RRD

When analysts and market pundits come on tv to talk about stock picks, they usually talk about the "P/E" ratio (Price to Earnings) being attractive.  However if you're investing in stocks and you only look at the "P/E" ratio, you might be walking into a "Value Trap".  Investors ignore half the valuation picture when investors only concentrate on P/E as investors also need to consider the growth potential of the company and what investments are needed to get the earnings.  The Applied Finance Group (AFG) has developed a process that incorporates these factors easily into the valuation framework.  Using AFG’s Valuation Metric, we have compiled a list of 20 companies with low P/E, 10 of which we consider attractive investments, and 10 of which we consider Value Traps.

By using AFG's Economic Margin framework instead of earnings alone, investors capture the true net cash flow the entire firm is generating. It is not uncommon for companies to grow P/E while having declining EM’s. This occurs when the cost for the investment required to yield the increasing P/E is more than the cash flow generated from the investment. By analyzing a company’s EMs through time, investors gain a more accurate account of levels and changes in a company’s current profitability and value.

If earnings are a true proxy for performance, there should be a correlation between a company growing earnings and its price to earnings ratio. As a surprise to many investors, there is actually little to no correlation between earnings growth and price to earnings ratios (see chart below).
 

P/E is determined by taking a stock’s price and dividing it by the last four quarter’s worth of earnings. P/E alone should not be used to value companies. P/E does not look at a company’s balance sheet thus we do not know what the costs of generating those earnings. While the P/E is determined by looking at a company’s past performance, EM bases a company’s value off its future projections. By using EM, an investor can know how their stocks are likely to perform, allowing them to clearly evaluate where to invest.

Successful companies measure results, make decisions and set strategy with the goal of creating value. A company’s performance measures must serve as a proxy for its market value creation. While important, S-T Earnings alone are a poor indicator of a company’s value, due to what they do not measure.
 

Economic Margin is a more complete performance measure for companies to use to guide performance and motivate employees. Executives consider Cash Flow, Investment, Competition & Risk when setting strategy. The above charts show that investors do the same.

AFG's Valuation Metric – Measures the percent to target (deviation between a stock’s current trading price and its AFG current default target price). To derive the intrinsic value of a firm, AFG uses its proprietary Valuation Model (modified discounted cash flow model).

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.

Investment Insights from your peers, 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

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.

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.