Skip to the content

Wall Street stocks

Vodafone and GlaxoSmithKline have never been cheaper

By Deborah Hyde | 09:54:06 | 10 June 2009

Use Citywire to pick funds, check share prices and monitor your investment portfolio.

GlaxoSmithKlineVodafone and many other defensive stocks are 'cheap, cheap, cheap', analysts say.

European equities have climbed 30-35% since March lows and defensives have unsurprisingly been left behind in the rally, underperforming by 10-20% since early-March. This means investors can pick them up at a rare discount, said Adrian Cattley, strategist at Citigroup.

'Defensives were on record high (“end of world”) ratings in late 2008/ early-09. That has been quickly priced out,' said Cattley.

'Many investors have also used defensives, especially large-caps, as a source of funds for the risk trade. As a result, defensive stocks and sectors have moved from looking expensive to cheap in three months,' he added.

He calculates the bear market re-rating of defensives relative to cyclicals saw them move from a 20% premium (based on a 12 month forward price over earnings valuation) to a 70% premium at the end of 2008 to a 20% discount now.

Cattley thinks defensives look cheap in absolute as well as relative terms even though the telecoms, healthcare, food & beverage, food retail and utilities sectors are all trading close to their 15-year lows based on price over earnings valuations.

He says those investors who have spurned the sectors in recent moths have failed to take into account the fact that earnings have remained stable and balance sheets are generally strong.

Many of these stocks also have significant exposure to superior growth from emerging markets and most have strong balance sheets so won't need to refinance, he adds.

1 | 2 | 3 |  Total pages: 3

Comments (5)

Martin Jachnik - salaries at top drugs firms

11:55 | 10 Jun 2009

Am I mistaken? wasn't a senior executive on $20 million a year at GSK?

I am reluctant to invest in companies where the shareholder has so little control over the board. O.K. so this salary situation is the same for many companies when will governments get a handle on these companies so that shareholders can control the boards?

john n - CREST

13:06 | 10 Jun 2009

The shareholder has been blamed for the banking scandals, but if the shareholder holds their shares via CREST they are not allowed to vote, and thus influence the way a company is run.

ITINERE (MCE: ITI.MC) had a shareholder meeting and if the shareholder voted in favor of the merger between SACYR VALLEHERMOSO (MCE: BSYV.MC) and EUROPISTAS to form Itinere. If you were present and voted in favor you would be granted a put option to sell the shares at above the take-over price. If you voted against you would not be given this put option. If you held your shares in a nominee account you would not have been invited to the meeting and thus would not have been allowed to vote loosing your right to obtaining the put option.

Of course in these circumstance the default option should have been "to vote for the merger" and the nominee account shareholder would have rightly been given the put option by Sacyr.

What has happen is discrimination against shareholders who hold their shares via nominee accounts and should be investigated by the European Commission

http://www.twitter.com/nichols1936

John Mathers - economical with the truth

15:47 | 10 Jun 2009

BATS and Unilever are not trading at below a P/E of 10 as far as I can see, either historic or prospective. That doesn't mean to say they are not at attractive prices, but I think he is gilding the lily.

cl

17:26 | 10 Jun 2009

I'm personally reluctant to listen to advice from a ..ahem....'strategist' whose very own employer was brought to its knees thanks to absolutely appalling decision making.

A N

10:07 | 11 Jun 2009

John - he didn't say they are all trading at or below P/E of 10, just that the average of the group was 10 - hence sopme will be higher than this and some lower.

Have your say here:

Protected by FormShield