EK

Keeping an eye on the big movers in the market does not help investors determine which stocks are poised to continue their upward or downward movement. To help our devoted readers identify the movers that still look fundamentally sound and those to walk away from, ValueExpectations.com has scored each of the top 10 Hot and Cold stocks of the month based on Valuation Attractiveness and Economic Margin Change.

If an investor should consider adding any of these stocks as a holding for a portfolio, one should look for companies with attractive valuations and expected improvements in a company’s Economic Margin (EM) which essentially is a measure of a company’s true economic profitability. As an additional level of analysis, we also recommend understanding the embedded expectations that are priced into each of these stocks.

AFG’s Valuation techniques and understanding of economic profitability have proven to identify mispriced securities in the market and help clients take advantage of mispriced securities. Accurately assessing a company’s profitability and understanding how to answer key questions such as… What is the cash flow generated by the company’s operations? How much capital is required? What are the opportunity costs of this capital? This robust process is what sets AFG’s corporate performance metric Economic Margin (EM) apart from other Value Based Metrics such as an IRR calculation, a CFIRR or a RONA Economic Profit approach.

It is not surprising to see the list of best performers dominated by Tech stocks as professional investors in our last month’s sentiment poll identified Technology as the most attractive sector to bet on in the upcoming months and companies like DOW and EK on their respective best and worst lists as they both have been discussed recently on VE.com. Dow was recently noted as one of the most attractive stocks within AFG’s Basic Materials sector (ranked 2nd most attractive sector amongst professional investors) in mid-august. Eastman Kodak (EK) is just one example of a torpedo AFG’s clients and ValueExpectations.com readers have avoided due to regularly being on AFG lists of stocks to avoid and also a model of poor Earnings Quality (high accruals) one way AFG filters out companies likely to underperform, and more likely to encounter a negative earnings surprise. EK has consistently had a poor EQ score according to AFG’s measure of accruals and continues to be ranked amongst the worst in its sector in Earnings Quality.

Below is a chart and table outlining the 2009 year to date performance of the sectors within the S&P 500. The Technology sector has lead the way thus-far and the Financial and Utility sectors have been dragging down the overall index performance coming up on the halfway point of 2009. Along with sector performance we have also provided a table with the best and worst 10 performing stocks within the S&P 500 index so far this year.

It is nice to see that 2 of the top 10 performers in the S&P 500 index (S, FCX) are stocks that we have recommended on multiple occasions on ValueExpectations.com. VE.com recommended Sprint on 11/26/08 AFG Buys, 12/29/08 High Value Score, 3/13/09 10 Most Undervalued and Freeport Mc-Moran on 1/17/09 4 Stocks To Consider, 1/30/09 5 Cheap Stocks, 2/17/09 Digging Deep.

Average Sector Returns (S&P 500 YTD)

Average Sector Returns (S&P 500 YTD)

Best and Worst 10 Performing Companies YTD 2009 (S&P 500)

The Applied Finance Group

Bloomberg provides a score for companies within the S&P 500 based on an average of all analyst ratings from the street. Below is a table highlighting companies with the best analyst ratings, largest increase in rating, highest price targets, and worst analyst ratings and the valuation attractiveness of each of these companies based on The Applied Finance Group’s (AFG) valuation model.

Companies within each of these groups are ranked from most attractive from a valuation perspective to the least attractive. VE.com will actively track the performance of these recommendations and see how they stack up to the analyst recommendations in each group. AFGview.com, AFG’s professional investor website allows you to compare any company using their rating versus the consensus ratings of the sell side. If you are interested in an analysis on a specific company, contact afgsales@afgltd.com.

Best/Worst Analyst Rated Companies (Bloomberg)

AFG's 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.

As the first 100 days of the new administration have come and gone, portfolio managers and analysts are searching through the market to see which stocks, industries, and sectors will gain from new policy and which ones are potential torpedoes in their portfolio. In AFG’s Monthly Market Review we have highlighted some of the focus of the new administration and how it can affect decisions as an investor, and we continue to search through the market in the hope of identifying which companies warrant their performance and which ones look to be unattractive from a valuation standpoint. The companies within the Financial sector have moved for reasons other than valuation, and will not be evaluated from a valuation perspective but it is interesting to see which companies have done the best and worst given the recent market shift.

Below is a comparison of the performance of the market with the last four presidents - we understand that each president walked into a different economic environment, but it is interesting to see how each one faired their first 100 days. The key will be how the market does over the long haul, especially given the significant policy changes and challenges the markets face over the course of the next year.

S&P 500 Reactions to Obama's First 100 Days

Event Key Of Obama's First 100 Days

How Obama's First 100 Days Compare to Last 3 U.S. President's (S&P 500)

S&P 500 Companies With Best/Worst Returns During Obama's First 100 Days

Valuation Attractiveness of Top/Bottom 10 Companies in Obama's First 100 Days (Ex. Financials)

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.

By using The Applied Finance Group’s (AFG's) Risk Analysis, we have identified the top and bottom two firms in each sector (excluding the Financial sector) according to an overall risk score based on 9 variables (see more detail below). In addition to the risk analysis variables we also added another layer of analysis by evaluating the companies’ Earnings Quality (based on the concept of Accruals) and Altman Z-Score (identifies firms that are at risk of going bankrupt in the next 2 years).

Applied Finance Group’s Risk Analysis is designed to systematically calculate a stock’s risk score based on fundamental relationships between the Quarterly Income Statements and Balance Sheets. The template measures 9 factors to determine Risk: Changes in A/R, Changes in Inventories, Cash Flow vs. Operating Cash Flow, Fixed Payments vs. Pre-Tax Cash Flow, Leverage, Intangibles, Write-offs, Management Quality, and Valuation. Companies with lower scores have less risk. Companies in the Financial Sector were excluded due to their differences in financial statement structure.
 

1. Receivables to Sales - Delta – takes the difference in the median A/R to Sales ratio over the last 4 quarters vs. median 4 quarters before that.

2. Inventories to Sales - Delta – takes the difference in the median Inventories to Sales ratio over the last 4 quarters vs. median 4 quarters before that.

3. AFG’s Cash Flow-Oper. vs. Operating Cash Flow - AFG's Cash Flow-Oper. for a company is net cash that is generated by the continuing and discontinuing operations of the firm. We compare it to the company's Operating Cash Flow to assess its ability to pay its debt.

4. Fixed Payments vs. Pre-tax Payments Cash Flow – This ratio assesses the company’s ability to cover long-term obligations. If the fixed pmts are greater than 50% of the pre-tax payments cash flow, there is chance that this company may not be able to meet its obligations. Obligations less than 30% of cash flow are considered safe.

5. Leverage – Book leverage and Market leverage are analyzed to give us information about the company’s leverage position. Best score is given to the companies with Book Leverage lower than 60%, and negative score to these with Book Leverage higher than 60% and Market Leverage greater than 0.9*Book Leverage.

6. Intangibles as a Percentage of Total Assets – With this score we try to filter through and reward the companies that have grown organically, rather than through acquisitions. Our research has shown that on average companies tend to overpay for acquisitions and thus are rarely a profitable investment. Companies with Intangibles less than 20% of Total Assets get the best score.

7. Write-offs – Shows the number of years with significant write-offs over the last 5 years.

8. Management Quality – Measures a company’s EM+1 and LFY Asset Growth and there is empirical evidence that companies with positive EMs that are able to grow their business tend to outperform companies with negative EMs who continue to invest into unprofitable business.

9. Value Score – Measures a company’s attractiveness from valuation perspective.

Most/Least Risky Firms By Sector S&P 500 (excluding financials)

If you are a professional investor and would like to learn more about this analysis as well as other useful valuation tools click here for a free trial subscription to The Applied Finance Group's research.

Below is a look at the YTD returns, valuation attractiveness and sales growth expectations of the two biggest and smallest companies in each sector within the S&P 500 (excluding financials). This link provides some insight into Applied Finance Group’s (AFG’s) valuation techniques. Also compare the expectations for sales growth to what the companies have delivered historically to see which stocks on this list are most likely to meet or exceed those expectations, and thus be more likely to out-perform.

 Biggest/Smallest Companies (Mkt Cap) By Sector S&P 500 (excluding financials)

*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.

Since March 9, 2009, the S&P 500 experienced quite a recovery, going from 676 to 813, or just over a 17% rebound. To put that into perspective, the market historically delivered 8% average annual returns. In the table below we provide a list of the top and bottom 10 performers since the March 9th rebound began, to give you an idea of who the new Bulls and Bears are. In the list you will find each company’s attractiveness from a valuation standpoint, as well as an analysis of sales growth expectations imbedded in these companies’ stock prices. Compare the expectations for sales growth to what they have delivered historically to see which stocks on this list are most likely to meet or exceed those expectations, and thus be more likely to out-perform. This list contains companies from the S&P 500 excluding all financial companies.

Top & Bottom Returns (S&P 500 excluding financials) Since March 9, 2009

*Scott Goto Arts

*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.

Recently, Moody’s released a list of what they call “Bottom Rung Companies” which is based on the company’s ability, or lack thereof, to pay back the debt it owes. The 283 companies on the list roughly represent the riskiest 15% of all firms that Moody’s tracks. Moody’s does not always designate the most appropriate ratings (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were rated AAA before defaulting), so we decided to take their list into our own hands and provide the true bottom rung companies.

With so much negative news going around and many companies declaring bankruptcy, it is no surprise that measures of a firm’s financial strength, such as the Altman Z-Score (likelihood of a company to go bankrupt in the next 2 years), have been re-gaining popularity in the current market environment. So to help with our analysis, we used the Z-Score metric to analyze the companies on Moody’s list, as well as The Applied Finance Group’s (AFG’s) screening variables to determine how attractive these firm’s are from a valuation standpoint, and how each company’s forecasted profitability for their fiscal 2009 year looks (Forecasted Economic Margin). As a result, ValueExpectations.com has put together a list of the 17 “riskiest” companies to avoid. Each of these companies have “at risk” level Z-Scores, unattractive valuations, and are forecasted to achieve negative profitability (EM) for their 2009 fiscal year, all of which indicate that they will be more likely to underperform.

Below the table is a short description of the Altman Z-score and a breakdown of what the scores mean, along with a brief description of what Economic Margin (EM) is and how it is calculated.

 17 Companies At Risk of Bankruptcy

 The Altman Z-score defined: A metric that gives insights into the likelihood of a firm going bankrupt in the next 2 years. The model was developed by Professor Edward I. Altman of the NYU’s Stern School of Business and first published in The Journal of FINANCE in September 1968.

The Altman Z-Score breaks down firms into 3 zones:

• >2.99 – Not Likely to go Bankrupt

• 1.8 - 2.99 – Gray Area

• <1.8 – Likely to go Bankrupt in the Next 2 Years

Economic Margin (EM) Defined: A measure of corporate performance that captures off balance sheet items, by looking at how much a company is earning above or below their cost of capital. EM is expressed in a % or margin. The Economic Margin Framework™ is more than just a performance metric as it encompasses a valuation system that explicitly addresses the four main drivers of enterprise value: profitability, competition, growth and cost of capital. more EM details (PDF)

 Economic Margin Calculation:

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

Related: Read our Economic Margin white paper which was published in the book: Value-Based Metrics: Foundations and Practice Edited by: Frank J. Fabozzi and James L. Grant Pages 157 – 178: Click Here

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.

Economic Margin (EM) Defined - A measure of corporate performance that captures off balance sheet items, by looking at how much a company is earning above or below their cost of capital. EM is expressed in a % or margin. The Economic Margin Framework™ is more than just a performance metric as it encompasses a valuation system that explicitly addresses the four main drivers of enterprise value: profitability, competition, growth and cost of capital.

Here is a list of companies, two from each sector within the S&P 500 that are expected to improve their Economic Margins (EM) the most over the next two years along with the bottom two in each sector expected to have their EM’s deteriorate the most. Companies expected to improve their EM’s more than their sector peers have proven to be more likely to out-perform. Improving EM’s coupled with low expectations priced-in for sales growth are the companies on this list that may be worth a look as a potential investment.

Also included in this table is the implied sales growth priced-in over the next five years in order to justify the stock’s current trading price compared with their achieved 5 Year Median Sales Growth. Ask the question are the expectations for sales growth realistic compared with what revenue growth the firm has delivered in the last five years.

If you would like to learn more about the Economic Margin methodology or Value Expectations feel free to contact an AFG representative to schedule a web-demo at support@afgltd.com.

S&P 500 Companies with the Biggest Forecasted Change in Economic Margins