RE: cll & 'value'23 Aug 2014 12:47
Thanks for the link. CLL has been stuck in a value trap since the beginning of the year, and it a classic patience case. I like Stockopedia and it's quantitive measures. One of it's main attributes is their focus on combining different strategies to help the private investors, not only choose good stocks but also assist with timing.
I like the value & quality combination. CLL has always been a 'quality' company, with good cash flow, increasing profits, earnings, low gearing etc. But I have found now that waiting for 'value' to be recognised, requires a lot of patience. CLL balance sheet is a little weak, and this is not reflected totally in Stockopedia's calculations, so no system is perfect thus, DYOR is still very important and to check the actual historic financial statements for accuracy.
Over the past 6 months CLL value metrics, now P/E 12 month rolling 11.3, PEG 0.88, amongst others has giving it a cheap value rating.
The article mentioned QPP and surprisingly for a couple months QPP fell into the Zulu principle, with a PEG rating of 0.026 (if i remember correctly). But Stockopedia's Zulu criteria doest go into Free cash Flow per Share, which is now one of Jim/Mark Slaters mandatory points. Also what the Telegraph article fails to mention is that QPP also falls for the 'Beneish M-Score Screen' for Short Selling!.
I like the article, and it promotes some of the benefits of Stockopedia. For farmer investors it is the best (IMHO) source for data gathering. But for 'hunter' investors like myself it is a great place to start before looking beyond the quantitive measures into outlook statements, positive news and media etc.
CLL is good value (90), good quality (91), questions about balance sheet, but free cash flow in excess of earrings, positive outlook etc.
QPP appears to be good value rank 91, very cheap PE, PEG etc, but poor quality according to Stockopedia at quality rank 22, despite high ROCE, ROE and Operating Margins. There is also the bad publicity and many questions about its business model that is not taken into account.
So going by Stockpedia's Value rank alone, without further research is a high risk (maybe contrarian) strategy.