To identify potentially attractive investment ideas, AFG usually uses a combination of proprietary variables to develop of focused group of potential buy ideas that meet criteria based on valuation, economic performance, management quality, and Earnings Quality. In December of 2008 ValueExpectations.com released a list of companies narrowed only by the valuation properties of the company using AFG’s Value Score (defined below). Our valuation techniques have proven successful through time at identifying mispriced securities and helping our clients identify investment opportunities resulting in outperforming their chosen benchmark. .
The ValueExpectations.com blog posted in December 08 (High Value Score Stocks - S&P 500) contained these high Value Score companies (DDS, S, NOV, MTW, SII, WFR, CHK) had returned 40% above the S&P 500 as of our 3-26-09 performance update and a recent check of that performance on 5-5-09 was even better, currently these companies have returned an astounding 64.5% above the return of the S&P 500 during the same time period (12-29-08 to 5-5-09).
In this exercise we used valuation independent of other key proprietary variables we use to identify good investment opportunities. Although valuation works well on a stand-alone basis, it works even better when used with AFG’s Economic Margin, Management Quality, and Earnings Quality variables.
Listed below are the top 10 companies in the S&P 500 (excluding Financials) based on AFG Value Score alone. These companies all look the most attractive from a valuation perspective relative to the rest of the index.

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.






Fidelity’s Low Priced Stock Fund, which launched in 1989 (18 Billion AUM) and is managed by Joel Tillinghast, follows a simple strategy… Only invest in stocks with a share price under $35. This strategy first started with Tillinghast only investing in stocks below $10 a share, but later he moved the limit up to $35 a share. He argues that share price alone is not important but that the small-cap universe contains the most frequently mispriced stocks and the least amount of analyst coverage.
Although his fund at best has been a market performer as of late, Tillinghast had taken advantage of such mispricing’s during the last 15 years, averaging an 11% annual return compared to the 6% return earned by the S&P 500 over the same period. The fund had been closed to investors since 2003, but was recently reopened in December. Fidelity says they reopened the fund to get more cash inflow to be able to take advantage of all of the investment opportunities they see in the market.
Below is a list of the top holdings in Fidelity’s Low Priced Stock Fund as well as stocks that AFG believes are attractively priced in three price brackets: under $10, $10 to $20, and $20 to $35. 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.







In life, the most attractive people are in shape and have good looks, just look at Hollywood. The same is true the majority of the time in investing. The most attractive stocks have healthy financial statements and look good from a valuation standpoint.
The Altman Z-score is 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. A common critique to this metric is that it was developed over 40 years ago and is no longer relevant.
In 2001, Professor Joseph D. Piotroski of The University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, published a paper called, Value Investing: The Use of Historical Financial Statement Information to Separate Winners from Losers. Piotroski showed that value investors were rewarded by looking at a firm’s financial health and he showed that Z-score was a meaningful statistic.
More recently, on December 5, 2008, Dr. Altman was called to testify before a House of Representatives Committee on the condition of U.S. Automakers. In his testimony, he noted that Bloomberg, Inc. reported, “that approximately 1,000 users of their system per day access the Altman Z-Score model.”
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
Using AFGView.com, we screened for firms that looked relatively attractive from a valuation perspective and had an Altman Z-Score above 2.99. Below is a list of those firms. Later we will look at firms that are expensive and have a Z-Score below 1.8.







In Joel Greenblatt’s 2006 book, The Little Blue Book that Beats the Market, he presented his “Magic Formula” used in his hedge fund, Gotham Capital. Mr Greenblatt tested his formula between 1988 and 2004. The results were incredible, with only one down year, the magic portfolio would have returned 30.8% a year, against a 12.4% annual return for the S&P 500.
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. He also recommends one year holding periods, so we thought this would be a great time to get this list out. 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. Below is a definition of each variable.
Variable 1: Return on Invested Capital = EBIT / (Net Working Capital + Net Fixed assets)
Variable 2: Earnings Yield = EBIT/EV
The table below shows the top 30 firms with their market implied sales growth expectations. Enjoy!







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.








Applied Finance Group’s (AFG’s) Value Score defined - 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.
These stocks all have an AFG Value Score above 95 which means these companies are in the top 5% in percentage upside relative to the universe based on AFG’s default target price. All of these companies also have lower sales growth numbers priced-in to justify the current stock price (VE Sales Growth) than what the company has achieved in the last 5 years (5 Year Median Sales Growth). Low expectations for sales growth compared to the actual sales growth achieved is a good sign the company can beat those expectations and will be more likely to out-perform. Low expectations coupled with attractive default AFG Valuation is a good starting point when looking for possible investment opportunities. Although these companies may not be able to achieve the same levels of sales growth they have experienced in the past 5 years, the expectations are so low that they do not have to return to those numbers to beat the very low expectations.







The timing and performance of the stock market had an important impact on the outcome of the election just as the outcome of the election has had an impact on these 20 stocks since the election-day.
Listed are 10 of the best and worst performing stocks in the S&P 500 (excluding financials) since the November 4th election and their 5 year implied sales growth that the company needs to earn to be fairly valued at the closing price on 12/1/08.
*LIZ has since been removed from the S&P 500
Biggest Winners Since The Election

Biggest Losers Since The Election

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






Value Expectations: Invesment Insights by The Applied Finance Group
Copyright 2010 | The Applied Finance Group | Contact US



