As Dividend Stocks Go, Philip Morris Is Expensive: Here Is a Cheaper Pick

Every portfolio should have a dividend stock at its core to provide a degree of diversification and stability.

The best dividend stocks are usually found within the consumer goods sector as the sector's defensive nature means that cash flows are predictable. A predictable cash flow creates the perfect environment to support a sustainable dividend payout.

Philip Morris (NYSE: PM  ) is the perfect dividend stock. The company is one of the most profitable in the world and offers an attractive 4.5% dividend yield.

However, is now the time to buy Philip Morris, or should you wait for a better price?

Only bad prices
The Godfather of value investing, Benjamin Graham, stated that there are no bad assets, only bad prices. Philip Morris is a good asset, there is no doubt about that, but how do we know if the company is trading at a bad price or a good one?

Well, for a start we can compare the company to its peers, for example, Altria, Reynolds American, and Lorillard, which trade at forward P/Es of 14.7, 16.5, and 16.6, respectively, in comparison to Philip Morris' forward P/E of 15.3.

This in itself is not enough as Philip Morris is an international tobacco company, therefore we should compare it to international peers, not domestic peers like those above. What's more, Lorillard and Reynolds are currently in the midst of merger talks, so they have skewed valuations.

An appropriate valuation
We could spend all day comparing Philip Morris to its peers using simple valuation metrics and not really get anywhere. However, there is one key metric that needs to be taken into account above the rest--the fact that Philip Morris is the single most profitable company in the world in terms of free cash flow as a percentage of revenue.

Specifically, Philip Morris converts 29.1% of its revenue to free cash flow, followed by Pfizer (NYSE: PFE  )  at 26.4%. British American comes in fourth, converting 24.6% of its revenue, and Imperial Tobacco comes in ninth. Altria, Reynolds and Lorillard do not feature in the top 20.

Furthermore, Philip Morris has hiked its dividend payout 104% since 2008 and has repurchased a total of 25.6% of its shares since 2008.

These are all impressive metrics and lead me to conclude that Philip Morris should not be valued on earnings or compared to its tobacco peer group, but instead compared on cash flow to other free cash flow behemoths.

So in comparison with free cash flow leaders Johnson and Johnson (NYSE: JNJ  ) as well as Pfizer, how does Philip Morris compare?

Philip Morris' free cash flow was $8.3 billion for 2013 and the company is currently worth $136 billion, or 16.4 times its annual free cash flow.

Pfizer's free cash flow was $16.3 billion for 2013 and the company is currently worth $189 billion, or 11.6 times its annual free cash flow.

Johnson and Johnson's free cash flow was $13.8 billion for 2013 and the company is currently worth $286 billion, or 20.7 times its annual free cash flow .

So then, in comparison with its free cash flow peers, Philip Morris looks to be trading at an average valuation.

Foolish summary
All in all, Philip Morris' defensive nature and attractive dividend yield make the company the perfect 'back bone' for any portfolio.

However, it would appear that at current levels, when taking into account the company's free cash flow, Philip Morris looks a bit expensive in comparison with peer Pfizer.

Although it only offers a dividend yield of 3.5% at present, 1% below that offered by Philip Morris, Pfizer looks more attractive on a valuation basis and capital growth could make up for the lack of dividend income.

 

Top dividend stocks for the next decade
The smartest investors know that dividend stocks simply crush their non-dividend paying counterparts over the long term. That's beyond dispute. They also know that a well-constructed dividend portfolio creates wealth steadily, while still allowing you to sleep like a baby. Knowing how valuable such a portfolio might be, our top analysts put together a report on a group of high-yielding stocks that should be in any income investor's portfolio. To see our free report on these stocks, just click here now.

 
 

Read/Post Comments (4) | 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 08, 2014, at 12:05 PM, andrewdouglas wrote:

    I have owned Philip Morris (US and International) for decades and made allot of money reinvesting a portion of the dividends. This article doesn't give me any pause. And Reynolds American and Lorillard merging...keep in mind the joke abut two dogs...

  • Report this Comment On June 08, 2014, at 1:10 PM, Ventureshadow wrote:

    There's an elephant in the room here. PM doesn't expend vast amounts of capital on research seeking approval of necessary new products to maintain earnings, but PFE must. This is risky, compounded by expiration of presently patented drugs. Another risk is PFE making costly acquisitions that are not accretive.

  • Report this Comment On June 08, 2014, at 2:51 PM, bigW wrote:

    I can't believe what I am reading - he tries to compare PM to PFE - "Philip Morris looks a bit expensive in comparison with peer Pfizer" These are two different stocks to two different industries, they WILL have different internal numbers. You can only make a comparison, like they are trying to do with companies in the same industry group. And capital gains are nice if you get them, but the dividend comes in quarterly and that is what people live on. He say "Pfizer looks more attractive on a valuation basis and capital growth could make up for the lack of dividend income." yes if it comes and PFE has not increased it's dividend as much as PM!! Both are good companies, but you can't compare them as he tries to do... Economics 101

  • Report this Comment On June 08, 2014, at 4:24 PM, kmugur wrote:

    Sorry to be so blunt, but this is a bad, bad, article. Bad analysis, bad conclusion, bad...everything. Other commenters above have explained why: compare peers, PFE and PM not peers; industry risks different; capital allocations for growth different; quality of earnings different; future outlooks different...and the list continues. Bad choice by Motley Fool to print this article. Sad part is I'm seeing more and more articles like this on the Motley Fool, makes me less and less inclined to read TMF.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2986201, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 9/16/2014 11:53:44 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...


Advertisement