I started "Value Investing from Graham to Buffett and Beyond", by Greenwald et al, on my vacation and my initial impression was "I wonder if mungofitch is one of the et al's"

Other way around!
I just spout the stuff I learned there, over and over. At best I rephrase it my own way.


I really dislike the conventional formulae for valuing growth which they mention. (I'm working from memory here).

I prefer something simple, which doesn't give silly answers with infinite growth horizons or negative interest rates.
My fave:
What's the "pretty darned sure" real EPS on average 5-10 years from now, what multiple do you expect at that time so what is the annualized rate of return that implies?
I use ([Future multiple] X [future average EPS 5-10 years out]) ^ (1/7.5) - 1, annualizing it to the middle of the future earnings era.
If that rate of return looks good to you, buy it!
I recommend never assuming the future multiples will be higher than the teens, i.e. max 19.
I don't think any firm is so predictable that high growth (and valuation to match) can be counted on to be existing a decade in the future.

The nice thing is that it works for all kinds of companies, from dead end cash cows to currently-unprofitable sellers of future stories.

You can turn it around, if you want a real return of X%/year from here, what rate of growth of EPS will do it starting from this price?
Does the rate of earnings growth sound plausible enough that you'd call it "pretty darned sure"?
This backwards view only works for firms that are already profitable.

Jim