FLS

Today we will focus on the Capital Goods sector and provide readers with a few names we like as well as a couple that we don’t in terms of investment attractiveness from within this sector. We will also take a look AFG’s Management Quality Chart to help us better understand each of these companies from a corporate performance and strategic standpoint. Lastly, using snapshots from www.afgview.com (AFG’s web-based research platform), we will take an in-depth look at Fluor Corp.

ValueExpectations.com emphasizes evaluating a company’s ability to earn a spread above their cost of capital using a very robust measure of corporate performance, Economic Margin. After evaluating a firm’s ability to create wealth VE.com then determines what price we are paying for the company using a modified discounted cash flow model. If we had to simplify performance, a very elementary way to evaluate performance can be Return on Invested Capital ROIC and valuation which can be simplified by using earnings yield. This is the approach Joel Grenblatt uses in his book, The Little Blue Book that Beats the Market.

In January VE.com highlighted a list of stocks based on Joel Greenblatt’s Magic Formula Investing Strategy from 1998-2004 Greenblatt’s simulated returns were 30.8% a year, relative to a 12.4% annual return for the S&P 500 and was only down in one year in that time-span.

In our article posted on January 9, 2009 we listed our best 30 “Magic Formula” companies which has earned returns comparable to the tests conducted by Mr. Greenblatt. From Jan. 9, 2009 to Dec. 14, 2009 the 30 companies we recommended from our “Magic Screen” have returned a solid 32.06% spread above the S&P 500. Since our last “Magic Formula” portfolio was successful we have decided to run the screen again for a new list of companies to see just how consistent this strategy is.

To stay updated on companies AFG believes are attractive investment opportunities register for ValueExpectations.com It's Fast and Free!

A look at Greenblatt’s formula for successful “Magic Formula Investing”:

1. Establish a minimum market capitalization (usually greater than $50 million).

2. Exclude utility and financial stocks

3. Exclude foreign companies (American Depositary Receipts)

4. Determine company's earnings yield = EBIT / enterprise value.

5. Determine company's return on capital = EBIT / (Net fixed assets + working capital)

6. Rank all companies above chosen market capitalization by highest earnings yield and highest return on capital (ranked as percentages).

7. Invest in 20-30 highest ranked companies, accumulating 2-3 positions per month over a 12-month period.

8. Re-balance portfolio once per year, selling losers one week before the year-mark and winners one week after the year mark.

9. Continue over long-term (3-5 year) period.

Mr. Greenblatt was a student of both Ben Graham and Warren Buffet and tried to include valuable insights from each investor in his “Magic Formula.” His Magic Formula was a screen that percentile ranked two variables: Return on Invested Capital (quality) and Earnings Yield (valuation). The idea is simple, buy the best companies at the best price and then hold on to them for one year. The Little Blue Book recommends selecting the top 30 firms from the “Magic Formula.” That formula ranks each company by variable and then puts a 50% weight on each.

Ticker  Company Name Sector Market Cap ROIC Earn Yield (NYSE:PM) Philip Morris Intl Inc Consumer Non Durable $96,066 265% 26% (NYSE:LO) Lorillard Inc Consumer Non Durable $12,671 111% 13% (NYSE:RAI) Reynolds American Inc Consumer Non Durable $15,560 116% 14% (NYSE:NOV) National Oilwell Varco Capital Goods $18,530 38% 17% (NYSE:ABC) Amerisource Bergen Corp Health $7,198 82% 12% (NASDAQ:APOL)  Apollo Group Inc Cl A Miscellaneous $9,602 164% 12% (NYSE:GD)  General Dynamics Corp Capital Goods $27,261 69% 12% (NYSE:BF.B)  Brown-Forman Corp Cl B Consumer Non Durable $8,335 124% 18% (NYSE:TSS)  Total System Services Consumer Services $3,439 50% 16% (NYSE:DNB)  Dun & Bradstreet Corp Consumer Services $4,285 -395% 10% (NYSE:LLL) L-3 Communications Hldgs Capital Goods $9,873 55% 12% (NYSE:MCK)  Mckesson Corp Health $16,880 43% 12% (NYSE:PFE) Pfizer Inc Health $148,488 17% 11% (NYSE:MO)  Altria Group Inc Consumer Non Durable $40,753 1693% 20% (NASDAQ:CEPH) Cephalon Inc Health $4,414 32% 12% (NYSE:OMC)   Omnicom Group Inc Consumer Services $11,681 -178% 10% (NYSE:DO) Diamond Offshre Drilling Capital Goods $13,503 37% 14% (NYSE:LLY)  Eli Lilly & Co Health $40,928 47% 15% (NYSE:SNI) Scripps Networks Intr In Consumer Services $6,692 77% 10% (NASDAQ:BIIB) Biogen Idec Inc Health $14,133 46% 11% (NYSE:FRX)  Forest Laboratories Inc Health $9,563 22% 13% (NYSE:RTN)  Raytheon Co Capital Goods $20,479 67% 14% (NYSE:DPS) Dr Pepper Snapple Grp Consumer Non Durable $7,131 71% 10% (NYSE:HRS) Harris Corp Technology $5,964 57% 11% (NYSE:MHP) Mcgraw-Hill Co Inc Consumer Services $10,886 129% 11% (NYSE:FLR) Fluor Corp Capital Goods $7,252 46% 20% (NYSE:LH)  Laboratory Cp Am Hldgs Health $7,961 108% 10% (NYSE:LH)  Moody'S Corp Consumer Services $6,281 -2400% 9% (NYSE:FLS) Flowserve Corp Capital Goods $5,398 40% 11% (NYSE:GME) Gamestop Corp Cl A Consumer Services $3,671 69% 17%

 

 Click Here - If you are a professional investor and would like a review of your portfolio by an AFG representative or to discuss companies AFG find attractive that fit your investment style.

To stay updated on companies AFG believes are attractive investment opportunities register for ValueExpectations.com It's Fast and Free! 

Traditional Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) models have been been underutilized in equity analysis over the years primarily because of the assumptions one has to sign off on. We will concentrate on just two of the major issues we have with traditional DCF models, the lack of ability to deal with competition and the perpetuity assumption embedded in a DCF model. These assumptions lead to irrational calculations of intrinsic value and force analysts to make compromising decisions in their model building efforts.

AFG uses a modified DCF model that accurately addresses the competitive nature of the business while also dealing with the perpetuity issue through our Economic Margin decay or competitive advantage period.

The four factors that affect AFG’s Competitive Advantage Period (CAP) are;

Profitability – High Profit leads to increased competition and a higher decay rate
Variability – Higher volatility leads to less predictability and a higher decay rate
Trend – AFG gives the benefit of the doubt to an upward trend which leads to a lower decay rate
Invested Capital – Large Invested Capital creates barriers to entry and leads to lower decay rate

The Decay Rate is the rate at which the Economic Margins™ will diminish over time due to competition, market conditions and limited investment opportunities. Higher decay rates translate into shorter competitive advantage periods, while lower decay rates translate into longer competitive advantage periods.

The Decay Rate profile is downward sloping to the right, which means that Economic Margins™ over time diminish to zero. This does not mean that the company will not have earnings, but instead the company will have an Economic Margin™ of zero, which indicates there are no excess profits after the investors are paid and the depreciating assets are replaced.When selecting securities, companies that are maintaining a high level of economic profitability or growing their profits rapidly are attractive from an investment standpoint. However, the more profitable a firm is the more likely other companies will attempt compete away excess returns.

To illustrate this, one has to look no further than Dell Computer. Dell Computer had Economic Margins™ hovering around 40% (top 5% of all companies) in 1997 and 1998, but soon every major firm was announcing that they were going to build computers to order. Why? Because they saw the huge profits that Dell was making. The result is that Dell's Economic Margin™ for 1999 was around 25%, a decline of 37.5% in just one year. The remaining factors are relatively straight-forward, in that volatile returns are worth less than consistent returns, companies with an increasing Economic Margins™ are worth more than a company in decline, and large companies have a natural barrier to entry, thus a lower decay rate.

 

Theory: Excess return gets competed away

Fact: In 1997, the median top decile Economic Margin (EM) firm = 17.4%. 10 years later, that same group of companies had a median EM of 6.5%. On the other hand, the bottom decile had an EM of -12.2%, 10 years later that same group had a median EM of -1.0%.

 

Current Top Decile Economic Margin Companies (S&P 500 ex. financials)

 

Join Value Expectations... it's FAST and FREE!

In March, Jim Jubak of MSN Money released a list of stocks that he believed should be stocks that you should pay attention to in the upcoming months/quarters as potentially attractive investment opportunities. ValueExpectations.com set out to answer the question, which stocks on Jim’s watch list look attractive according to AFG’s valuation model and should be on your watch list?

Provided in the table below are Jubak’s watch list companies and how they fare from a valuation perspective using The Applied Finance Group’s Value Score variable which ranks the valuation attractiveness of each company based on the discrepancy between the company’s current trading price and AFG’s target price.

 

Jubak's Watch List Companies (Ranked by Valuation Attractiveness)

 

Valuation Model – Using AFG’s modified discounted cash flow model to measure the intrinsic value of a firm compared to its peers.

AFG's Value Score - A score which represents the ranked percent to target (deviation between stock’s current trading price and AFG’s current default target price) or attractiveness (upside) relative to the universe. A Value Score of 100 is the most undervalued and 0 is the most overvalued company in the universe.

Jim Jubak (Jubak’s Journal – MSN Money) recently released an article outlining 5 major missteps a company can make on the road to recovery during a recession and provided 5 stocks he believes avoided such missteps and are primed for success when the market returns to normalcy - COH, PEP, QCOM, FLS, NUE. According to Jubak, he likes these companies because they all have good debt to equity ratios, solid balance sheets, and they have not been “beaten up so badly that they will spend the first year of the market recovery patching holes”. Jubak currently has 50% of his portfolio “Jubak’s Picks” in cash and the other 50% in stocks and does not expect the market to bottom for another 6 months or more, but believes these 5 stocks will be solid performers when the market does finally return. ValueExpectations.com has taken Jim’s 5 shipshape companies and analyzed them using The Applied Finance Group’s (AFG's) valuation model and buy criteria.

A brief description of AFG's buy criteria variables is below:

Economic Margin - A corporate performance measurement that addresses the gaps in GAAP, eliminating distortions caused by accounting policies to measure what a company is truly earning above or below their cost of capital. Valuation Model – Using AFG’s modified discounted cash flow model to measure the intrinsic value of a firm compared to its peers. Management Quality – Assess management’s ability to make wealth creating decisions. AFG's Value Score - A score which represents the ranked percent to target (deviation between stock’s current trading price and AFG’s current default target price) or attractiveness (upside) relative to the universe. A Value Score of 100 is the most undervalued and 0 is the most overvalued company in the universe.

 

Jubak's 5 shipshape stocks for the turnaround

Click Here for a closer look at some of The Applied Finance Group's valuation concepts.

Faisal Laljee of stocksandblogs.com came out with 2 blogs earlier this year providing companies that he believed were the top stocks to own/watch for 2009 (Part 1, Part 2). Laljee was on the money with his predictions so far through 2009. 13 of the 15 companies he recommended have positive returns and the whole portfolio of 15 companies has an average return of 21.24% compared to the S&P 500 return of 0.10% over the same time period. Valueexpectations.com thought it would be useful to analyze how these firms are positioned as possible investment opportunities going forward from AFG’s valuation standpoint. Valuation Attractiveness is determined by AFG’s proprietary valuation framework, which estimates a stock’s intrinsic value through a DCF model which incorporates a corporation’s Economic Profitability, Growth of Capital Base, Decay, and Cost of Capital. In addition, we also showed sales growth expectations embedded in each company’s latest stock price and its historical 5 year median sales growth. It is interesting but not surprising that all the Attractive stocks have low implied sales growth compared to those companies’ historical performance.

 

Stocksandblogs.com 15 Companies To Own/Watch In 2009 : Perfomance Results

 

*AFG’s Value Expectations allows us to understand the Sales Growth, EBITDA Margin, and Asset Turnover a company has to deliver in the future to justify its current trading price. In theory and in normal circumstances, if the imbedded future performance is very conservative relative to the company’s historical performance, the stock is regarded as undervalued. The table displays the implied future Sales Growth of the list of companies assuming their EBITDA Margins and Asset Turnovers stay at the 5 year median levels.

According to Bespoke.com these S&P 500 stocks over $5 a share, are those that make the biggest advances/declines the day after reporting earnings since this bear market began in October 07’. Included in this table is the percentage of time these companies beat earnings and their average change on report day, along with their implied sales growth expectations. The implied sales growth measures what a company needs to grow sales at over the next 5 years to justify their current price. Comparing those expectations (VE Sales Growth) with what the company has delivered the past 5 years (5 year median sales growth) is a good way to tell if the current expectations are realistic for the company to meet or exceed. The lower the expectations relative to delivered sales growth, the more likely the company is to out-perform.

 

 

 

The companies on the top list are ten S&P 500 companies that have seen the best performance in the month of January over the past 5 years. Will these companies be able continue their hot streak in the month of January in 2009? Look for companies on the list that have low expectations for sales growth priced-in to justify their current stock price (VE Sales Growth) compared to what the firm has delivered in revenue growth over the last 5 years (5 Year Median Sales Growth). Companies with low expectations compared to what they have been able to deliver are the companies most likely to out-perform. Consistent returns in January coupled with low sales expectations are the companies you may want to look at as a possible investment.

The bottom list is the worst ten companies in median returns in the month of January over the past 5 years within the S&P 500. You may want to avoid the companies that have experienced tough times in January that also have high sales growth expectations compared to what they have been able to deliver the last 5 years.

 

S&P 500 Companies with the Best Returns in January – Last 5 Years

 

S&P 500 Companies with the Worst Returns in January - Last 5 Years

According to MotleyFool.com, InvestorPlace.com, Jubak’s Journal, Cramer, and FortuneMagazine.com these are the most attractive stocks to own in 2009. Compare the sales growth priced-in to justify the current stock price (VE Sales Growth) to what the company has achieved in revenue growth over the last five years (5 Year Median Sales Growth) to see if what’s priced-in is a reasonable number for the company to meet or exceed expectations. Couple the expectation information with AFG’s ranking for a stock’s attractiveness relative to the universe (Value Score AFG) to find companies that we find attractive on a default basis that also have low expectations for growing sales compared to what they have delivered the past 5 years. Companies with High Value Score’s and low sales growth expectations will be the companies on this list that are more likely to out-perform.

 

Recommended Stocks for 2009

Related Article: EPS Increased.....Company Underperformed?

AFG Market Forecast Project
Insights From
Professional Investors
 
The Applied Finance Group would like to invite professional investors to join AFG’s Market Forecast Project so you can better understand what your peers currently think about the market and cultivate the “wisdom of Crowds” into actionable investment ideas and themes. 
Click here to learn more