The best value stocks in the world

By Associate Editor David Stevenson Feb 07, 2011

David Stevenson

Share with
friends:

Comments (8) Print this article

On Friday, at 1.30pm our time, global financial markets froze.

Why? Because it was time for the US Employment Report, also known as the 'non-farm' payrolls number. This shows how many new jobs have been created in the States in the previous month.

As I've noted before, stock traders always get very excited about it, because it's seen as showing where the US economy is heading. And that's key to markets everywhere.

But as so often happens when there's a manic focus on one individual stat, it rarely provides all the answers the market wants. So then much more time is then spent trying to decipher the numbers.

Yet while everyone's poring over the entrails of the jobs data, a far more important trend is being ignored. If you want to make money in the market, this one really is worth watching. Here's why…

Job figures can't help us much with our portfolios

The US non-farm payrolls report for January was confusing. Many fewer jobs were created than had been expected. But the country's overall jobless rate dropped from 9.4% to 9%. Cue many conflicting interpretations from both bulls and bears.

To be honest, I haven't spent too long trying to work it all out, for two reasons. First, these were just one month's figures, and distorted by bad weather at that. They're not a long-term trend. And second, non-farm payrolls get so heavily revised later on, we'll almost certainly find the real figures are very different to what's just been reported.

So frankly, the job figures can't tell us much that'll help us with our portfolios. However, there is something happening in the States that really does matter to investors.

US stocks are back in favour

Do you remember when we were told Chinese shares would take over the world? Or at least top the list of the biggest firms on the planet? It wasn't so long ago. Yet now it's all change. The US is top dog again.

In 2008, only eight of the 25 largest firms in the world were American. But with the Chinese market having a tough time lately, and US shares on a roll since March 2009, says Bloomberg data, 15 of the top 25 names are now from the States.

Why's this so important? Because in stock markets, money follows money. In recent years there's been huge global growth in index tracker-style funds (exchange-traded funds – ETFs – being one example).

The managers of these portfolios must match them against benchmark indices. So if the latter are now dominated by US stocks, much of the new cash coming into tracker funds must be applied to buying more of these shares. In turn, that's likely to push prices higher.

Now clearly, we're talking about liquidity-driven markets here. If equity fund cash inflows grind to a halt, all bets could be off. But for the moment, while there's plenty of money around, this is another reason why big US blue chips look relatively appealing.

In fact, it adds to an already strong case for such stocks. As we note in this week's MoneyWeek magazine cover story, developed markets may well fare better than their emerging cousins for the moment. And within mainstream markets, high quality large caps look the safest place to be. (I'll not repeat our case as subscribers can read the story here. If you're not already a subscriber, get your first three copies free here.)

Further, there's still good value to be found, as I noted last December. While the top US stocks have returned to the global pole position size-wise, within the blue chip ranks one sector has fallen "strikingly out of favour", according to fund manager John Hussman.

If this stock isn't worth buying, then what is?

'Consumer staple' companies, such as food and drink makers, are more stable businesses than most. So they've historically been given above average valuations by the market. Yet the sector has now fallen to its lowest relative book value compared with US cyclical stocks since Bloomberg started compiling the numbers in 1993. And there's a dedicated ETF – the Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR Fund (NYSE: XLP) – that invests across the range of US consumer staple companies.

Moving onto an individual stock – one particular US blue chip in a related area, and with a $170bn market cap, is still amazing value. Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) gets nearly two-thirds of revenues from healthcare products. It has a portfolio of household names. It also has a great track record. Earnings per share have grown for 26 years running, including at 11.5% a year over the last decade. The dividend has been hiked for 48 years in a row. As of end September 2010, there was no net debt – in fact J&J had $10bn of net cash.

Looking forward, net profits are set to rise by at least 6% a year until 2013. Yet this share sells on a forecast 2011 p/e of just 12.5. That's got to be good value. Even better, the prospective yield is 3.8%, which is expected to rise to 4% in 2012. For a US stock, that's a way above average return.

If J&J isn't worth buying, I don't know what is. And it's likely to be much more profitable than trying to work out those non-farm figures.

Update on French Connection

Finally, a quick update on French Connection (LSE: FCCN). This was just about our best performing Money Morning stock tip in 2010: A risky punt on the high street. And now we hear that pre-tax profits should be least £6.8m in the 12 months to 31 January.

This is well ahead of City forecasts, as well as previous hints from the company that last year's profits would be between £2.6m and £5.1m. What's more, it's a massive improvement on the previous year's £25m losses – so French Connection's restructuring plan has clearly turned the business around.

The market was euphoric, marking the shares up by 30% in two days. So they're now up by 180% on our tip price of just over a year ago. That's pricing in quite a lot of good news. While there could still be more upside as analysts upgrade their forecasts, this looks a good time for remaining holders to take advantage – and lock in a very juicy profit.

Our recommended article for today

The investments to buy this year - and those to avoid

Last year was a turbulent one for investors. With fears over everything from sovereign debt to commodity bubbles to China's economic growth, 2011 will be no less eventful. So where should you be investing now? MoneyWeek’s roundtable experts give their tips.

Comments (8)

Share with
friends:

Comments

  • 1. M Longley

    (07 February 2011, 12:17PM)  Complain about this comment

    I too am always surprised at the reaction to the US Employment Report, with commentators seemingly able to make totally contradictory statements with the figures. Because the figures are so often unrecognisable when revised, why not wait until complete figures are available before releasing the figures? Ok so there will be a month or two without figures being available, but since they are so inaccurate would this be a problem?

  • 2. Andy N

    (07 February 2011, 12:30PM)  Complain about this comment

    Hang on, last week's Money Week (4 Feb) says "sideways drift could last for a few years yet" for America's Dow Jones and S&P Index. "Stocks are still expensive... high consumer and government debt loads still need to be tackled. That will crimp growth over the next few years."

    And just two weeks ago, Money Week (28 Jan) warned "easy money buoys stocks", highlighting the recent rally in US stocks as "too much, too soon." Buying US equities when cyclically adjusted price/earnings ratio (CAPE) is at current levels delivers average real returns of only 1.4% per year, it said.

  • 3. WEDNESDAY_MAN

    (07 February 2011, 05:49PM)  Complain about this comment

    Are UK citizens and tax payers who invest in ETFs and equities listed on the US stock exchanges liable for US inheritance tax?
    I had heard that a major investment bank was warning its clients against investing in these for that reason.
    Moneyweek continues to recommend US stocks, yet when asked about any US tax implications, the editors told me that although they recognise that this would be of fundamental importance if true, they didn't really know if this was the case or not.

  • 4. WEDNESDAY_MAN

    (07 February 2011, 05:51PM)  Complain about this comment

    Are UK citizens and tax payers who invest in ETFs and equities listed on the US stock exchanges liable for US inheritance tax?
    I had heard that a major investment bank was warning its clients against investing in these for that reason.


  • 5. PJM

    (07 February 2011, 08:28PM)  Complain about this comment

    Andy M is a bit baffled (not surprisingly)....well Andy M, you shouldn't be a bit surprised as the conflicting advice received from MW is staggering. Seems to me that if you get enough contributors submitting diverse opinions,some of them have to be eventually right......of course MW will ultimately quote those contributors who will have been lucky enough to get it right....no mention of others who get it totally wrong. As for my own opinion the markets are just starting to form another bubble.....2011 might be ok but after that.....bang !!!!!!

  • 6. Dilip

    (08 February 2011, 12:05AM)  Complain about this comment

    Im largely in agreement with Wednesday_Man
    I have written time after time to Moneyweek and also written in the commentary section, but never have I been given any advice in this matyter.
    I repeat once again, why are tips given for US and European stocks and particular prominence given to their yields yet nothing is given on how much tax one would have to pay?
    Im not holding my breath for an answer though.

  • 7. SW

    (21 February 2011, 06:23PM)  Complain about this comment

    > Are UK citizens and tax payers who invest in ETFs and equities listed on the US stock exchanges liable for US inheritance tax

    USA and UK have tax agreements which prevent double-taxation i.e. to prevent you paying taxes on the same items in both countries.

    BTW USA Banks, E*Trade etc don't usually automatically deduct taxes from your profits/dividends etc.

  • 8. SW

    (21 February 2011, 06:27PM)  Complain about this comment

    > US and European stocks and particular prominence given to their yields yet nothing is given on how much tax one would have to pay

    ... maybe because you would pay the tax in the UK, and how much tax you pay depends on your personal tax band? ( which is something MW does not know, nor choose to guess at ).

Leave a comment

This will be the name displayed with your comment.

This helps us verify comments are genuine. It will not be displayed anywhere on the site and is stored confidentially.

Please keep your comment within 1,000 characters and relevant to the main topic. We encourage healthy debate, but we don't allow insults or bad language. Anything off topic or unpleasant, we'll remove. Enjoy the conversation! Thank you.

captcha To prevent spam-related comments please enter the characters shown in the 'Captcha' box to the left.

By leaving a comment you accept our terms and conditions.


FREE - MoneyWeek's daily investment emailJohn Stepek

Our free daily email, Money Morning, is an informative and enjoyable analysis of what's going on in the markets. Written by our Editor, John Stepek, and guest contributors.
Sign up FREE to Money Morning here.

>