There are a few key trends to look for if we want to identify the next multi-bagger. One common approach is to try and find a company with returns on capital employed (ROCE) that are increasing, in conjunction with a growing amount of capital employed. Basically this means that a company has profitable initiatives that it can continue to reinvest in, which is a trait of a compounding machine. However, after investigating Tri Pointe Homes (NYSE:TPH), we don't think it's current trends fit the mold of a multi-bagger.

What Is Return On Capital Employed (ROCE)?

If you haven't worked with ROCE before, it measures the 'return' (pre-tax profit) a company generates from capital employed in its business. The formula for this calculation on Tri Pointe Homes is:

Return on Capital Employed = Earnings Before Interest and Tax (EBIT) ÷ (Total Assets - Current Liabilities)

0.13 = US$533m ÷ (US$4.9b - US$802m) (Based on the trailing twelve months to September 2023).

Thus, Tri Pointe Homes has an ROCE of 13%. In absolute terms, that's a pretty normal return, and it's somewhat close to the Consumer Durables industry average of 15%.

Check out our latest analysis for Tri Pointe Homes

Above you can see how the current ROCE for Tri Pointe Homes compares to its prior returns on capital, but there's only so much you can tell from the past. If you'd like to see what analysts are forecasting going forward, you should check out our free report for Tri Pointe Homes.

So How Is Tri Pointe Homes' ROCE Trending?

Things have been pretty stable at Tri Pointe Homes, with its capital employed and returns on that capital staying somewhat the same for the last five years. This tells us the company isn't reinvesting in itself, so it's plausible that it's past the growth phase. So don't be surprised if Tri Pointe Homes doesn't end up being a multi-bagger in a few years time.

On another note, while the change in ROCE trend might not scream for attention, it's interesting that the current liabilities have actually gone up over the last five years. This is intriguing because if current liabilities hadn't increased to 16% of total assets, this reported ROCE would probably be less than13% because total capital employed would be higher.The 13% ROCE could be even lower if current liabilities weren't 16% of total assets, because the the formula would show a larger base of total capital employed. With that in mind, just be wary if this ratio increases in the future, because if it gets particularly high, this brings with it some new elements of risk.

Our Take On Tri Pointe Homes' ROCE

In a nutshell, Tri Pointe Homes has been trudging along with the same returns from the same amount of capital over the last five years. Investors must think there's better things to come because the stock has knocked it out of the park, delivering a 130% gain to shareholders who have held over the last five years. But if the trajectory of these underlying trends continue, we think the likelihood of it being a multi-bagger from here isn't high.

If you're still interested in Tri Pointe Homes it's worth checking out our FREE intrinsic value approximation to see if it's trading at an attractive price in other respects.

For those who like to invest in solid companies, check out this free list of companies with solid balance sheets and high returns on equity.

Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) simplywallst.com.
This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.