Nov 4, 2009
Richard Beddard

Big name stocks for all seasons

Magic squared 

Things are looking up for the stockmarket according to Edmund Ng, an Analyst at Morgan Stanley. In a research note published the day before Halloween, he recommended investors buy shares in quality, stable, growth companies that typically perform well in bull markets.

During the panic culminating last March, investors abandoned companies with weak finances, and poor profitability, worried they might not survive the economic crisis. The really wretched, like Woolworths, didn’t. But with Armageddon averted, or delayed at least, the survivors looked really cheap and investors gobbled them up in a recovery dubbed ‘the dash for trash’.

So far this year, Ng says, ‘value factors’ (explained in this table, published a couple of weeks ago) have beaten ‘growth’ and ‘quality factors’ by 25%, but that spread is narrowing, implying the dash for trash, or as Ng more politely calls it, the “value driven rally”, might be nearing its end.  Also, he says, investors are favouring companies that are genuinely growing sales and profits, over those that are cost cutting.

It sounds like Ng thinks the market is entering the ‘Sweet summer of growth’ in Morgan Stanley’s model of the stockmarket cycle (click to enlarge):

That’s when companies that have grown profits and sales, and are expected to keep growing, do better than companies with low share prices in relation to the value of their earnings, sales, cash flow and assets. Psychologically it means investors are becoming more credulous, and less disciplined.

They’re prepared to pay more for shares because they believe they will do well, as opposed to paying less to ensure they get a good return regardless.

It sounds plausible, but whether the trend will continue is speculative. A quick glance at my own chart comparing the level of the stockmarket to average earnings shows it’s not particularly cheap, or expensive. In other words, the odds of a prolonged period of rising, falling or relatively stable prices looks pretty even to me.

UKLTPE

Ng isn’t abandoning value though, he suggests two strategies:

The first, ‘Morgan Stanley Reliable Growth’, sounds a bit dubious as the words ‘reliable’ and ‘growth’ rarely go together when applied to companies. Nevertheless, he says his basket of robust growers like BAE Systems, BAT, Vodafone, Sage, Reckitt Benckiser, Next and Rolls Royce, has beaten the market by an average of 12% in the last decade and it’s currently cheaper than it’s ever been compared to the market.

Twelve per cent sounds good, but shares in general have lost money over the last decade so his second strategy, which made money in the 17 of the last 19 years with an average total return of 13% a year sounds more interesting, particularly for investors who don’t have a strong conviction the market will rise from here.

Strategy two combines Joel Greenblatt’s Magic Formula and Joseph Piotroski’s F_Score. The Magic Formula looks for cheap shares (a high earnings yield) combined with high profitability (a high return on capital) to identify good companies at cheap prices. The F_Score is a measure of financial strength I’ve described before in detail. Ng’s screen requires an F_Score of five or more out of nine.

While it’s easy to test data and discover spurious strategies that appear to work, companies beginning with the letter ‘A’ might also beat the market, the justification for basing a strategy on Greenblatt and Piotroski’s work is compelling. Surely cheap, profitable, financially sound companies are likely to do well in future. Better them than expensive, unprofitable, indebted companies.

The UK companies selected by Ng’s ‘Combo’ strategy are:

  • United Business Media
  • Tui Travel
  • Burberry
  • Thomas Cook
  • Petrofac
  • AstraZeneca
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Smith and Nephew
  • Go-Ahead
  • BAE Systems
  • Smiths Group
  • Rentokil Initial
  • Intertek
  • FirstGroup
  • Misys
  • BHP Billiton
  • Cable&Wireless
  • BT
  • Centrica

He only screens the biggest, most heavily traded companies, so there are no small company bargains in this list, but in combining a value factor (the earnings yield in the Magic Formula) with a safety factor (the F_Score) it’s similar to my own Thrifty 30 screen.

I reckon Ng is right in his belief that his Combo strategy should make money in bull and bear markets.

Surely that’s the safest approach.

-

Thrifty 30 candidates

Here’s the latest Thrifty 30 screen. As usual, much of the data comes from Sharelockholmes.com. Judging by the numbers the companies at the top are cheapest, and healthiest.

As I said last week, I’m putting the notes explaining the column headings on a special page, but until then, they’re at the bottom of this post.

-

The twelve most significant factors

Talking of growth and value factors, CXO Advisory Blog has found a paper identifying the twelve most significant factors for predicting monthly returns.

Warren Buffett’s made “an all-in wager on the economic future of the United States”. His biggest acquisition ever is a railroad.

The best trades can be the ones not entered, moans Dividend Growth Investor, but nobody wants to hear about them.

5 Comments

  • Hi Richard,

    I have downloaded the BNSF annual reports to take a look at the long term data, to see if I can get some insight into how the great man thinks. On the face of it, the company looks completely fairly priced so I am amazed that he would buy it as it does not seem to fit into the bargains he usually loos for.

    I recently modified my own value filter to take account of long term growth. I mention it as it produced some interesting correlations with the F-Score and Greenblatt rankings. As you may recall, my filter is mainly looking for companies that are trading well below their long term PE and well below their long term EPS. However, the filter did not allow for underlying rapid growth. So, for example, one of your companies (GAME) did not feature in my original list. However, if you take account of the historical rate of growth then GAME suddenly looks extremely attractively priced right now.

    The interesting thing is that a lot of the companies at the top of my list also have a high F-Score and a low Greenblatt ranking (both of which are good).

    At the other end of the list the reverse tends to be true.

  • Hi Robin. To be honest, I think Buffett’s a bit of an anomoly in the value investing world in that he’s looking for big successful businesses and he’s willing to pay a fair price. It’s probably because of Berkshire Hathaway’s size. Most beaten up companies are pretty small in terms of market capitalisation (after all it’s the result of price times number of shares), and consequently irrelevant to Berkshire. He’s said if he only had $1m to invest, he’d do it very differently, which is why I’m surprised that private investors (usually with less than $1m) seem so keen to ape him.

    I remember you suggested the Greenblatt/Piotroski combo to me before I knew Morgan Stanley were doing the same thing!

    Regarding growth, I just think it’s not predictable in the long-term i.e. you can’t extrapolate past growth trends. Everybody thinks of the few companies that managed to put ten or twenty years of growth together and forgets the vast majority that don’t, so it’s a bad bet. However there’s no doubt long-term PE’s seriously undervalue those that do.

    I’m also more sceptical about applying the F_Score to growth stocks. It’ not a bad thing that a growth stock has a high F_Score but it’s also not too bad if it has a middling one! Technically speaking if it’s a genuine growth stock (i.e. it will go on increasing sales and profits in the future) you’d encourage it to take on more debt, or tap shareholders for money to as it would get a better return than the cost of the finance.

    So I guess I’m saying I’m sceptical about growth, but if I were anlaysing a growth stock I’d be wary of the fact that the predictive power of the F_Score diminishes as the valuation of the company increases. Piotroski invented it try and differentiate between stocks that would recover and stocks than wouldn’t. Clearly then increasing debt etc. are bad signs.

    Hope that makes sense. It don’t mean to criticise your work, which may well be valid, but give you some food for thought :-)

  • Here you go Robin, a good post on Why Buffett is different: http://www.barelkarsan.com/2009/11/buffett-vs-value-investing.html

    Not surprisingly, I agree with the last para!

  • [...] Morgan Stanley, Anthony Bolton thinks the time to switch from value to growth is [...]

  • [...] so, Morgan Stanley thinks the formula can be augmented by Piotroski’s F_Score, a measure of financial strength. In its tests on larger European [...]

Leave a comment

RB on Twitter

Archives