Opportunities in Undervalued Stocks 16 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
The market continued its march downward and, even after a relatively large Friday rally, the S&P 500 still finished down 8.4%. The price-to-peak earnings ratio has again reached another low at 9.0x. Clearly, this valuation metric is closely following the market as we are no longer anywhere near peak earnings levels. In fact, by our calculations earnings at present are just two-thirds of record earnings for the S&P 500, a level that was reached in the summer of 2007. This is an extreme situation that does not occur often.
Many stocks are selling at or near book value. Think about the significance of that for a moment. Equity in the company is valued near what the company could sell its tangible assets (minus liabilities) for in a fire sale today. Now, remember that stocks are a claim on future cash flows, and those cash flows in the current market are almost completely discounted. We continue to believe that for long-term value investors, this is very enticing time to be cautiously investing in those stocks least affected by the credit and housing crises. We think it is reasonable to assume that companies which have continued to improve fundamental metrics–such as sales and cash flow–are a good place to start. Companies that have a lot of cash on hand (and little debt) will be in a great position to take advantage of the downturn either by protecting against a slowdown or by buying out competitors without the need for extensive financing. Every company will be affected to some extent by nationwide deleveraging but stocks that can produce strong cash flow will be the quickest to recover. Companies that fit this description include: Apple (AAPL), Boeing (BA), Google (GOOG), and Microsoft (MSFT).
The percentage of NYSE stocks selling above their 30-week moving average is again remarkably low at just 2.5%. When market sentiment reaches extremes like we are now witnessing, you can bet that the situation will not persist and is due for a rebound. That being said, we would never claim to be in the business of market timing because there are still many nasty turns that this market could take; over the weekend we witnessed another event that just a year or more ago would have been unthinkable as Citigroup (C) required a government rescue package. However, while the short-term market outlook is quite unclear, the market is much more predictable over the long-term. We continue to believe that their are greatly undervalued stocks in this market that have been unjustly dragged down in the wretched economic environment.
As you will notice from our asset allocation model we recommend that long-term value investors be bullish right now in this depressed market. As any student of finance will tell you, the return on an investment is inextricably linked to the risk the investor is willing to take on. Clearly, the stock market has plenty of risks associated with it, but its valuation is much less risky now than it was one year ago and the return that one can reasonably expect to make from the equity market is vastly improved over one year ago. We had told our EIG readers that the stock market was overheated for the better part of early 2007 because the risks of entering an already-expensive market were not going to be compensated by the return that an investor could expect. Well, now the tables have turned and we believe that investors can afford to take the current risk of the market because of the likelihood of improved long-term returns. As we’ve stated before, investors must do their homework but should be on the lookout for companies that are solid financially and are nimbly navigating this economic environment for when the market turns around (as it always has) these stocks will be the first to benefit.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 16 comments:
The Strike caused quite a bit of damage to Boeing's schedule
of delivery etc. Possible cancellations ? kind of a mess there.
BA=GM ?
I will add to your comment that "Book value" itself doesn't mean much because and I give you Crocs (crox) as an example whoes book (yahoo) is $3.75 and share price is $1.16. What matters is how much of that book is not associated with "style" related expenditures that no longer have value.
If on the other hand the book of a company like Tesoro (TSO) is twice its share price and we all think (right or wrong) that oil refining is a much needed process ("haven't built a new refiner in 30.... blah blah years") then the Company may well be undervalued.
The point being is to find out (if you can) exactly what has been booked and NOT just misleading people about "book" in general.
In a bizarre twist, the strike has aided Boeing, since many carriers have "deferred by default" and are not in any rush for new airplanes.
www.fleetbuzzeditorial.../
The overall risk of cancellations remains high for both, however, Goldman Sachs deliberate price downgrades of BA stock means its a great time to get in.
On Nov 24 06:27 PM Allears wrote:
> Are you sure Boeing should be included to the list ?
> The Strike caused quite a bit of damage to Boeing's schedule
> of delivery etc. Possible cancellations ? kind of a mess there.
>
> BA=GM ?
In a bizarre twist, the strike has aided Boeing, since many carriers have "deferred by default" and are not in any rush for new airplanes.
www.fleetbuzzeditorial.../
The overall risk of cancellations remains high for both, however, Goldman Sachs deliberate price downgrades of BA stock means its a great time to get in.
On Nov 24 06:27 PM Allears wrote:
> Are you sure Boeing should be included to the list ?
> The Strike caused quite a bit of damage to Boeing's schedule
> of delivery etc. Possible cancellations ? kind of a mess there.
>
> BA=GM ?
In a bizarre twist, the strike has aided Boeing, since many carriers have "deferred by default" and are not in any rush for new airplanes.
www.fleetbuzzeditorial.../
The overall risk of cancellations remains high for both, however, Goldman Sachs deliberate price downgrades of BA stock means its a great time to get in.
On Nov 24 06:27 PM Allears wrote:
> Are you sure Boeing should be included to the list ?
> The Strike caused quite a bit of damage to Boeing's schedule
> of delivery etc. Possible cancellations ? kind of a mess there.
>
> BA=GM ?
Looks like everything goes nuts this days.
Including your comment that was printed many times.
You are correct in some way.
But you must remember what UAW done to GM.
The same looks like happening with BA. Not good.
Workers loyalty is very important. Without it, no business
will or can survive. Hope they know that !!
He favors Japanese stocks and Hi Quality U.S. stocks.
www.fleetbuzzeditorial.../
On Nov 24 06:27 PM Roy M. wrote:
> Are you sure Boeing should be included to the list ?
> The Strike caused quite a bit of damage to Boeing's schedule
> of delivery etc. Possible cancellations ? kind of a mess there.
>
> BA=GM ?
No, Boeing should not be on the list.
The major airlines have aircraft that are fuel inefficient and are old. It costs the airlines a ton of money to have the older aircraft inspected on a more frequent basis because of possible cracks in the metal airframe due to takeoff and landings.
By the way, the largest cost for a flight is the fuel. The 787 will save airlines 20% to 30% in fuel prices because of more fuel efficient engines and a lighter composite airframe. The airlines are flying their old planes into the ground and will have no choice but to buy new airplanes.
On Nov 24 06:27 PM Roy M. wrote:
> Are you sure Boeing should be included to the list ?
> The Strike caused quite a bit of damage to Boeing's schedule
> of delivery etc. Possible cancellations ? kind of a mess there.
>
> BA=GM ?