States and Japan institutional frame work, shows that Capital Asset Pricing Model fails to explain the exact return when applied to Japan and US stock markets. It significantly gives negative return which occurs as a result of the volatility. Volatility does influence stock returns. However, the volatility of the Japan and US stock prices predicts the time series of stock returns and is priced in the cross-section of stock returns. The return calculated using the rates eventually give return which do not show the accurate results on a particular time series.

In Pakistan a study conducted by Eatzaz and Attiya, (2008) on Karachi stock market with the sample size of 49 stocks covering period of twelve years (1993-2004). They applied CAPM and matched their results with the conditional multi risk factors model taking macroeconomic factors as an evidence of the risk. They concluded that the traditional CAPM performs well in explaining the risk and return relationship but the results are only convincing for few stocks and only for few years. They supported conditional multifactor model over the traditional single factor model for decision making. Another study in local institutional setting was conducted by Hanif, (2009) covering four years period (2004 to 2007) sample covering the tobacco sector only documented that CAP Model is not applicable in pricing the assets as required returns calculated through Beta is not accurate.

The exploration power of the CAPM is low because it is using market return for the calculation of returns and only single Beta for the decision making and compensation for the risk. According to Raei and Mohammadi, (2008), covering twelve years period (1994-2005) with sample size of seventy companies from NASDAQ 100 concluded that CAPM is used for pricing, calculating cost of capital. However, estimation methods frequently have been changed. CAPM model always give way to very low return values. The low clarifying power of the CAPM is due to the economical specification, which uses market returns as the only independent variable it neglects other variables that are used in different estimation models (e.g. APT) for giving accurate results. The results generated by Shafer and Vovk’s (2008), covering six years period (2000-2005) with a sample size of fifty companies, also gives the same results when applied in actual practice the conclusion of their research also say that the CAPM is using single independent variable which could not be used for estimating return.

To conclude results are although mix but favoring inapplicability of CAPM in its original farm and demands modification. CAPM relies on single measure of risk (Beta) and ignores the other factors contributing in risk of a security. The basic risk return relationship is not rejected hence model retains its place in literature and can be a helping hand to investors with certain modifications especially inclusion of more risk factors as suggested in APT. III. Research Methodology The research problem is “Does CAPM provides accurate results when applied to the Karachi stock market and assists the investors in pricing the securities”? The purpose of the research is the validation of the Capital Asset Pricing Model. The important area of the research is to focus upon the Calculation of Beta of 60 companies and estimation of required return to compare with actual return in order to form an opinion about the validity of the CAPM. The sampling frame is given in the KSE website all the names and symbols of the listed companies are mentioned. KSE 100 index is made from two rules that make the sample for the research project. The defined rules are: RULE # 1: Largest market capitalisation in each of the 34 Karachi Stock Exchange sectors excluding

Open-end Mutual Fund Sector.


RULE # 2: The remaining index places (in this case 66) are taken up by the largest market capitalisation companies in descending order. (KSE, 2008)

As our sample is not covering the all companies in KSE-100 so the probability sampling (Systematic sampling) technique is applied on the population. Firstly it is applied on companies that come in the rule 1, 20 companies are selected by applying systematic sampling formula. Same technique is used for rule 2; 40 companies are selected as a sample for this Rule 2 category companies. The sample size is 60 companies; a representative of the whole market which can help to answer the research question and to meet the objective. The sample size is selected by looking at different studies that are conducted in Pakistan and in other countries. The previous studies support the sample size. All the secondary data is taken from KSE website. The time period selected 6 years (2003 to 2008) because up to 2004 Eatzaz and Attiya, (2008) have conducted the study. Our study tests the validity of model on KSE for a period which is not covered in any other study.

The data analysis tool used in the study is MS excel. The analysis is presented by applying exploratory and descriptive approach. The following formula is used to find the required return of the underlying security;

)( fmfj RRRR −+= β (1) Where

jR is required return on security j

fR is risk free rate of return β is the βeta of security j and

mR is the average return on market portfolio. The unit of analysis is the different stock prices from the KSE web site on fortnight and

monthly basis to verify the argument (Objective). The stock rates are taken from the KSE website and return is calculated by deducting the closing price from opening and dividing by opening price.

This formula is applied to stock prices and to market index so that the returns can be calculated. Then variance of the market returns and covariance of each security with the market is calculated to find the βeta of each stock. Covariance is calculated by applying the following formula,

CoV= (Mr- Mr¯*Ρr- Ρr¯)/n (2) Where

CoV is Covariance Mr is market return Mr¯ is average market return Ρr is return of particular security Ρr¯ is average return of particular security N is number of observations. ßeta of the individual security is calculated by applying following formula:-

ßj= CoVjM/VM (3) Where ßj is beta of security j CoVjM is covariance of returns on security j with market return VM variance of market returns After calculation of ßeta required return is calculated by applying equation of CAPM i.e ( )( fmfj RRRR −+= β The risk free rate that is used in the analysis is the rate of national saving certificate. The

statistical formulas are applied to find out the mean, standard deviation and coefficient of variation, as were required to calculate βeta.


IV. Findings and Interpretations From the monthly data returns are calculated for the analysis and findings of the objectives. The data which is collected has gone through tests and results regarding actual and required return (as per CAPM) are calculated. According to the literature the CAPM does not give accurate result when applied on the different stock markets but in some years it gives accurate results for certain stocks. The same results received when the CAPM applied on the KSE (100 index). A. Slightly Di-fferent Results

The data of 6 years is compiled which shows that in certain years the results of annual expected return (CAPM) are different then actual return but not in great proportion. The returns obtained from CAPM are slightly different from the actual returns. This shows the traces of applicability of this model. The results of 10 companies where CAPM applied are shown in the Table 1 and results of other companies are included in appendix. Table 1: Slight Difference in Expected and Actual Returns

SLIGHT DIFFERENCE IN EXPECTED AND ACTUAL RETURN

S.NO Company Name Years Expected Return Actual Return Difference Beta Monthly

1 ABBOT LAB 2005 0.354 0.303 0.052 0.648 2 AGRIAUTOS 2004 0.505 0.565 0.060 1.743

2005 0.176 0.139 0.037 0.670 3 AL-GHAZI TRAC 2007 0.290 0.256 0.034 0.678

4 DAWOOD HERCULES 2005 0.354 0.303 0.052 0.648 5 LAKSON TABBACO 2003 0.544 0.578 0.034 0.968 6 NATIONAL REFINARY 2003 0.838 0.899 0.061 1.653 7 PAK REFINARY 2003 0.494 0.472 0.022 0.851

PSO LTD 2005 0.490 0.454 0.036 1.255 8 2007 0.357 0.383 0.026 0.961

9 SECURITY PAPER 2003 0.395 0.357 0.038 0.619 10 SEIMNES PAKISTAN 2007 0.570 0.545 0.025 1.864

Discussion

So up to this point by comparing results with literature findings, it is evidenced that in certain years the results of the expected return of CAPM is slightly different from actual return. Interestingly table 1 includes all three types of βeta (aggressive, normal and defensive). In different scenarios of βeta the CAPM results are almost accurate. We could not confirm findings of Huang, (2000) whereby the evidence suggested CAPM is applicable in low risk securities and not in high risk securities. There are some other results with slight difference that are shown in the appendix. But this accuracy of CAPM is supported by only few results from the sample of 60 companies with 6 years for each company. Out of 360 results of expected versus actual returns only 28 of the results are supporting CAPM. We confirm the results obtained by Eatzaz and Attiya, (2008). The results are comparatively same as shown in Table 1 in certain years. They concluded that CAPM is not fully applicable in Pakistani stock market but in some cases the returns calculated by CAPM is slightly different with the actual returns and βeta explained the situation of the risk in certain time period. Partial Evidence of our study is also in line with Lau & quay, (1974) who concluded that the CAPM is applicable to the Tokyo stock market and gives the accurate results; expected returns were slightly different from actual returns in most of the years


B. Totally Different Results

Although CAPM gave accurate or slightly different results for some of the years but as it is stated earlier that most of the time it did not give accurate results. For the comparative analysis same sample of table 1 is reported in table 2 but with different results. For other years (not reported in table 1) the results of expected and actual return are different and the intensity of difference is very high as shown in Table 2. Table 2: Totally Different Results

TOTALLY DIFFERENT RESULTS

S.NO COMPANY NAME YEAR EXPECTED RETURN

ACTUAL RETURN DIFFERENCE BETA

MONTHLY 2003 0.522 1.116 0.593 0.916 2004 0.333 0.119 0.214 0.945 2006 0.037 0.152 0.115 1.778 1 ABBOT LAB

2008 -1.101 -0.721 0.381 1.923 2003 0.534 3.317 2.783 0.943 2006 0.064 0.216 0.152 1.262 2007 0.518 0.424 0.094 1.644 2 AGRIAUTOS

2008 -0.105 -0.570 0.465 0.367 2003 0.506 2.175 1.669 0.877 2004 0.246 -0.135 0.381 0.541 3 AL-GHAZI TRAC 2006 0.060 0.109 0.049 1.344 2003 0.452 0.310 0.141 0.752 2004 0.333 0.119 0.214 0.945 2006 0.037 0.152 0.115 1.778 4 DAWOOD HERCULES

2008 -0.736 -0.411 0.325 1.352 2004 0.465 1.372 0.907 1.555 2005 0.265 0.075 0.190 0.389 5 LAKSON TABBACO 2007 0.520 0.235 0.285 1.653 2004 0.170 1.045 0.875 0.187 2005 0.531 0.191 0.340 1.159 2006 0.110 -0.284 0.394 0.382 2007 0.202 0.394 0.192 0.306

6 NATIONAL REFINARY

2008 -0.623 -0.457 0.166 1.175 2004 0.265 0.152 0.113 0.630 2005 0.565 1.001 0.436 1.255 2006 0.132 -0.415 0.547 -0.041 2007 0.393 0.154 0.238 1.113

7 PAK REFINARY

2008 -0.737 -0.585 0.152 1.354 2004 0.199 -0.006 0.206 0.323 2006 0.102 -0.295 0.397 0.534 8 PSO LTD 2008 -0.253 -0.004 0.249 0.598 2004 0.365 0.763 -0.398 1.091 2005 0.108 -0.269 0.377 -0.064 2006 0.106 -0.327 0.433 0.464 2007 0.378 0.138 0.240 1.050

9 SECURITY PAPER

2008 0.191 -0.405 0.596 -0.095 2003 0.146 0.432 -0.286 0.037 2004 0.169 0.453 -0.284 0.182 2005 0.325 0.471 -0.145 0.564 2006 0.101 0.257 -0.156 0.556

10 SEIMENS PAKISTAN

2008 -0.008 -0.288 0.279 0.216


Discussion

As from the results it is seen that CAPM is not providing accurate results in most of the time. As there are total 360 observations out of that 332 are those results which contain the huge difference in their return. The intensity of the difference varies from 15% to 280%. The same findings are seen in the literature. We confirm the findings of Hui and Christopher, (2008). According to them Capital Asset Pricing Model fail to explain the exact return when applied in two different stock markets. Evidence also supporting the findings of Fraser and Hamelink, (2004) in UK institutional frame work and Groenewold and Fraser, (1997). By comparing this research with the past studies conducted in different institutional settings we conclude that CAPM does not give accurate results in most of the cases, hence it is not reliable in its original form. So the application of this model might mislead the investors in pricing the underlying securities. V. Conclusion The research project examined the application of the CAP-Model on Karachi stock exchange (KSE). This research project find out whether this model is applicable in Pakistani stock market and gives the accurate results. For the analysis 60 companies are selected from KSE -100 Index covering 6 years period (2003 to 2008). Evidence suggests that CAPM does not give accurate results when applied on KSE. Out of 360 observations there are only 28 results of required returns, calculated through CAPM, which are slightly different from the actual return. βetas in these 28 cases explains and measures the correct risk of the securities. Remaining 332 observations are providing evidence against the CAPM. Difference is ranging from 15% to 280%. These findings suggest that CAPM is not fully applicable on KSE (Pakistani stock market) and required returns calculated through CAPM equation cannot be used to make investment decisions by the investors. Our findings are in line with Eatzaz and Attiya, (2008) and Hanif, (2009) Pakistan, Hui and Christopher, (2008) Japan and United States, (Groenewold and Fraser, 1997) Australia, Quo and Perron, (2005) United states and (Fama and French 1992).

To conclude, CAPM is not the accurate model to measure the risk and hence required return; consequently investors cannot rely on this model for pricing of underlying securities in Pakistani institutional frame work. The future area of research includes the CAPM testing with dividend in addition to capital gains. Future study can also be conducted with more sophisticated tools like Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity (GARCH) model or Arbitrage Pricing Theory which is known as multifactor model to understand the KSE pricing phenomenon. References 1] Bjorn and hordahl, (1998). Testing the conditional CAPM using multivariate GARCH-M.

Journal of Applied Financial Eeconomics, vol. 8, pp 377-388 2] Eatzaz and Attiya, (2008). Testing Multifactor Capital Asset Pricing Model in Case of

Pakistani Market. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, Vol. 25, pp 114- 138

3] Eschenbach and Cohen, (2006). Which Interest Rate for Evaluating Projects. Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 18. No. 3, pp 280- 293

4] Fama and French (1996). CAPM wanted dead or alive. The journal of finance, Vol .51, No 5, pp147-58

5] Fraser and Hamelink, (2004). Time-varying betas and the cross-sectional return-risk relation: evidence from the UK. The European Journal of Finance, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp 255- 276

6] Gomez and Zapatro, (2003). Asset pricing implications of benchmarking: a two-factor CAPM. The European Journal of Finance, Vol. 9, No 4, pp 343-357


7] Grigoris and Stavros, (2006).Testing the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM): the case of the emerging Greek securities market. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, Vol. 4, pp 78-91

8] Groenewold and Fraser, (1997). Share prices and macroeconomic factors. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, Vol. 24, pp 1367–1383

9] Hanif, Muhammad, (2009). Testing Application of CAP Model on KSE-Pakistan: A Case Study on Tobacco Sector. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1494906

10] Huang, (2000). Tests of regimes - switching CAPM. Journal of Finance, Vol. 10, pp 573-578 11] Hui and Christopher, (2008). Return Volatility Is Priced in Equities. Financial Management

Association International, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp 769 – 790 12] Hung and Wu, (2005). Tests of the CAPM with structural instability and asymmetry. Applied

Financial Economics Letters, Vol. 1, No. 5, pp 321 – 327 13] Jagannathan & Wang, (1993), CAPM is alive as well, The Fourth Annual Conference on

Financial Economics and Accounting, Vol. 23, No 8, pp.2-57 14] Jagannathan and R. McGrattan, (1995). The CAPM Debate. Federal Reserve Bank of

Minneapolis Quarterly Review, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 2–17 15] Lau & Quay, (1974). The Tokyo stock exchange and the capital asset pricing model. The

journal of finance, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp .507-514 16] Quo and Perron, (2005). Estimating and testing structural changes in multivariate regressions.

Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 12, No. 8, pp 547-573 17] Raei and Mohammadi, (2008),.Fractional return and fractional CAPM. Applied Financial

Economics Letters. Vol. 4, pp 269- 275 18] Scheicher, (2000). Time-varying risk in the German stock Market. The European Journal of

Finance, Vol. 6, pp 70–91 19] Shafer and Vovk’s, (2008). The game-theoretic capital asset pricing model. International

Journal of Approximate Reasoning, Vol. 49. No. 1, pp 175-197 20] Tony Head (2008), CAPM: Theory, Advantages, and Disadvantages, The Journal of Finance,

Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 50-55 21] Van Horne, (2006). Fundaments of financial management, 12th edition, Prentice hall publisher

Ltd. 22] Wah ho and Piesse, (2003). CAPM anomalies and the pricing of equity:Evidence from the

Hong Kong market. Journal of applied economics, Vol. 32, pp 1629-1639


Appendix: Results for all Companies

All results of sample Beta (Monthly & Fortnight), Expected and Actual Return, Coefficient of Variation, and Value of the stock

S.NO COMPANY NAME YEAR

MONTHLY BETA

FORTNIGHT BETA

EXPECTED RETURN BY

(CAPM) ACTUAL RETURN C.V

UNDER/ OVER VALUED

2003 0.916 0.204 0.522 1.116 0.293 undervalued 2004 0.945 -0.132 0.333 0.119 0.093 overvalued 2005 0.648 -0.246 0.354 0.303 0.149 overvalued/slight differ 2006 1.778 -0.607 0.037 0.152 0.171 undervalued 2007 0.617 -0.182 0.275 0.335 0.147 undervalued

1 ABBOT LAB

2008 1.923 -0.284 -1.101 -0.721 0.404 undervalued 2003 1.165 1.845 0.629 0.088 0.185 overvalued 2004 2.678 0.432 0.706 -0.016 0.223 overvalued 2005 0.633 0.334 0.349 1.088 0.286 undervalued 2006 1.576 0.187 0.048 0.099 0.143 undervalued 2007 1.373 -0.587 0.454 1.381 0.244 undervalued

2 ADAM JEE INSURANCE

2008 1.328 -0.694 -0.720 -0.470 0.274 undervalued 2003 1.021 1.100 0.567 0.077 0.290 overvalued 2004 1.047 -0.294 0.355 0.014 0.131 overvalued 2005 1.043 -0.011 0.491 -0.437 0.293 overvalued 2006 0.123 -0.136 0.124 -0.275 0.164 overvalued 2007 0.413 0.067 0.227 -0.310 0.122 overvalued

3 ADIL TEXTILE

2008 3.475 0.805 -2.096 3.450 0.392 undervalued 2003 0.682 1.258 0.422 0.346 0.500 overvalued 2004 0.516 0.202 0.241 1.371 0.256 undervalued 2005 1.725 0.231 0.728 0.024 0.241 overvalued 2006 0.323 -0.183 0.113 0.056 0.211 overvalued 2007 -0.035 -0.636 0.122 0.056 0.266 overvalued

4 ADOS PAKISTAN

2008 0.898 -0.046 -0.445 -0.029 0.169 undervalued 2003 0.943 0.790 0.534 3.317 0.436 undervalued 2004 1.743 0.165 0.505 0.565 0.154 undervalued/slight differ 2005 0.670 -0.088 0.362 0.149 0.121 overvalued 2006 1.262 -0.551 0.064 0.216 0.098 undervalued 2007 1.644 -0.437 0.518 0.424 0.163 overvalued

5 AGRIAUTOS

2008 0.367 0.112 -0.105 -0.570 0.255 overvalued 2003 0.877 1.008 0.506 2.175 0.358 undervalued 2004 0.541 0.151 0.246 -0.135 0.118 overvalued 2005 0.132 -3.581 0.176 0.139 0.115 overvalued/slight differ 2006 1.344 -0.258 0.060 0.109 0.126 undervalued 2007 0.678 -0.123 0.290 0.256 0.130 overvalued/slight differ

6 AL-GHAZI TRAC

2008 0.597 -0.163 -0.252 -0.187 0.137 undervalued 2003 0.815 2.083 0.479 -0.207 0.199 overvalued 2004 1.371 -0.628 0.425 0.892 0.131 undervalued 2005 1.210 0.156 0.549 0.651 0.139 undervalued 2006 0.003 0.606 0.130 -0.600 0.346 overvalued 2007 1.138 0.074 0.399 2.274 0.461 undervalued

7 ATTOCK REFINARY

2008 0.541 -0.093 -0.217 -0.483 0.226 overvalued 2003 0.000 0.000 0.130 0.000 0.077 overvalued 2004 -5.511 0.943 -1.056 3.535 0.664 undervalued 2005 1.205 0.096 0.548 0.913 0.211 undervalued 2006 1.258 -0.852 0.064 -0.433 0.284 overvalued 2007 1.735 -0.379 0.539 0.285 0.117 overvalued

8 BANK AL-FALAH

2008 0.880 -0.398 -0.434 -0.418 0.232 undervalued/slight differ 2003 1.279 1.443 0.678 1.212 0.311 undervalued 2004 -0.108 0.518 0.107 0.886 0.213 undervalued 2005 1.401 -0.218 0.615 0.555 0.194 overvalued 2006 0.715 -0.394 0.093 -0.012 0.158 undervalued 2007 1.214 -0.406 0.416 -0.034 0.116 overvalued

9 BANK OF PUNJAB

2008 0.791 -0.273 -0.376 -0.747 0.470 overvalued 2003 -0.751 -0.472 -0.192 0.738 0.139 undervalued 2004 -0.590 0.163 0.003 2.038 0.333 undervalued

10 BERGER PAINT

2005 -0.100 -0.156 0.095 0.037 0.182 overvalued


2006 -0.252 -0.377 0.143 -0.065 0.097 overvalued 2007 0.575 -0.111 0.266 -0.157 0.099 overvalued 2008 -0.120 0.008 0.207 -0.696 0.397 overvalued 2003 0.128 0.879 0.185 0.209 0.149 undervalued/slight differ 2004 1.136 0.114 0.374 2.712 0.354 undervalued 2005 2.411 -0.426 0.965 0.000 0.253 overvalued 2006 0.169 -0.340 0.121 -0.329 0.194 overvalued 2007 -0.204 -0.089 0.082 0.730 0.255 undervalued

11 COLGATE PALM

2008 1.508 -0.338 -0.836 -0.366 0.284 undervalued 2003 0.752 0.913 0.452 0.310 0.125 overvalued 2004 0.945 -0.132 0.333 0.119 0.093 overvalued 2005 0.648 -0.246 0.354 0.303 0.149 overvalued/slight differ 2006 1.778 -0.607 0.037 0.152 0.171 undervalued 2007 0.617 -0.182 0.275 0.335 0.147 undervalued

12 DAWOOD HERCULES

2008 1.352 -0.204 -0.736 -0.411 0.228 undervalued 2003 1.337 1.574 0.702 1.904 0.350 undervalued 2004 1.636 -0.037 0.482 -0.249 0.201 overvalued 2005 0.606 -0.092 0.340 0.331 0.205 overvalued/slight differ 2006 0.779 -0.013 0.089 -0.536 0.276 overvalued 2007 0.946 -0.312 0.353 -0.161 0.111 overvalued

13 DEWAN MOTORS

2008 1.112 -0.368 -0.582 -0.631 0.331 overvalued 2003 0.554 1.523 0.367 0.311 0.170 o/slight differ 2004 1.649 -0.376 0.485 -0.039 0.166 overvalued 2005 2.255 -0.369 0.911 -0.142 0.218 overvalued 2006 1.123 -0.120 0.071 -0.522 0.266 overvalued 2007 1.444 0.018 0.471 -0.020 0.139 overvalued

14 DEWAN SALMAN FIBERS

2008 1.532 -0.544 -0.851 -0.608 0.377 undervalued 2003 0.983 1.125 0.551 2.627 0.418 undervalued 2004 1.206 -0.052 0.389 0.198 0.105 overvalued 2005 0.825 -0.229 0.416 0.947 0.265 undervalued 2006 1.399 -0.264 0.057 -0.409 0.253 overvalued 2007 1.247 -0.143 0.424 0.504 0.130 undervalued

15 DG KHAN CEMENT

2008 1.694 -0.342 -0.955 -0.585 0.340 undervalued 2003 1.128 0.938 0.613 1.851 0.391 undervalued 2004 1.312 -0.136 0.412 0.460 0.105 u/slight differ 2005 0.062 -0.157 0.152 -0.018 0.097 overvalued 2006 0.130 0.187 0.123 -0.230 0.107 overvalued 2007 0.676 -0.142 0.289 0.125 0.084 overvalued

16

EFU GENEREAL LIFE INSURANCE

2008 -0.346 -0.120 0.352 0.375 0.217 u/slight differ 2003 0.149 0.674 0.194 0.008 0.094 overvalued 2004 1.049 0.106 0.356 0.393 0.115 u/slight differ 2005 0.280 -0.193 0.227 0.272 0.153 u/slight differ 2006 0.932 -0.166 0.081 0.028 0.109 overvalued 2007 1.102 -0.097 0.390 0.572 0.155 undervalued

17 ENGRO CHEMICAL

2008 1.180 -0.368 -0.626 -0.321 0.216 undervalued 2003 -0.089 0.257 0.092 -0.071 0.096 overvalued 2004 1.251 0.325 0.399 0.587 0.100 undervalued 2005 -0.008 -0.120 0.127 -0.157 0.114 overvalued 2006 0.596 0.324 0.099 0.316 0.107 undervalued 2007 1.401 -0.101 0.460 1.352 0.308 undervalued

18 EXIDE PAK

2008 1.122 -0.214 -0.589 -0.417 0.246 undervalued 2003 1.909 0.722 0.947 1.808 0.489 undervalued 2004 -0.158 -0.307 0.096 0.415 0.141 undervalued 2005 -0.083 -0.274 0.101 0.817 0.230 undervalued 2006 0.125 -0.026 0.123 -0.395 0.145 overvalued 2007 -0.362 0.354 0.045 -0.016 0.118 overvalued

19 FAUJI CEMENT

2008 0.453 -0.026 -0.160 -0.555 0.267 overvalued 2003 0.105 0.500 0.175 -0.154 0.138 overvalued 2004 1.934 -0.017 0.546 0.208 0.118 overvalued 2005 1.261 -0.143 0.567 0.703 0.171 undervalued 2006 0.920 -0.593 0.082 -0.188 0.158 overvalued 2007 0.409 0.227 0.227 0.096 0.092 overvalued

20 FAYSAL BANK

2008 0.668 0.047 -0.298 -0.515 0.267 overvalued 21 GAMMON 2003 0.406 0.280 0.304 0.012 0.109 overvalued


2004 2.395 0.155 0.645 2.140 0.205 undervalued 2005 0.588 -0.077 0.334 -0.219 0.202 overvalued 2006 0.260 0.264 0.116 -0.479 0.258 overvalued 2007 -0.970 0.489 -0.099 0.617 0.309 undervalued

PAK

2008 -0.545 -0.405 0.479 -0.699 0.431 overvalued 2003 -0.127 0.397 0.076 0.333 0.190 undervalued 2004 0.679 0.502 0.276 0.107 0.078 overvalued 2005 0.991 -0.167 0.473 2.383 0.506 undervalued 2006 1.154 0.115 0.070 -0.347 0.397 overvalued 2007 0.871 -0.078 0.336 0.181 0.150 overvalued

22 GILLETTE PAK

2008 -0.307 0.062 0.327 -0.107 0.124 overvalued 2003 0.451 0.375 0.323 -0.050 0.124 overvalued 2004 -0.098 -0.889 0.109 0.558 0.150 undervalued 2005 6.725 3.439 2.460 -0.253 0.278 overvalued 2006 -0.065 0.056 0.133 -0.299 0.130 overvalued 2007 0.087 -0.333 0.151 0.039 0.103 overvalued

23 GRAYS LEASING

2008 0.376 0.091 -0.111 -0.255 0.142 overvalued 2003 0.612 0.477 0.392 0.113 0.139 overvalued 2004 0.264 -0.163 0.187 -0.030 0.114 overvalued 2005 0.086 0.375 0.160 0.006 0.103 overvalued 2006 0.138 -0.085 0.123 -0.025 0.091 overvalued 2007 0.561 0.391 0.262 0.094 0.254 overvalued

24 HABIB MOD

2008 0.309 0.230 -0.068 -0.254 0.151 overvalued 2003 0.659 1.204 0.412 0.566 0.154 undervalued 2004 1.794 0.198 0.516 0.032 0.126 overvalued 2005 0.406 -0.400 0.271 0.431 0.237 undervalued 2006 1.353 0.263 0.059 -0.503 0.254 overvalued 2007 2.331 -0.843 0.680 -0.049 0.193 overvalued

25 HONDA ATLAS

2008 1.463 -0.224 -0.807 -0.660 0.313 undervalued 2003 1.010 1.345 0.562 0.576 0.215 u/slight differ 2004 0.136 0.027 0.159 0.055 0.085 overvalued 2005 1.060 -0.382 0.497 0.567 0.205 undervalued 2006 1.122 -0.191 0.072 -0.178 0.167 overvalued 2007 1.106 -0.402 0.391 0.703 0.189 undervalued

26 ICI

2008 0.813 -0.124 -0.391 -0.354 0.185 undervalued 2003 0.264 0.625 0.243 0.000 0.112 overvalued 2004 1.045 0.187 0.355 0.000 0.095 overvalued 2005 0.478 -0.023 0.296 0.012 0.123 overvalued 2006 0.444 -0.423 0.107 -0.011 0.097 overvalued 2007 1.374 0.054 0.454 0.135 0.145 overvalued

27 IGI INVESTMENT

2008 0.810 0.329 -0.389 -0.719 0.361 overvalued 2003 0.842 1.029 0.491 1.395 0.251 overvalued 2004 1.334 0.443 0.417 -0.113 0.137 overvalued 2005 0.682 -0.184 0.366 0.725 0.232 undervalued 2006 0.251 0.303 0.117 0.109 0.090 o/slight differ 2007 1.039 -0.359 0.375 0.637 0.173 undervalued

28 INDUS MOTORS

2008 1.001 -0.266 -0.511 -0.551 0.282 o/slight differ 2003 0.868 2.204 0.502 1.148 0.316 undervalued 2004 1.298 0.887 0.409 0.516 0.128 undervalued 2005 0.601 0.423 0.338 1.183 0.280 undervalued 2006 0.654 0.204 0.096 -0.177 0.139 overvalued 2007 -0.173 1.152 0.089 5.754 0.589 undervalued

29 JAH. SID CO

2008 0.501 0.265 -0.191 -0.689 0.445 overvalued 2003 0.845 0.919 0.492 0.146 0.155 overvalued 2004 1.298 0.892 0.409 0.516 0.128 undervalued 2005 0.652 0.395 0.356 1.183 0.282 undervalued 2006 0.654 0.133 0.096 -0.177 0.139 undervalued 2007 -0.173 1.141 0.089 5.754 0.589 overvalued

30 J.S & CO

2008 -0.035 0.553 0.152 -0.524 0.361 overvalued 2003 4.953 1.742 2.250 3.321 0.626 undervalued 2004 1.091 -0.006 0.365 0.763 0.157 undervalued 2005 -0.064 0.007 0.108 -0.269 0.142 overvalued 2006 0.464 -0.166 0.106 -0.327 0.174 overvalued

31 KOHINOOR ENERGY

2007 1.050 0.010 0.378 0.138 0.147 overvalued


2008 1.051 -0.113 -0.543 -0.764 0.424 overvalued 2003 1.078 1.401 0.591 1.938 0.374 undervalued 2004 2.502 -0.752 0.668 1.364 0.117 undervalued 2005 0.523 0.370 0.311 -0.262 0.223 overvalued 2006 0.552 0.221 0.101 -0.444 0.208 overvalued 2007 1.557 -0.148 0.497 -0.110 0.164 overvalued

32 KOHINOOR TEXTILE

2008 1.135 -0.322 -0.597 -0.557 0.295 undervalued 2003 0.968 1.329 0.544 0.578 0.234 undervalued 2004 1.555 0.321 0.465 1.372 0.240 undervalued 2005 0.389 -0.376 0.265 0.075 0.148 overvalued 2006 0.027 0.089 0.129 0.125 0.112 o/slight differ 2007 1.653 -0.695 0.520 0.235 0.101 overvalued

33 LAKSON TABBACO

2008 0.519 0.003 -0.202 -0.248 0.161 undervalued 2003 1.395 1.537 0.727 2.794 0.488 undervalued 2004 1.093 0.072 0.365 -0.013 0.125 overvalued 2005 0.631 -0.203 0.349 0.286 0.223 overvalued 2006 1.010 0.055 0.077 -0.571 0.290 overvalued 2007 0.583 0.322 0.268 0.126 0.135 overvalued

34 MAPLE LEAF CEMENT

2008 1.037 -0.222 -0.534 -0.613 0.320 overvalued 2003 0.767 1.045 0.458 0.598 0.201 undervalued 2004 1.086 0.209 0.364 0.222 0.097 overvalued 2005 1.181 -0.428 0.539 0.683 0.187 undervalued 2006 1.011 0.041 0.077 -0.253 0.151 overvalued 2007 0.619 -0.108 0.276 1.221 0.302 undervalued

35 MARI GAS

2008 1.790 -0.476 -1.016 -0.488 0.289 undervalued 2003 0.463 1.436 0.328 0.541 0.152 undervalued 2004 1.490 0.227 0.451 0.142 0.094 overvalued 2005 0.700 0.250 0.373 1.859 0.344 undervalued 2006 1.647 -0.471 0.044 0.467 0.110 undervalued 2007 1.121 -0.357 0.394 0.625 0.124 undervalued

36 MCB

2008 1.511 -0.254 -0.837 -0.411 0.232 undervalued 2003 0.741 1.603 0.447 0.867 0.564 undervalued 2004 1.611 0.339 0.477 0.786 0.191 undervalued 2005 2.412 0.443 0.966 -0.520 0.379 overvalued 2006 -0.151 -0.068 0.138 -0.500 0.222 overvalued 2007 -0.660 0.268 -0.026 0.417 0.231 undervalued

37 MEDI GLASS

2008 -0.521 0.185 0.464 -0.059 0.153 overvalued 2003 1.157 0.932 0.625 0.919 0.280 undervalued 2004 0.977 0.082 0.340 0.482 0.104 undervalued 2005 1.944 -0.267 0.804 1.482 0.251 undervalued 2006 2.016 -0.655 0.025 0.124 0.143 undervalued 2007 1.254 -0.144 0.426 0.035 0.089 overvalued

38 NATIONAL BANK

2008 1.409 -0.424 -0.772 -0.599 0.336 undervalued 2003 1.653 1.788 0.838 0.899 0.278 u/slight differ 2004 0.187 -0.104 0.170 1.045 0.203 undervalued 2005 1.159 -0.456 0.531 0.191 0.111 overvalued 2006 0.382 0.209 0.110 -0.284 0.160 overvalued 2007 0.306 0.328 0.202 0.394 0.186 undervalued

39 NATIONAL REFINARY

2008 1.175 -0.195 -0.623 -0.457 0.231 undervalued 2003 0.476 0.431 0.334 0.725 0.187 undervalued 2004 0.757 0.145 0.293 0.383 0.074 undervalued 2005 -0.042 0.047 0.115 0.481 0.139 undervalued 2006 -0.913 0.159 0.178 0.357 0.126 undervalued 2007 0.196 -0.350 0.176 0.723 0.100 undervalued

40 NESTLE

2008 0.696 -0.389 -0.316 -0.250 0.143 undervalued 2003 0.000 0.000 0.130 0.000 0.077 overvalued 2004 0.827 0.651 0.308 0.645 0.155 undervalued 2005 1.040 -0.395 0.490 0.367 0.142 overvalued 2006 0.266 -0.077 0.116 -0.300 0.191 overvalued 2007 0.201 -0.113 0.177 -0.105 0.168 overvalued

41 NIB BANK

2008 0.737 -0.116 -0.342 -0.613 0.343 overvalued 2003 0.574 1.701 0.376 1.272 0.293 undervalued 2004 1.493 -0.314 0.451 0.217 0.176 overvalued

42 NJI LIFE INSURANCE

2005 0.209 -0.318 0.203 0.097 0.132 overvalued


2006 0.555 0.252 0.101 -0.322 0.142 overvalued 2007 1.341 0.107 0.446 2.814 0.390 undervalued 2008 1.334 0.174 -0.724 -0.360 0.230 undervalued 2003 0.000 0.000 0.130 0.000 0.077 overvalued 2004 11.616 -8.030 2.629 6.495 0.094 undervalued 2005 1.628 -0.465 0.694 0.574 0.111 undervalued 2006 1.447 -0.119 0.055 -0.028 0.111 overvalued 2007 0.928 -0.143 0.349 0.041 0.084 overvalued

43 OGDC

2008 0.656 -0.052 -0.290 -0.185 0.140 undervalued 2003 0.000 0.000 0.130 0.000 0.077 overvalued 2004 0.337 -0.096 0.203 0.400 0.127 undervalued 2005 2.797 -0.678 1.099 0.459 0.159 overvalued 2006 1.552 -0.117 0.049 0.103 0.115 undervalued 2007 0.921 -0.136 0.347 0.056 0.078 overvalued

44 PAK PETROLIUM

2008 0.511 -0.090 -0.197 -0.210 0.141 overvalued 2003 0.851 1.532 0.494 0.472 0.216 o/slight differ 2004 0.630 -0.015 0.265 0.152 0.107 overvalued 2005 1.255 -0.603 0.565 1.001 0.287 undervalued 2006 -0.041 0.405 0.132 -0.415 0.187 overvalued 2007 1.113 0.084 0.393 0.154 0.118 overvalued

45 PAK REFINARY

2008 1.354 -0.465 -0.737 -0.585 0.344 undervalued 2003 0.924 1.131 0.526 1.080 0.292 undervalued 2004 1.210 -0.041 0.390 -0.028 0.125 overvalued 2005 1.131 -0.167 0.522 0.475 0.226 overvalued 2006 0.647 0.118 0.096 1.019 0.173 undervalued 2007 0.014 -0.377 0.133 -0.215 0.141 overvalued

46 PAK SUZUKI

2008 0.679 -0.166 -0.305 -0.746 0.409 overvalued 2003 1.676 0.770 0.848 2.586 0.497 undervalued 2004 0.792 0.447 0.300 0.982 0.239 undervalued 2005 0.325 -0.296 0.243 0.092 0.108 overvalued 2006 -0.129 -0.133 0.137 0.031 0.144 overvalued 2007 1.210 0.000 0.415 -0.197 0.156 overvalued

47 PAK CABLES LTD

2008 0.929 0.170 -0.465 -0.636 0.281 overvalued 2003 1.397 1.467 0.728 0.445 0.257 overvalued 2004 0.859 0.226 0.315 0.046 0.102 overvalued 2005 1.065 -0.210 0.499 0.736 0.192 undervalued 2006 2.060 -0.202 0.023 -0.183 0.270 overvalued 2007 0.475 -0.121 0.242 -0.044 0.097 overvalued

48 PAKISTAN OIL FIELD

2008 1.098 -0.245 -0.573 -0.272 0.186 undervalued 2003 0.945 1.432 0.534 0.134 0.145 overvalued 2004 1.858 -0.356 0.530 1.278 0.155 undervalued 2005 0.638 -0.108 0.351 0.121 0.124 overvalued 2006 0.235 0.170 0.118 0.030 0.087 overvalued 2007 1.846 -0.567 0.565 1.190 0.247 undervalued

49 PAKISTAN TABBACO

2008 0.168 -0.293 0.023 -0.236 0.148 overvalued 2003 0.546 0.506 0.364 0.342 0.134 o/slight differ 2004 0.323 -0.197 0.199 -0.006 0.095 overvalued 2005 1.038 -0.082 0.490 0.454 0.092 o/slight differ 2006 0.534 0.211 0.102 -0.295 0.148 overvalued 2007 0.961 -0.462 0.357 0.383 0.095 u/slight differ

50 PSO LTD

2008 0.598 -0.159 -0.253 -0.004 0.129 undervalued 2003 0.936 0.411 0.531 0.228 0.172 overvalued 2004 0.660 -0.107 0.272 0.206 0.082 overvalued 2005 0.764 -0.210 0.395 0.480 0.077 undervalued 2006 0.592 0.054 0.099 -0.323 0.201 overvalued 2007 1.474 -0.189 0.478 -0.051 0.110 overvalued

51 PTCLA

2008 0.706 -0.038 -0.322 -0.245 0.153 undervalued 2003 0.371 0.910 0.289 0.917 0.213 undervalued 2004 1.538 -0.084 0.461 0.457 0.143 o/slight differ 2005 1.252 -0.588 0.564 0.648 0.218 undervalued 2006 -0.143 0.058 0.137 0.033 0.168 overvalued 2007 0.761 -0.272 0.310 0.179 0.108 overvalued

52 RELIANCE INSURANCE

2008 1.104 -0.746 -0.577 -0.583 0.324 o/slight differ 53 SECURITY 2003 0.619 0.793 0.395 0.357 0.195 o/slight differ


2004 1.091 -0.006 0.365 0.763 0.157 undervalued 2005 -0.064 0.007 0.108 -0.269 0.142 overvalued 2006 0.464 -0.166 0.106 -0.327 0.174 overvalued 2007 1.050 0.010 0.378 0.138 0.147 overvalued

PAPER

2008 -0.095 0.009 0.191 -0.405 0.171 overvalued 2003 0.037 -0.204 0.146 0.432 0.136 undervalued 2004 0.182 0.310 0.169 0.453 0.162 undervalued 2005 0.564 0.037 0.325 0.471 0.145 undervalued 2006 0.556 -0.458 0.101 0.257 0.124 undervalued 2007 1.864 -0.794 0.570 0.545 0.185 overvalued

54 SEIMNES PAKISTAN

2008 0.216 0.095 -0.008 -0.288 0.148 overvalued 2003 0.314 1.025 0.265 0.166 0.094 overvalued 2004 0.599 0.127 0.259 0.251 0.130 o/slight differ 2005 0.361 0.104 0.255 0.537 0.141 undervalued 2006 -0.064 0.874 0.133 -0.497 0.213 overvalued 2007 0.790 -0.183 0.316 0.021 0.094 overvalued

55 SHELL PAKISTAN

2008 0.364 0.175 -0.103 -0.236 0.151 overvalued 2003 0.609 0.969 0.391 -0.206 0.152 overvalued 2004 2.000 -0.380 0.560 1.278 0.159 undervalued 2005 0.701 -0.027 0.373 0.121 0.122 overvalued 2006 0.235 0.170 0.118 0.030 0.087 overvalued 2007 1.847 -0.588 0.566 1.190 0.247 undervalued

56 SHIFTAQ INTERNATIONAL

2008 0.637 -0.504 -0.278 -0.453 0.225 overvalued 2003 0.648 1.031 0.407 0.668 0.205 undervalued 2004 1.936 -0.123 0.546 0.434 0.098 overvalued 2005 1.114 -0.394 0.516 0.151 0.112 overvalued 2006 1.603 -0.199 0.046 -0.037 0.168 overvalued 2007 1.364 -0.141 0.452 0.001 0.100 overvalued

57 SUI NORTHREN XD

2008 1.313 0.061 -0.711 -0.502 0.280 undervalued 2003 1.121 1.555 0.610 0.572 0.204 overvalued 2004 1.199 0.389 0.388 -0.090 0.136 overvalued 2005 0.989 0.130 0.473 0.033 0.133 overvalued 2006 1.384 0.085 0.058 -0.121 0.165 overvalued 2007 0.775 -0.155 0.313 0.113 0.080 overvalued

58 SUI SOUTHREN XD

2008 0.499 -0.107 -0.189 -0.132 0.125 undervalued 2003 0.675 0.242 0.419 2.475 0.345 undervalued 2004 1.710 0.366 0.498 0.051 0.137 overvalued 2005 0.511 -0.212 0.307 0.714 0.209 undervalued 2006 0.675 -0.126 0.095 -0.139 0.146 overvalued 2007 0.806 0.321 0.320 0.729 0.167 undervalued

59 THAL LTD

2008 1.022 -0.218 -0.524 -0.554 0.266 overvalued 2003 0.432 0.527 0.315 0.197 0.101 overvalued 2004 -0.149 0.074 0.098 0.019 0.078 overvalued 2005 0.281 -0.093 0.227 0.203 0.098 o/slight differ 2006 0.105 -0.060 0.125 0.127 0.080 u/slight differ 2007 0.612 -0.101 0.274 0.140 0.090 overvalued

60 UNILEVER

2008 0.435 -0.037 -0.149 -0.272 0.171 overvalued

plugin-ejefas 20 13

Documents