MYL

With 2009 winding down and a full year in the books for the current administration, we have provided a breakdown of the best performing stocks since President Obama was sworn in as President on November 4, 2008.

To stay updated on companies we find attractive for the upcoming year Click here to register for ValueExpectations its Fast and Free!

Click Here to view some of the latest articles from ValueExpectations that we recommend reading!

The Applied Finance Group’s (AFG’s) valuation technique helps investors identify and take advantage of mispriced securities in the market. One way investors can identify over or undervalued stocks is by using AFG’s Intrinsic Value Chart, which displays a company’s intrinsic value relative to its trading range and helps entry/exit points.

This easy to read chart identifies how far a stock’s trading range deviates from its intrinsic value (target price assuming immediate decay), which helps you recognize potentially mispriced stocks and pursue long and short opportunities. AFG’s Intrinsic Value Chart also contains a company’s Value Score (ranked valuation attractiveness), Economic Margin Change (expected improvement of economic profitability), and Accuracy (how well AFG’s default valuation has tracked the company) information. AFG’s valuation framework estimates a company’s equity value by subtracting debt and other liabilities from the total enterprise value. The total enterprise value is estimated by discounting projected future cash flows, utilizing analyst consensus, Economic Margin methodology, and the Decay concept which addresses the perpetuity bias in the traditional DCF model.

AFG’s Intrinsic Value Chart:

• Identifies entry/exit points

• Shows how well AFG has tracked the company (accuracy)

• Displays the trading range of the company each year through time (blue bars)

• Displays the end of year closing price (dash on blue bar)

• Displays AFG’s default intrinsic value (red dotted line)

How to Read this chart:

• The Blue Bars represent the high and low trading range for a stock for each calendar year.

• The red dotted line represents Applied Finance Group’s (AFG’s) historical Intrinsic Value through time.

• When the red line (Intrinsic Value) is above the blue bars (trading range) the company looks to be undervalued.

• When the red line (Intrinsic Value) is below the blue bars (trading range) the company looks to be overvalued.

Below is an example of AFG’s Intrinsic Value Chart and the important things to look for within the chart as well as two examples of undervalued companies according to AFG’s Intrinsic Value Chart as well as two overvalued and two fairly valued examples to provide a better understanding of what to look for when analyzing AFG’s Intrinsic Value Chart.

What to look for in AFG's Intrinsic Value Chart:

2 examples of undervalued companies (ABT,WAG) according to AFG's IV Chart:

2 examples of overvalued companies (BDK,MYL) according to AFG's IV Chart:

2 examples of fairly valued companies (CSCO,SNDK) according to AFG's IV Chart:

Click Here for an example of how we have used Intrinsic Value.

Investors are always looking for an edge, a way to improve their stock selection process in the hope that it improves their overall performance. Fundamental investors may flirt with the idea of adding a technical overlay to their process while a value investor may take more of a chance on a growth company. No matter what style of investor you are, you want to be sure the process you are implementing makes sense.

Because of the volatility of the market, investors seem to be paying more attention to the technicals of the companies they hold or are considering to buy. While there are several ways technical analysts look at the momentum in the market, ValueExpectations.com will concentrate on the simple, yet widely used 50 and 200 day moving averages relative to a companies current trading price.

We, at The Applied Finance Group (AFG), believe that technicals are relevant, but it is much more important to focus on the fundamentals of a company in determining which securities are over/under valued. We have taken the S&P 500 and focused only on the stocks trading above their 50 and 200 day moving averages (44%) for those investors who pay closer attention to technicals, and provided a list of companies in most of the major economic sectors that we find attractive and some that we find unattractive based on AFG’s investment criteria, which focuses more on valuation attractiveness and expected corporate performance.

However, if you do look at momentum, a variable we would suggest concentrating on is economic momentum. AFG’s economic momentum coupled with valuation give you a tremendous advantage in outperforming!

Sectors without adequate representation were excluded (Financials, Basic Material, Transportation)

With the first quarter of 2009 winding down, ValueExpectations.com has compiled a list of the best and worst performing stocks thus far in 2009 (excluding financials). It is not surprising for us to see two companies on the top performer list (S and MYL) that also appeared on our list at the end of January, or three bottom performing companies (ODP, TXT and MTW) still remaining on the bottom performer list over a month and a half later. We published an article in early February highlighting the top and bottom performers for the month of January and posed the question “Is the January Effect effective?”

Top 10 S&P 500 Companies (YTD 2009)

Bottom 10 S&P 500 Companies (YTD 2009)

Our conclusion: Looking at the YTD returns for the companies in our January effect article's top and bottom lists, we notice that there is a huge spread. January’s top performers have earned an average return of 4.66% YTD compared to January’s bottom performers’ average YTD return of -57.15%. This pretty compelling spread suggests that the January effect may be something investors want to pay closer attention to next year and it may even be helpful for the remainder of 2009.

*AFG’s Value Expectation allows us to understand the imbedded Sales Growth, EBITDA Margins, 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 companies assuming their EBITDA margins and Asset turnover stay constant at the company's historical 5 year median.

Below is Value Expectations’ analysis of the companies in the S&P 500 with the 10 best and 10 worst returns for 2009 YTD (excluding financial companies). Comparing the sales growth expectations priced in (VE sales growth) to what the company has delivered in sales growth historically allows us to see which firms have the most reasonable sales growth expectations implied by their current trading prices and thus are more likely to outperform. Will the companies with the best returns be able to maintain their momentum for the remainder of 2009? Will the companies with the worst returns be able to turn things around? We will track the S&P500 winners and losers in the year ahead and provide you with regular updates.

10 Worst S&P 500 Companies 2009 YTD

10 Best S&P 500 Companies 2009 YTD

*data as of close Feb. 20, 2009

*AFG’s Value Expectation allows us to understand the imbedded Sales Growth, EBITDA Margins, and Asset Turnovers 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 companies assuming their EBITDA margins and Asset turnovers stay at the 5 year median levels.

Here are the best and worst performing stocks in the S&P 500 for the month of January excluding financials. Compare the implied sales growth priced-in to justify the current trading price (VE Sales Growth) vs. what the company has delivered in sales growth the past 5 years (5 Year Median Sales Growth) to see if the expectations are realistic for the company to achieve. The more realistic the expectations are compared to what has been delivered the more likely the firm will be to out-perform.

Top 10 stocks in January (excluding financials) and Sales Growth Expectations

Worst 10 stocks in January (excluding financials) and Sales Growth Expectations

Mike Burdi of Applied Finance Group and Drew Morris of Great Numbers recently published a ranking of S&P 500 companies in CEO Magazine Using AFG's Wealth Creation Index. This measure of ranking CEO’s has been gaining traction and receiving publicity in national publications. Below are a few links to articles that have recently been published discussing our methods and results of identifying the biggest wealth creators and destroyers amongst the CEO’s of the nation’s largest companies.

An article written by Pittsburgh Post Gazette highlighting CEO Of Federated

An article from Planebuzz.com highlighting Southwest Airlines CEO

An article explaining the rankings with a link to the article by Directors Daily

An article explaining Economic Margin by New Jersey Star Ledger

The entire article posted on RealClearMarkets.com

The top and bottom CEO's from the rankings below:

Top 5 Companies based on CEO Rank along with Sales Growth Expectations

Bottom 5 Companies based on CEO Rank along with Sales Growth Expectations

Performance Rankings of the Top 50 and Bottom 50 Wealth Creating CEO's

Today we look at a recent article in CEO magazine by Mike Burdi of The Applied Finance Group (AFG) and Drew Morris using AFG’s Wealth Creation Index to rank the top wealth creating and wealth destroying CEO’s within the S&P 500. After comparing the top 5 on each list by using AFG’s valuation techniques and comparing the sales growth expectations built-in to their current price (VE Sales Growth) with what the companies have achieved in the last five years (5 Year Median Sales Growth), it is easy to see that good companies do not always make good investments. AFG’s Value Score measures the stock’s attractiveness relative to the universe based on AFG’s Intrinsic Value Target Price. The score is ranked from 1-100 with 1 being the most overvalued and 100 being the most undervalued stock in the universe. VE sales growth captures the sales growth expectations priced-in to the stock to justify the current price.
Although the top 5 are well run companies, that does not automatically qualify them to be good investments. Depending on what the market has priced-in, and how likely the company can deliver that performance determines whether the company is a good investment or not. Many companies that have been beaten up and even those with wealth destroying CEO’s may be a good investment if very low expectations are priced-in and you feel the company can exceed their expectations.

Top 5 Wealth Creating CEO’s

*denotes company has only 3 years historical sales growth

Top 5 Wealth Destroying CEO’s

VE Sales Growth was calculated for these companies on 12/14/08

EQ is important in this current market environment because so many companies are feeling pressure to meet their sales expectations. Many companies are channel-stuffers, which is one form of accruals that often leads to negative earnings surprises. A recent poster-child for this example of sending excess inventory to stores that could not sell their products would be Crocs and the way they tried to pad their sales numbers.

Earnings Quality: Accrual

•An accrual is the difference between Cash Flow and Net Income.

•Net Income = Cash Flow + Accruals

•Low Accrual companies outperform high accrual

 Two ways to approach accruals:

1. Cash Flow Statement

•Difference between Net Income and Cash Flow

2. Balance Sheet

•Change in Net Operating Assets from Period t-1 to t

•Net Operating Asset equals Total Assets Less Cash, Less Non-Debt Liabilities (excl. Minority Interest)

-Our studies show that the Balance Sheet approach is superior to the Cash Flow Statement approach.

-We found the Balance Sheet approach is also easier to expand to international companies.

 We screened the  S&P500 to identify those firms with the worst EQ scores. The score is given from 1-100, 1 being the best EQ company, 100 being the company with the highest amount of accruals and the worst EQ. Because high EQ companies are more likely to have negative earnings surprises, this is a group of companies you may want to avoid. The EQ variable works well as an exclusionary variable coupled with AFG’s valuation model.

After running our screen we identified 14 firms as the worst Earnings Quality firms. You can set yourself up for success and save time by narrowing your list of constituents to only those that meet our standard valuation, Economic Margin and Management Quality checks and following that up by filtering out those companies most likely to have negative earnings surprises (high EQ). The Chart Below identifies the firms that met our screen criteria, along with the EQ score and our VE analysis.

Worst 10% Earnings Quality Companies In the S&P 500

Universe Size: 4,000 to 5,000 Firms

Source: Applied Finance Group Database from 9/1998-5/2008

 This variable does not add any value for companies within the financial sector and those companies are automatically screened out when using this variable.

Recently we also screened the S&P 500 to identify investment opportunities and identified over 150 companies (industrials) that have negative sales growth expectations embedded into their current market valuations. These companies include high quality companies such as: COH, DOW, CAH, TGT, JNJ, UTX, SBUX, and WAG, among others. If you would like to Read our study Click Here