Why the Cheapest Stocks in the S&P Aren't Necessarily Great Values

The S&P 500 (SNPINDEX: ^GSPC  ) has soared in the past four years, leading many to fear that the index is long overdue for a major correction. In times of trouble, value investors often look to stocks that trade at low valuations compared with their peers to provide a margin of safety from a potential downturn.

Yet judging stocks on a single valuation metric can lead to misleading conclusions that can prove costly. Today, let's take a look at some of the least expensive stocks in the S&P on a price-to-book value basis, with an eye toward understanding why book value might not be the best way to judge whether these stocks are truly cheap.

The cheapest stocks in the S&P
On a book-value basis, financial stocks have had low book values for a long time. Genworth Financial (NYSE: GNW  ) trades at just one-third of book value, while plenty of other insurance companies and banks offer price-to-book ratios of between 0.5 and 0.75. Yet during the financial crisis, investors learned just how inaccurate book values were. Massive writedowns of toxic assets proved necessary to reflect the actual value of those assets, and as a result, price-to-book ratios temporarily soared even as stock prices plunged.

The big question going forward is whether the assets on financial-company balance sheets are now properly valued. Genworth, for instance, still has potential mortgage-guarantee liability, and although the housing market has improved, Genworth's low price-to-book reflects skepticism that book value is appropriate for its assets.

Steeling yourself for further declines?
A similar argument exists for other low-price-to-book stocks, including Cliffs Natural (NYSE: CLF  ) , Alcoa (NYSE: AA  ) , and U.S. Steel (NYSE: X  ) . Each of these three companies has a highly capital-intensive business involved in processing raw materials and producing either ingredients for fabricated metal production or the metals themselves. When you look at their balance sheets, all of these companies have substantial amounts of assets locked up in plants and equipment, much of which hasn't been subject to depreciation yet.

Yet for these companies, the value of those plants might be far less than what they're carrying on the books. Cliffs and Alcoa have both had to idle some of their production facilities recently, while U.S. Steel has had some of its furnaces remain idle for years. Low price-to-book ratios reflect the belief among investors that those closures will persist for quite a while, making the true value of those production facilities far less than what the companies are carrying on their books.

Look beyond the book
Book value can be a useful metric, but it doesn't necessarily reflect economic reality. Only by understanding the challenges facing each company can you truly decide whether book value is reflecting of intrinsic value -- and therefore whether you should see stocks with low price-to-book ratios as actually being smart stock bargains.

Cliffs Natural Resources has grown from a domestic iron ore producer into an international player in both the iron ore and metallurgical coal markets. It has also underwhelmed investors lately, especially after its dramatic 76% dividend cut in February. However, several factors are likely to remain advantageous for Cliffs' management. For details on these advantages and more, click here now to check out The Motley Fool's premium research report on the company.


Read/Post Comments (2) | Recommend This Article (1)

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 June 16, 2013, at 3:57 PM, Mega wrote:

    Insurance companies are cheap now because of low ROE expectations, not toxic assets.

  • Report this Comment On June 17, 2013, at 12:31 PM, SisyphusRocks wrote:

    And there's also a flip side to the capital-intensive companies trading below book - they have built in capacity to grow quickly if the economy ramps up. Some would see that as akin to an option for more revenues (when the economy can support the sales above cost of goods) being held at the carrying cost of that capital.

Add your comment.

DocumentId: 2491827, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 7/24/2014 5:33:53 AM

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...


Advertisement