The Best Investment Values in a Decade

Recs

10

In The Science of Hitting, baseball Hall of Famer Ted Williams revealed his approach to being a great hitter. And when a guy with a lifetime batting average of .344 and 521 home runs wants to tell you his secrets, it pays to listen.

Williams' approach was amazingly simple:

  • Get a good ball to hit.
  • Proper thinking.
  • Be quick with the bat.

To determine what makes "a good ball," Williams dissected the location of various pitches to figure out which ones gave him the best opportunity to get a hit. For example, the best he could hope to hit with low and away pitches was a meager .230 -- while pitches straight down the middle gave him the chance to hit .400 (which he did in 1941).

Essentially, the pitches he chose to swing at could either send him down to the minors -- or vault him into the Hall of Fame.

And the same is true for you.

Get a good ball to hit
As investors, the difference between beating and lagging the market over the long run comes down to:

  • Finding great companies at great prices.
  • Doing your homework.
  • Making timely decisions.

In other words, swinging at the investments that are the most likely to bring you big returns.

It seems obvious. But all too often, we ignore this simple code and swing at overvalued stocks, reducing our chances of market-beating performance.

However, when the market is panicking, we're presented with better opportunities to hit home runs.

Proper thinking
Tom and David Gardner follow the same philosophy -- seek good companies at great prices -- and it has paid off.

From April 2002 to May 2003, for example, they picked 26 stocks for Motley Fool Stock Advisor subscribers. Fully 20 of them now have positive returns, even after recent market volatility, including big winners such as Marvel Entertainment -- up 760%.

All 20 were already great companies -- but the dreary bear market environment allowed Tom and David to swing at these fat pitches and pick up great businesses at great prices.

Making timely decisions
These days, we're presented with what Ron Muhlenkamp a few months ago called "the best investment values we've seen in a decade." Obviously, the market has since fallen further since he made this comment, but Muhlenkamp more recently responded by noting:

We've been saying for some time that we see good / great companies selling at cheap prices, only to see the prices get cheaper. If / as we see signs that [the Treasury's bailout plan] is working, we will be putting our cash to work in some of these companies.

In other words, we're getting better pitches to swing at than we were in previous years. Be ready to pounce on great values as the dust settles.

One of the screens that Muhlenkamp uses to determine value opportunities looks for companies generating return-on-equity figures above 15%, and price-to-earnings ratios below the market average (currently 17 times).

Here's a sample list:

Company

P/E Ratio

ROE

Waste Management (NYSE: WMI)

13.9

20%

Target (NYSE: TGT)

11.4

18%

Nike (NYSE: NKE)

13.5

24%

Kroger (NYSE: KR)

13.6

24%

General Dynamics (NYSE: GD)

9.8

21%

DuPont (NYSE: DD)

7.4

28%

TJX Companies (NYSE: TJX)

9.9

45%

Source: Capital IQ, a division of Standard & Poor's.

Using this measure, at least, we can see that there are plenty of good companies out there trading below the market's average P/E. That's reason enough for further research.

Foolish bottom line
We live in interesting market times. It can be a bit nerve-wracking to put money to work when others are pulling it out -- but those exact types of markets offer the best chance to build strong long-term gains.

If you'd like help finding great companies trading at great prices, a free 30-day trial to Stock Advisor is yours by clicking here. Tom and David have a pretty good track record in bad markets, to say the least. Since 2002, their picks have outperformed the market by 29 percentage points on average. There's no obligation to subscribe, so what do you have to lose?

This article was originally published on July 21, 2008. It has been updated.

Todd Wenning wishes he could have hit like Teddy Ballgame just one time. He does not own shares of any company mentioned. Waste Management is a Motley Fool Income Investor and Motley Fool Inside Value selection. The Fool's disclosure policy is legendary.

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On March 24, 2009, at 3:00 PM, 8k2u7FxK3QqlagX wrote:

    You show disdain for your readers by presenting such obviously cherry-picked and misleading statistics when describing the Gardners's stock-picking performance.

    As of 1/9/09 (and certainly on the original article date of 7/21/08), the market's 10-year low, about 60% down from the 10/97 highs, dated from 10/9/2002 - almost exactly midway through your chosen buy-in period.

    From 10/9/2002-1/9/2009 the Russell 2000 returned 53% (Even in spite of recent volatility!); thru 7/21/08 it was 113%. I don't know the exact average for the Russell during your buy-in period but I dont believe it exceeded 420. Using that figure, the market returns still are 20% through 1/9/09 and 66% through 7/21/08.

    As far as 20 out of 26 being above water 6-7 years out from a historic market bottom, I'm really not sure how impressive that is. In addition, the number doesn't tell you if the picks made money overall - how big were the gains and the losses? Did the picks achieve 20%-113%? Did it even make money? And also the 20:26 figure only tells me that in a market environment where bargain valuations abounded, approximately 23% of the picks could not even break even, let alone keep up with the market, or even inflation. At that rate, anyone choosing to invest in just three of the picks had a better than 50/50 chance of getting at least one real dog.

    As far as the *average* pick outperforming by 29 percentage points, well that is only meaningful if you are able to invest in every single recommendation *!*. It gives no indication as to the accuracy of the picks, - did the majority beat the market? If you can't buy every pick for your portfolio, the accuracy is more important. For example, at 26 picks over 14 months, there could be 150 recs since 4/1/02. Lets say 1 winner was HANS.(I know it was a Fool favorite). OK, HANS's return 4/1/02-1/9/09 is 5,940% versus R2000 return of approximately zero (-0.6%) for outperformance of 5940.6%. Now, you can have 149 *!* other recommendations that each *underperform* the market by 10.7% *!*. Well, the 150 picks have "outperformed the market by 29 percentage points on average", even though your chance of adding a winning pick to your portfolio is almost nil, when only .7% make money and 99.3% are losers.

  • Report this Comment On March 24, 2009, at 4:15 PM, 8k2u7FxK3QqlagX wrote:

    Sorry, I see that in starting my last paragraph above, I referred to "the *average* pick outperforming by 29 percentage points". This wording would imply that an "average" or representative pick would beat the market. This might best be represented by the median performance, that is that half the picks achieved better than the 29% outperformance, and half less. That would be meaningful to an investor judging the usefulness of the recommendations. In fact what was stated was the delicately phrased "their picks have outperformed the market by 29 percentage points on average". This is an example of what I mean by misleading, as the reader might easily assume that it means that any individual recommendation has a good chance of market-beating returns, when, in fact, my example shows that this may be very far from the case.

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

TD AMERITRADE
more info
ShareBuilder
more info
Power E*Trade

more info
Scottrade
more info
Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 806514, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 11/9/2009 4:46:08 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

The Must-Read Story on Fool.com
Health-Care Reform: A Tale of Two Chambers

Related Tickers

11/9/2009 4:00 PM
DD $34.61 Up +1.23 +3.68%
E.I. du Pont de Ne… CAPS Rating: ****
GD $67.31 Up +1.73 +2.64%
General Dynamics C… CAPS Rating: ****
TGT $50.45 Up +0.75 +1.51%
Target Corp CAPS Rating: ***
WMI $28.50 Down +0.00 +0.00%
Waste Management,… CAPS Rating: *****
KR $23.69 Up +0.42 +1.80%
The Kroger Co. CAPS Rating: ****
TJX $39.17 Up +0.96 +2.51%
The TJX Companies,… CAPS Rating: **
NKE $65.32 Up +0.76 +1.18%
Nike, Inc. CAPS Rating: ****

Community: Investing Wiki

Term Of The Hour

Moral hazard: Moral hazard is essentially a situation or risk that party has been dishonest in their business dealings.

Want to learn more or edit this definition?
Click here to read more!