Buffett should use Colgate - Top Stocks Blog - MSN Money
 
Search Top Stocks:

Buffett should use Colgate

Posted Aug 27 2009, 09:44 AM by John Reese
Rating:

Berkshire Hathaway recently filed its latest holdings statement with the SEC, and one major position Warren Buffett is keeping steady is consumer goods giant Procter & Gamble (PG).

Berkshire owned close to 100 million shares of P&G at the end of the second quarter, according to the filing, making it one of Buffett's biggest positions. In fact, the only companies that Berkshire (BRK.B) has greater stock stakes in, dollar-wise, are well-known Buffett favorites Coca-Cola (KO), Wells Fargo (WFC), and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNI).

P&G certainly has some of the qualities Buffett has typically looked for in his investments. For example, both the company and many of its products, including Pampers, Tide, Crest, and Bounty, have strong, recognizable brand names that give P&G an advantage over some peers.

But according to my Buffett-based "Guru Strategy" -- a computer model I've created that mimics the Oracle of Omaha's approach -- one of Procter's biggest rivals is looking significantly more "Buffett-like" than P&G right now. (And it's one whose toothpaste Buffett could probably use, given his well-known penchant for those sugary Cherry Cokes.)

The company: Colgate-Palmolive (CL), which I added to my Buffett-based Top Stocks Wall Street Survivor portfolio earlier this month. (My Validea.com Buffett quant portfolio is up over 38% this year.) Perhaps best known for the two products that bear its names -- Colgate toothpaste and Palmolive dishwashing soap -- C-P also makes a wide array of other oral care, personal care, home goods, and pet care products, many of which have the same strong brand recognition that P&G's products have.

Among its popular brands: Speed Stick deodorant, Softsoap, Irish Spring soap, AJAX, and Murphy Oil soap. The New York City-based firm, whose origins date back to 1806, today sells its products in more than 200 countries and territories, and has taken in almost $15 billion in sales over the past year. Its market cap is about $36 billion.

My Buffett-based model (based on the book "Buffettology," written by Buffett's former daughter-in-law Mary, who worked closely with him) sees a lot to like about Colgate-Palmolive -- in fact, it gives the stock a perfect 100% score, something only eight other stocks in the market can claim.

For starters, the Buffett approach looks for firms with lengthy histories of steadily increasing earnings. C-P has upped its earnings per share in nine of the past ten years, with the lone exception a minor 5% dip five years ago. That's plenty good enough to pass this first test.

Buffett is a very conservative investor, so the model I base on his approach also requires that a company have enough annual earnings that it could, if need be, pay off all its debts within five years. With $3.37 billion in debt and $2.05 billion in annual earnings, Colgate could pay off all its debt in less than two years, which this model considers exceptional.

Strong Management, Durable Advantage

Two qualities Buffett is known to look for in a company are strong management and a "durable competitive advantage" over its peers. And two measures he has used to measure both of those qualities are return on equity and return on total capital.

My Buffett-based model likes companies to have ten-year average ROE and ROTCs of at least 15%. Colgate doesn't just meet those standards -- it blows them away. Its 10-year average ROE is 46.3%, while its 10-year ROTC is 29.4%. Those figures indicate that management is doing a great job with shareholders' money.

Finally, while Buffett is a diehard buy-and-hold investor who shuns market timing, he nonetheless has used two methods to calculate how much he could expect a stock to rise over the next decade, according to Mary Buffett. "In most situations this would be an act of insanity," she writes in Buffettology. "However, as Warren has found, if the company is one of sufficient earning power and earns high rates of return on shareholders’ equity, created by some kind of consumer monopoly, chances are good that accurate long-term projections of earnings can be made.”

One of the two methods focuses on ROE, and the other on EPS. Using the ROE method, my Buffett-based model projects a 21.4% annual return over the next decade for Colgate-Palmolive; using the EPS method, it expects a lesser (though still solid) return of 11.7% per year. Averaging those two together gives us a final expected return of about 16.5% per year for the next ten years, which my Buffett-based model considers exceptional.

Exactly what kind of returns Colgate-Palmolive generates in the coming decade is unclear; I'd bet Buffett himself would admit that there's a lot of room for error in such predictions. What is clear, however, is that Colgate-Palmolive has a solid balance sheet, several extremely well known brand names, and strong management that has been doing an excellent job with shareholders' money for the past decade. So, while it may not be in Berkshire's portfolio right now, CL appears to be just the kind of stock that Buffett snatched up while building his reputation and fortune -- making it worthy of your attention.


Full disclosure: I own CL, PG, KO, and WFC

 
John Reese is founder and CEO of Validea.com, a premium investment research site, and Validea Capital Management, a separate account advisory firm. He is author of the new investing book, "The Guru Investor: How to Beat the Market Using History's Best Investment Strategies".






 
 

Comments

 

I live in P&G land (Cincinnati) and they are wobbling.  Colgate will follow.  These companies will certainly survive and plod along.  They will be held to mediocrity by their bloated management cost stuctures and the need to cannibalize their products with an ongoing cycle of cost saving productivity and price reductions to maintain market share.  They will keep the market share but the advertising expense and reduced revenue will keep them mired in place.  Even now P&G is working feverishly to beef up their lower level brands to compete with Walmart, Kroger and Big Lot house brands which sell for at least 33% less.

Don't listen to the stock pimps who push these stocks due to their personal ownership positions.  Sell the dogs.

Colgate is a good company, but it just made such a big move off its low...I think I would prefer P&G in here.  

-Dan Braem (Author - Building the Next Berkshire Hathaway).

Exploring these profitability parameters is all fine.  What this method ignores is whether or not the stock price already reflects the underlying value.  This stock has an unreasonably high level of debt, and all of the price/whatever ratios are very high.  Combine that with the high level of insider selling, and it's pretty obvious to me that the managers and directors are doing just fine, thank you for asking!  It's nowhere near as clear that the shareholders will share in that banquet.

I've never understood the adulation heaped on Buffet -- he started early in life with a lot, let it work for a long time, and often got lucky.  I think it important to remember this is the guy who missed the whole internet boom of the 90s because "he didn't understand it".  

Buffett's investing is driven by value alone.  He may be holding 100,000,000 shares of P&G stock, but so what.  To him that is largely irrelevant.  The most important thing to Buffett is the price he paid for those shares and knowing that he bought part of a good business that is sustainable and will grow over the long haul.  I guarantee you, Buffett doen't pay "full fair market price".  He accumulates shares over a long period of time buying when they're cheap (52 week lows when nobody was interested).  Read Benjamin's Graham's book 'The Intelligent Investor'.  It is straight forward, and explains in ordinary language why it is so difficult for the unlearned little guy to succeed in the market - because they pay to much for the stocks of bad businesses, they're not diversified enough, and they're impatient.

Y'all are missing the big picture.  Put down the Buffett porno and read a bit about sideways markets that follow bulls and secular bear markets.  Buy and hold is dead, dead, dead for the next 15 years and the Fed puts more nails in that coffin everday.  The coming commercial loan bailout, TALC, whatever, will be like putting high tensile steel around the coffin.  Dead.

Money can, and has been, made in the market since 2000 using tactical market timing.  Take a look at the ten year stock price history of another great Cincinnati company, Kroger.  P&G will still be in the mid-50's stock price range ten years from now and you guys will be eaten alive by taxes and higher (possibly hyper) inflation.  You don't have to change though as you will always have a job washing my car or those of my clients.

I hope PG is still in the mid 50s 10 years from now or even lower.   My re-invested dividends in my IRA will have purchased many more shares over the next 30 years when I need to tap my IRA.  At that time any movement upward  upward in the stock will leave me extremely well off.   PG is durable and will be around in 30 years as they have the past 100.   Take the long view here.  Never underestimate the power of triple compounding.

Read this past week's Barrons.  A 2K investment in McDonalds in 1976 is 4 mil now.    Nothing exciting about hamburgers or PG's products.  Just need consistent growing dividends.   good luck to all.    

Still no comprehension.  Go watch Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid, the part where the old sherrif buddy says "your days are over and all you can do is pick where you want to die."  So some of you will die in a pool of Tide wearing Pampers in your old age.

Them days is over.  Your 3% dividends (converted to stock at the same relative value) will be wiped out by the much higher future tax rates and the high inflation rates down the road.  You will wind up in the red working at a golf course because you need the beer money and have to get out of the house away from the nag saying "honey what did you do with all that money?"

Wake up, go talk to a fee-only RIA who is also a CFP with a background in economics AND who has made at least 5% more than the S&P500 since 1999.  We are waiting.  Or, you can schedule my tee time in 30 years.

I'll stick with my mutual funds.

The is a distinct difference between speculators (traders) and investors. You-Are-Hearing-But-Not-Listening is more the former rather than the latter.  Market timing may be fine for him, but the odds of long-term and repeatable success are not in his favor.  Hindsight is 20/20 but we don't live in the past, and the future is blind.  Buy and Hold is not only alive and well, but remains the only viable approach to investing that is appropriate for small investors.  Flash day trading and arbitrage is beyond the scope of small investors, because they cannot compete, so they shouldn't even attempt to try.  What a particular stock does in any given day, week or month is irrelevant to an investor.  If it does matter to him, he is not an investor but a speculator.  If one can find a diversified portfolio of stocks in good companies, with good prospects for the future, with a good dividend and at a cheap price (below the net asset value), then that portfolio will produce good results over a number of years.  This has been shown to be true throughout the history of markets.  Graham knew his stuff, but he also resigned himself to the fact that few listen.  Mutual funds are frought with almost as much peril as stocks, because so many fail to produce results significantly better than their benchmarks.  Instead, just buy an Index Fund in the benchmark, and you will do better and it will cost less.  

What a joke.  This poster Value is so closed off to new ideas he will go the way of the dodo bird - straight to extinction.

There is truly a distinct difference between speculators (traders) and investors.  And we are solid long-term (20 year) RIA fee-only investors with a proven track record of timing the BROAD markets successfully over those two decades.

Compare "Hindsight is 20/20 but we don't live in the past, and the future is blind."  VS "Buy and Hold is not only alive and well, but remains the only viable approach"  VS "with good prospects for the future, with a good dividend and at a cheap price (below the net asset value), then that portfolio will produce good results over a number of years."

Talk about speaking out of both sides of his mouth.  First you can't predict the future and then you can.  This guy will get slaughtered and remain at break-even over the next twenty years with the rest of the sheeple who refuse to study advanced portfolio principles, market history (Japan) and change accordingly.

The thought that "Mutual funds are frought with almost as much peril as stocks" is ptently false and absurd.  This guy will be making tee times for me at the golf course as he works his way through retirement and then leave this world as a dodo.

Send a Comment

Comments must be directly related to the blog entry. Comments with offensive language will be deleted. Your e-mail address won't be displayed.

(please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):