The most useful question after a sharp selloff is: how much has the investment case changed relative to the share price?

A business can keep growing while its shares fall because investors previously expected even more. A large decline can also reflect a lasting problem that deserves a lower valuation.

Both possibilities matter in this AI selloff.

Before getting to the three stock analyses, let’s examine where the damage is, why investors are nervous, and what would give me confidence to call a falling stock an opportunity.

The market is splitting in two

Broadcom is 35% below its 52-week high, Alphabet around 21% below, and Nvidia roughly 13% below.

Those are drawdowns from each company’s high. They show how differently the market has treated businesses associated with the same AI theme.

The size of the decline is a starting point. What matters next is whether future earnings and cash flow have deteriorated by enough to justify it.

The rotation chart adds another piece: technology and communication services have weakened while consumer staples, utilities and healthcare have risen.

That helps explain why the headline index can look relatively calm while individual portfolios feel considerably worse.

It also makes indiscriminate buying difficult. The market is reassessing which businesses deserve a premium, and investors seeking shelter can push defensive shares to demanding valuations too.

My approach is to compare the price with the business underneath it, wherever that business sits.

Inflation is still part of the story

Oil belongs in this discussion because it can affect both corporate profits and the interest-rate outlook.

A sustained rise raises costs for transport and other energy-intensive activities. It can also squeeze household spending as more income goes towards fuel and essentials.

Businesses differ in how easily they can pass those costs on. For a valuation, that means testing margins and demand alongside revenue growth.

The key question is how much pressure persists long enough to change the cash a company can generate.

The chart shows a substantial retreat in the implied chance of an October rate increase, from around 70% in September to below 10% at its latest observation.

That eases one immediate concern. A pause would still leave borrowing costs elevated, however, and future decisions would depend on inflation and economic activity.

I would therefore build a valuation that can withstand a less helpful interest-rate environment. A thesis that requires rapid monetary easing leaves little room for disappointment.

The chart pairs elevated Treasury yields with a lower forward earnings multiple for the Nasdaq 100. It illustrates one pressure on growth-stock valuations.

When investors can earn more from bonds, they may demand a higher prospective return from shares. Higher discount rates also reduce the present value of cash expected years into the future.

For an AI business whose investment case depends heavily on future growth, that can materially change what I am willing to pay.

Growth assumptions and the required return need to work together. Strong forecasts alone cannot settle the valuation.

The AI spending bill is becoming harder to ignore

A credit default swap provides protection against a borrower defaulting. Rising protection costs indicate greater concern in the credit market, although pricing also reflects liquidity and demand for hedges.

For shareholders, the useful question is how a company would finance its commitments if conditions became less favourable.

I want to understand its existing cash generation, debt maturities, borrowing needs and flexibility to adjust spending. Those factors help distinguish a manageable investment programme from one that could become painful for shareholders.

A profitable supplier and a heavily financed infrastructure operator can have very different exposures to the same spending cycle.

Meta provides a concrete example of why cash flow deserves attention.

In its latest quarter, operating cash flow was $32.79 billion. Capital expenditure, including finance-lease principal payments, was $34.91 billion, leaving reported free cash flow of negative $2.12 billion.

That is a substantial operating cash engine alongside an even larger investment bill. The chart’s spending bars exclude finance-lease principal payments; the free-cash-flow figure includes them.

The valuation question becomes how much cash that investment can produce later, and how much further spending will be needed. A convincing case should explain both.

Where lower prices could become interesting

The table puts information technology at roughly 19 times forward earnings, communication services at 17 times, and consumer staples at 23 times.

Its historical comparisons also show how far apart the sectors sit relative to their own past valuations.

That gives us areas worth investigating. Individual companies still require their own assessment: sector averages combine different business models, growth rates and risks, while earnings estimates can change.

A lower multiple becomes useful when the underlying earnings prove durable. That is why I want to examine what each company would earn under a slower-growth scenario before treating the apparent discount as attractive.

There is still substantial earnings growth in the picture.

FactSet’s 23 October update put blended S&P 500 earnings growth at 29.5%. “Blended” combines reported results with estimates for companies yet to report. Ten of eleven sectors showed year-on-year growth.

Among companies that had reported, 83% beat EPS estimates, but the aggregate beat was 2.1%, below recent historical averages.

Those figures support a more selective assessment. Corporate profits have continued growing, while the strength and sustainability of that growth vary considerably.

The task is to identify which expectations look achievable at today’s price, with enough room for a less favourable outcome.

This week will test the assumptions

The calendar brings those questions into focus, with Microsoft, Alphabet and Amazon among the companies reporting this week.

I will be looking for evidence of demand turning into revenue, the spending required to serve it, and the cash left over. Guidance on future investment will matter alongside the latest quarter’s results.

For suppliers, I want to understand customer concentration and how resilient orders would be if investment plans slowed. For the companies buying the infrastructure, I want evidence that the spending can generate attractive returns.

The same AI theme can produce very different investment outcomes.

How I’m approaching the opportunity

My assessment is that this selloff warrants fresh research into the strongest businesses at their lower prices.

I want three things to line up: a business that can fund its plans, growth assumptions that allow for disappointment, and a valuation that offers an attractive return under those assumptions.

That also means being willing to wait when a good company still requires too much optimism.

The next step is to apply those tests to individual stocks and show the working.

In the paid section, I’ll compare three stocks, explain my fair-value estimates and buy-below prices, and test the downside scenarios that could change the conclusions.

If you would like the full stock analysis, final ranking and valuations, upgrade to paid below. Thank you to everyone whose subscription supports this research.

Read more

Some of the market’s biggest stocks are being marked down sharply. Investors now have to decide how much of that decline reflects a weaker business and how much reflects a better purchase price.

That decision becomes harder when the market sends conflicting signals.

Parts of technology are deep in the red. Other sectors are climbing. The S&P 500’s headline return looks much stronger than the experience of many individual stocks.

Meanwhile, corporate earnings expectations remain high.

This week, I brought together 40 companies worth more than $10 billion that were trading within 15% of their 52-week lows. The list includes businesses across healthcare, software, consumer spending, industrials, property and financial services.

Below, I’ll explain the market backdrop, share the full candidate list and set out the tests I use to assess it. The detailed ranking, valuations and preferred entry prices follow in the Premium section.

Technology is selling off while other parts of the market rise

The latest weekly heatmap shows where the selling has been concentrated.

Nvidia fell approximately 7%, Broadcom 9% and Micron 15%.

Yet Walmart rose approximately 7%, Coca-Cola 7% and Berkshire Hathaway 3%.

These are very different outcomes inside the same market.

A technology-heavy portfolio can experience a much more severe decline than the broad index. An investor holding different businesses may barely recognise the same week.

For stock selection, the implication is straightforward: investigate what is happening to each company’s expected earnings and valuation. A red sector tile tells us where to look; it doesn’t establish what a business is worth.

The headline index is concealing a difficult year for many stocks

The year-to-date picture makes that distinction even clearer.

In this snapshot through 15 October, SPY was up 13%, while the median stock in the sample had gained 6%.

Of the 499 companies, 185 were down for the year. That is more than a third of the sample.

Index returns depend on the weights of the businesses inside them. Strong performance from large constituents can coexist with much weaker results elsewhere.

That helps explain why a rising index can still leave us with a substantial list of companies trading near their annual lows.

There is also an important distinction between the measurements: being down for the year, falling below a previous high and trading close to a 52-week low are three different things. The screen below uses the last of those.

October’s leadership has shifted

Between 30 September and 15 October, energy gained 8%, consumer staples 8%, utilities 6% and healthcare 5%. Technology fell 2%.

The rotation can be linked to higher rates, AI financing concerns and demanding revenue expectations.

For this research, that makes the balance sheet especially relevant. Two companies can both offer impressive growth forecasts while facing very different financing requirements.

I want to understand how much cash the business generates, what it needs to reinvest and how much debt it must support.

Earnings expectations remain strong

The earnings backdrop provides a useful counterweight to the selling.

The chart shows approximately 29% expected year-on-year S&P 500 earnings growth for Q3, with positive growth forecast for 10 of the 11 sectors.

Those figures include expectations that still need to be delivered. Strong aggregate growth also tells us little about the appropriate valuation for any one company.

I use the earnings backdrop as context, then test the forecasts behind each investment case. If the apparent discount depends on ambitious future profits, the downside scenario deserves particular attention.

What I take from this before buying anything

The market is giving us reasons to investigate, alongside reasons to be selective.

The useful response is to compare business performance with the change in price. I want to know whether the company can still generate the cash I originally expected, how much uncertainty sits inside that forecast and what return today’s price could offer.

That is why I’m looking across different sectors. The opportunity could emerge from a familiar growth business, an established dividend payer or a company whose recent problems have pushed expectations too low.

The valuation work has to decide which.

40 stocks trading near their 52-week lows

For this list, I used two simple entry requirements:

• Market capitalisation above $10 billion.

• A share price no more than 15% above its 52-week low.

Thirty-eight companies met those requirements in the company screen. I added Uber and Copart from my broader watchlist after checking that they met the same criteria.

This gives us a defined research universe containing both dividend-paying and non-dividend businesses.

The table is ordered by distance above the 52-week low. The closest stock to its low is not automatically the best investment.

Save this list as a starting point for research. Inclusion tells us that a company meets the size and price-range requirements; the investment case still needs examining.

A large share-price decline can leave a surprisingly small valuation discount

Nike illustrates why the next step matters.

In this screen, Nike is 47% below its 52-week high. That is a substantial decline.

Yet the P/E measure is 28 times, against a five-year average of 29 times, a discount of only about 4%.

That observation alone doesn’t settle the investment case. It does show why the distance from an old share-price peak can give a very different impression from the earnings multiple.

A falling price needs to be assessed alongside the profits and cash flows investors can reasonably expect.

The five questions behind my shortlist

Would I want to own the business for the next five to ten years?

I look for a competitive position I can understand, attractive economics and a credible reason customers will keep choosing the company. A low multiple offers limited protection if the business keeps weakening.

What explains the fall?

A temporary disruption, a period of slower growth and a lasting loss of competitiveness require different assumptions. I want to identify the problem before deciding how much of a recovery to include.

What cash flow can shareholders reasonably expect?

The starting figure, forecast period and reinvestment requirements all matter. I test slower growth and examine whether reported cash generation gives a fair picture of the economics available to shareholders.

How much financial risk sits alongside that forecast?

Debt, interest costs and refinancing needs can reduce flexibility. I assess those obligations in the context of the business model and the consistency of its cash generation.

What price leaves enough room for the analysis to be wrong?

I use a fair-value range and a preferred entry price. Then I compare the opportunities on both valuation and business risk. The stock with the largest modelled upside may still require assumptions I’m less comfortable making.

My ranking, valuations and the prices I would pay

The shortlist needs to answer a practical question: where would I prioritise fresh money, and at what price?

For Premium members, the full analysis brings together:

• My final ranking and the opportunities I would prioritise.

• The business case and reason for the selloff behind each finalist.

• Valuation assumptions and downside scenarios, including what changes when growth disappoints or the required return increases.

• My fair-value ranges and preferred entry prices.

• The main risk and next evidence to watch for each investment case.

The comparison is designed to make the decision easier to assess: the opportunity, the assumptions supporting it and the price that would make it attractive to me.

Read more

Four years ago today, the S&P 500 reached the low that became the starting point for this bull market.

Since then, the index has more than doubled. Investors who waited for inflation, interest rates, geopolitics and recession fears to stop being concerns have watched the market advance through all of them.

Yet that headline return tells us surprisingly little about the price of an individual business today. American Express has fallen around 20% from its 52-week high. Two other quality businesses on my Q4 shortlist have also suffered substantial declines, despite retaining attractive operating characteristics.

Those declines deserve investigation. They also raise a difficult question: are investors getting a better price on durable earnings, or are the earnings themselves becoming less dependable?

This week, I worked through three quality businesses to answer that question. I start with the market backdrop and a free look at American Express. Premium readers then receive the other two names, my complete ranking, the valuations and the prices at which I would consider putting fresh money to work.

The differences between their investment cases matter. One has a substantial valuation cushion even when I raise the discount rate. Another looks much more attractive if ambitious cash-flow forecasts arrive on schedule. The third sits between a strong business record and a less decisive valuation discount.

Four years of gains, with plenty to worry about

Stocks have advanced through banking stress, the yen carry-trade unwind, trade shocks and geopolitical uncertainty.

The recovery since October 2022 has repeatedly forced investors to reconsider what the economy could withstand. Higher borrowing costs weighed on housing and other rate-sensitive activities, but weakness in those areas did not prevent profitable businesses elsewhere from growing.

That is a useful lesson for Q4. Buying only when the news becomes reassuring can mean paying a considerably higher price. Equally, owning a business merely because it survived the previous shock says little about the return available from today’s valuation.

The age of the rally gives us context, rather than a timetable. Previous bull markets have lasted both substantially less and substantially more than four years. There is no expiry date that tells us when to sell, and no historical average that guarantees another year of gains.

What matters now is whether company profits can support the prices investors are paying.

Earnings are carrying more of the load

This chart compares index prices with next-12-month earnings expectations and the forward P/E multiple. Forward earnings are estimates, rather than profits already delivered.

This chart helps explain what has supported the rally. Earnings expectations have risen considerably since the 2022 low. More recently, the index has continued advancing while its forward valuation multiple has come down from earlier peaks.

That provides a stronger foundation than a rally driven entirely by investors paying more for the same earnings. It also creates a new responsibility for anyone buying: the earnings forecasts must be credible.

A falling forward P/E can reflect a lower share price, higher projected earnings, or a combination of both. If analysts raise their forecasts sharply, a stock can suddenly appear inexpensive before the underlying company has earned the money.

One company in this week’s shortlist makes this distinction particularly relevant. Its growth is impressive, but the valuation changes substantially depending on which future earnings period we use. I will show that difference in the company analysis.

The index is concealing very different outcomes

Through 7 October, this snapshot shows the cap-weighted S&P 500 up approximately 14%, versus 9.9% for the equal-weight version. Both figures are price returns.

The equal-weight index is still positive. That matters: weaker relative performance should not be confused with the average company collapsing.

However, the gap shows why we need to look beneath the headline. Large companies exert much more influence on the conventional S&P 500, so strength in a relatively small group can offset considerably weaker performance elsewhere.

S&P 500 Concentration — Top 10 Companies Account for 40% of the Index

The ten largest companies account for approximately 40% of the index.

Concentration can be supported by exceptional businesses producing exceptional profits. It also means an index investor’s results are increasingly sensitive to whether those leaders meet expectations.

For individual-stock research, this creates opportunities and traps. A neglected company may offer a better prospective return than a market favourite. A company falling behind may also have a deteriorating business model that deserves a lower valuation.

The practical response is to examine growth, profitability and price together. I want evidence that the business remains attractive and that enough uncertainty has been reflected in the entry price.

Higher rates make the valuation hurdle more demanding

Long-term borrowing costs remain elevated compared with much of the 2010s.

Interest rates affect both business performance and valuation. Consumers face more expensive borrowing. Companies pay more to refinance debt. Investors have a stronger alternative to accepting equity risk for a modest potential return.

The latest available Federal Reserve data put the 10-year Treasury yield above 5%. That does not automatically rule out buying stocks. It does mean that the return we require from uncertain future cash flows needs careful thought.

The effect is particularly large in a DCF model, where a substantial portion of value may come from cash generated many years from now. Increasing the discount rate by a percentage point can change the result far more than a small adjustment to next quarter’s revenue.

For one company in the shortlist, I increased the model’s discount rate to 9%. For another, I tested an 8% case against 9% and 10% alternatives. Those comparisons help distinguish an attractive business from an attractive investment at a particular required return.

A market near highs can still contain meaningful drawdowns

This heatmap measures distance below each company's own 52-week high.

The contrast is clear. Some large companies remain close to their highs, while others have lost a fifth, a quarter or more of their value.

I use that information to decide where to investigate. A drawdown alone cannot tell me what a stock is worth. The previous peak might itself have been too expensive, and a lower price can be justified by lower future earnings.

My checklist for these three businesses is therefore straightforward: understand why the discount exists, assess the earnings and cash flows behind the valuation, and test what happens if the optimistic assumptions fail.

That leads naturally to American Express.

A first look at American Express

Amex is interesting because its customer relationships extend beyond processing a transaction. It earns merchant revenue, card fees and lending income, while spending heavily on rewards and benefits that help attract and retain customers.

The latest published quarter shows continued momentum: revenue net of interest expense grew 10%, cardmember spending grew 9%, and EPS increased 11%. Management’s 2026 EPS guidance remains $17.30–$17.90.

The customer proposition also appears to be supporting a higher fee base.

That increase reflects pricing and the mix of cards customers hold. It is encouraging, but the net economics matter: higher fees need to exceed the additional costs of benefits, rewards and servicing those relationships.

There is a valuation distinction worth keeping in mind. The Simply Safe Dividends snapshot puts Amex at 16.6 times forward earnings, versus a five-year average of 17.7. That is a modest discount, even though the share-price decline looks substantial.

This is where the research becomes more valuable. How much growth is reasonable to expect? How much credit risk should we allow for? And what price leaves enough room for disappointment?

My ranking and the prices I would pay

American Express is not my top-ranked opportunity this week.

One of the other businesses is already below my preferred entry price, and its model retains a meaningful valuation cushion when I raise the discount rate to 10%. The other has exceptional growth, but its apparent discount changes dramatically when I demand a higher return.

Below, Premium readers receive:

• The other two stocks and my final ranking of all three.

• The valuations, growth assumptions and sensitivity tests behind each case.

• My preferred entry prices and which opportunity I would prioritise now.

• The business risks and upcoming evidence that could change my view.

If you are deciding where to put fresh money, upgrade to read the complete comparison and action plan.

Read more

A familiar business. A very different price.

McDonald’s has become the kind of stock investors often say they want until the opportunity arrives with uncomfortable headlines attached.

The shares have sold off. The dividend yield has risen. The earnings multiple has fallen well below its recent average.

Yet the business is still generating substantial profits and cash flow.

That creates a useful question: is the market giving us a better price for a durable business, or adjusting to a weaker future?

This chart captures the tension. Trailing earnings have generally moved higher, while investors are paying much less for those earnings.

But a lower multiple only becomes an opportunity if the future earnings behind it remain credible.

I’m going to work through the selloff, the franchise model, the dividend and the valuation, then finish with the price at which I would be more comfortable buying.

This entire analysis, including the valuation and buy-price conclusion is free. Join 17,000+ readers for more research on dividend stocks, quality businesses and valuation.

Subscribe now

Why a strong market can still leave dividend investors frustrated

An index can perform well while individual stocks struggle. The market map below shows the gap between areas attracting capital and companies facing more difficult conditions.

For a dividend investor, the temptation is to look at the neglected stocks and assume capital will eventually rotate back.

Sometimes it does. But neglect alone is insufficient: a company needs earnings, cash flow and a sensible purchase price to reward that patience.

McDonald’s also faces a consumer spending problem. A familiar brand and convenient locations help, but customers can reduce visits, choose a cheaper order or spend elsewhere. A business can retain its competitive advantages while delivering disappointing growth.

The longer-term return chart makes the cost of paying too much more tangible.

These are total returns, including dividends. Over this particular five-year window, McDonald’s has substantially lagged both benchmarks.

That does not predict the next five years. It does challenge the idea that buying a famous dividend stock automatically produces a good investment result.

The business you buy matters. So does the valuation you pay.

What shareholders actually own

McDonald’s is primarily a franchisor. Approximately 95% of its restaurants were franchised at the end of June 2026. Its revenue includes franchise fees, rent and royalties, alongside sales from the restaurants it operates itself.

This distinction matters. Franchisees carry much of the day-to-day restaurant responsibility, while McDonald’s benefits from the brand, operating system and recurring franchise income.

Revenue has not followed a smooth upward line. Operating income tells a more encouraging long-term story.

The franchise structure helps explain why. Moving a restaurant from company ownership to a franchise arrangement can reduce reported revenue while improving the economics of the income McDonald’s retains. Company revenue and total restaurant sales are different measures.

It would therefore be a mistake to judge this business solely by the revenue bars.

The data shows a highly profitable business. An operating margin near 46% is a meaningful strength, and cash generation remains substantial.

These are corporate margins. They are not the margins earned by a typical franchisee selling burgers and paying restaurant wages.

That distinction becomes particularly important when we examine the new investment plan: a profitable parent company still needs financially healthy restaurants beneath it.

The problem: higher sales do not necessarily mean more customers

The clearest operating concern is the slowdown in comparable sales.

In the second quarter, global comparable sales grew 1.3%, while U.S. comparable sales grew just 0.8%. Adjusted earnings per share increased 6% to $3.38.

Those results show why both sides of the debate have something to work with. Earnings are growing, but restaurant sales momentum is weak.

The U.S. sales increase was supported by average spending per transaction, while comparable guest counts declined. In plain English, sales can rise slightly even when fewer transactions take place.

I want to see customers returning more often, rather than relying mainly on price and product mix to support growth.

McDonald’s appointed Skye Anderson to lead its U.S. business in August. The company’s own commentary acknowledged the need to improve execution in its largest market.

A leadership change can help. The evidence that matters will be better service, stronger customer value and improving traffic not the announcement itself.

Wall Street has also been reducing expectations.

KeyBanc lowered its target from $305 to $280 while retaining an Overweight rating. Its revised outlook incorporated softer U.S. trends.

Guggenheim lowered its target from $290 to $250 and retained a Neutral rating, citing softer U.S. same-store sales, slowing unit growth and reinvestment.

A target above the share price can look reassuring. But when that target is falling, the more important question is whether earnings expectations will stabilise.

A falling share price can improve value. Falling forecasts can offset that improvement.

Know someone looking at McDonald’s because the yield has risen? Share this analysis so they can assess the operating risks alongside the dividend.

Share

The $8.5 billion plan: what shareholders need to understand

McDonald’s has outlined approximately $8.5 billion of NEXT partnering support through 2036, including approximately $5 billion through 2030. This combines rent relief and capital support for franchisees.

The time period matters. This is a multi-year commitment, and the full amount should not be treated as an immediate one-year cash expense.

The form of support matters too. Capital support and rent relief affect the business differently. Investors should assess the resulting revenue, spending and cash flow rather than subtracting the headline amount from one year’s earnings.

Management is targeting approximately 250 basis points of gross restaurant-level efficiency gains, equivalent to roughly $100,000 in annual cash-flow benefits for an average U.S. restaurant. It also targets corporate operating margins in the low-to-mid 50% range by 2030.

These are management objectives, not achieved results.

My interpretation is that McDonald’s is investing to protect and improve the economics of its restaurant system. If the improvements bring customers back and make restaurants more productive, shareholders can benefit from a healthier franchise base.

The risk is that the support arrives before the benefits and the benefits take longer, or prove smaller, than expected.

This is why the franchise model does not make McDonald’s immune to consumer weakness. Rent and royalties ultimately depend on a functioning, profitable restaurant network.

Expansion helps, but existing restaurants still need to improve

The global footprint has continued to expand. More locations can support systemwide growth even when sales at existing restaurants are sluggish.

But opening restaurants and improving existing restaurants are separate tests. I want expansion to add attractive returns, while the established network becomes more productive.

The company has scale, brand recognition and an enormous installed restaurant base. Those advantages give it tools to respond. They do not remove the need to execute.

Changing eating habits deserve attention

Changing preferences around protein, portion sizes and eating occasions create another challenge for the menu.

I would avoid treating the GLP-1 debate as proof that McDonald’s is permanently impaired. The reporting highlights both potential demand changes and the company’s efforts to adapt.

For shareholders, the useful questions are practical: will customers still visit, what will they order, and can those orders generate attractive restaurant profits?

New products only help the investment case if they translate into repeat demand and cash flow. Headlines about innovation are not enough.

The business still has considerable strengths

The selloff should not obscure the evidence of a durable business.

The return-on-invested-capital remains around 18%. That supports the view that McDonald’s can earn attractive returns on the capital deployed in the business.

The question is whether the next round of investment can preserve those economics. High past returns are useful evidence, but new spending must earn its place.

Shareholders have also benefited from a declining share count.

The chart shows shares outstanding falling by approximately 17% from 2016 to the latest trailing period.

That increases each remaining share’s claim on the business, all else equal. It can also help earnings per share grow faster than total earnings.

However, buybacks compete with other uses of cash. With franchise investment, dividends and debt obligations to consider, repurchases should remain disciplined.

I would rather see McDonald’s fund worthwhile investment than stretch its finances to maintain a buyback pace.

The dividend: a better starting yield, slower recent growth

McDonald’s declared a new quarterly dividend of $1.93 in September, equivalent to $7.72 annually. The increase marked its 50th consecutive year of dividend increases.

At the $231 price used in my valuation, that annualised payment implies a yield of approximately 3.34%.

That is a more appealing income starting point than investors received when the shares traded at a much higher valuation.

The latest increase was approximately 3.8% before rounding, below the five- and ten-year averages.

The long record is impressive. The recent pace is a reminder to separate dividend history from future dividend growth.

My income case does not require a return to 7%–8% dividend increases immediately. It does require the payment to remain supported by cash generation while the business reinvests.

Is the dividend covered?

The estimates put the earnings payout ratio near 59%, with a trailing free-cash-flow payout ratio around 67% and a forward estimate around 71%.

That means the dividend is covered in these figures, but it uses a substantial portion of available cash.

A 71% payout leaves approximately 29% of free cash flow for other shareholder distributions and balance-sheet needs. Free cash flow is already calculated after capital expenditure, so ordinary capex should not be deducted a second time in that calculation.

The real issue is how future investment and rent support affect the cash flow available in subsequent years.

My reading: the data supports dividend coverage today, while leaving less room for disappointment than the company’s reputation might suggest.

The balance sheet also matters

The leverage figures are below the more stressed levels shown earlier in the chart. That is encouraging.

But roughly three times net debt to EBITDA still represents meaningful leverage. I would assess it alongside debt costs, cash generation and the investment programme.

A dividend can be covered without every additional use of cash being equally comfortable. That is another reason to expect management to balance dividend growth, investment and buybacks carefully.

The cash-flow forecast is the bridge between quality and value

This chart contains an important caution.

Adjusted earnings per share are expected to rise from roughly $12.60 to $13.20, while free cash flow per share is estimated to edge down from roughly $10.90 to $10.80.

These are estimates from the research snapshot. The adjusted earnings series also differs from the trailing GAAP earnings shown in the earlier chart.

The takeaway is that earnings growth does not automatically produce immediate cash-flow growth. Investment, working capital and other factors can create a gap.

For a dividend investor, I want to see the cash-flow improvement eventually arrive. It is cash that supports the distribution and the company’s capacity to keep investing.

This is also why I compare stocks across valuation, business quality and risk. Paid members receive my Ranked Opportunity Dashboard, Fair Value Tracker and DCF research to help judge where opportunities like McDonald’s sit against other companies.

The McDonald’s valuation and my buy-price conclusion continue below, completely free.

What does the current valuation offer?

On these figures, the forward earnings multiple is approximately 27% below its five-year average. The dividend yield is substantially above its own historical average.

That is a meaningful change in the price investors pay for the business.

However, the historical average is a reference point, not a destination the market owes us. Slower growth, greater investment requirements or a higher required return could justify a lower multiple for longer.

The stock does not need to recover to 24× earnings to work. But a sensible investment case should remain credible without relying entirely on that recovery.

At $231, those estimates imply approximately 17.9× 2026 earnings and 16.8× 2027 earnings. The table’s slightly different displayed multiples reflect its own share-price snapshot.

Different services can also use different forward periods. A next-12-month P/E and a calendar-2027 P/E are not directly interchangeable.

As a rough illustration:

• Applying 18× to the $13.79 estimate gives approximately $248.

• Applying 20× gives approximately $276.

These are scenarios built on an earnings forecast, not promised future prices. If the forecast falls, the same multiple produces a lower value.

My DCF: $248.19, with important assumptions

The model uses:

• A first forecast-year cash-flow anchor of $8.1 billion.

• 8% annual growth after that first forecast year, over the remaining explicit forecast period.

• An 8% discount rate.

• 3% perpetual growth.

• The cash, debt and share-count adjustments shown in the spreadsheet.

Those inputs reproduce the model’s $248.19 per-share output.

Against $231, that represents approximately 7.4% price upside, or a 6.9% discount to the model value. Those percentages use different denominators; they are not interchangeable.

The 8% cash-flow growth assumption also deserves scrutiny. The model projects meaningful improvement over a decade, while the near-term cash-flow-per-share estimate shown above is relatively flat.

That is possible if investment and operating improvements deliver. It is an assumption to test, rather than something already established by recent results.

The reverse DCF shown in the sheet is approximately 7.2%. Under the same model structure, that is the growth assumption consistent with the $231 price.

Compared with the model’s 8% growth case, the difference is fairly small.

What if I demand a higher return?

Holding the displayed cash-flow forecast, terminal growth and balance-sheet adjustments unchanged, the model produces approximately:

This is sensitivity analysis of the model, not a separate forecast or an assertion that the shares will reach those prices.

It shows why I would not describe $248 as a universal fair value. A higher required return changes the conclusion substantially.

At a 10% discount rate, this particular model does not support a $231 purchase. An investor using that hurdle would need a lower price or a different, defensible cash-flow case.

Why my combined valuation is higher

My summary contains three different valuation approaches:

At $231, the average implies approximately 28% price upside and a 21.9% discount to that blended estimate.

The blend is useful for comparison, but it does not eliminate the uncertainty in its components. Each approach depends on assumptions about growth, required returns or the valuation investors will assign.

In particular, a higher multiple-based estimate should not overwhelm the more restrained cash-flow result.

For my entry decision, I would give greater weight to the lower cash-flow estimate and the operating risks than to the headline blended figure.

That is why I would not treat the spreadsheet’s $295.68 “acceptable buy price” field as a standalone instruction to buy anywhere below that price.

Wall Street sees upside - but the range is wide

The analyst snapshot has an average target of approximately $294, broadly close to the blended valuation. The accompanying range runs from $230 to $390.

That spread is more useful than pretending the average is precise. It shows that analysts disagree substantially about the outcome.

Targets can also move as forecasts change, as the recent cuts demonstrate. I use them as context rather than as the foundation of the investment case.

My buy price - and what would change my mind

My preferred entry is around $225 or below.

That is a rounded decision threshold, rather than another model-derived fair value. It puts the price approximately 9% below the $248.19 displayed DCF output and implies a starting yield around 3.43% on the new annualised dividend.

It also corresponds to approximately 17.0× the $13.20 next-12-month adjusted EPS estimate, or 16.3× the $13.79 calendar-2027 estimate.

Neither earnings forecast is guaranteed. But that combination gives me a more attractive starting point for a business working through slower traffic and higher investment demands.

Here is how I would frame the levels:

These levels follow the lower-return DCF case and the earnings/income cross-checks. They do not make the shares cheap under every discount-rate assumption.

I would also avoid treating a lower share price as automatically better news. If earnings and cash-flow expectations deteriorate meaningfully, I would reassess the valuation before adding.

The signals I would watch are:

• U.S. customer traffic: are transactions stabilising, rather than sales growth depending mainly on spending per visit?

• Franchise investment returns: are improvements producing better restaurant economics?

• Cash flow: does it begin supporting the growth built into the longer-term model?

• Capital allocation: can McDonald’s fund investment and the dividend while keeping leverage under control?

My conclusion is that McDonald’s has become more interesting after the selloff. The franchise model, profitability and dividend record remain meaningful strengths.

At the same time, the weaker traffic, slowing dividend growth and investment requirements give investors good reasons to demand a better entry price.

I see a credible long-term dividend opportunity, with $225 or below my preferred buy level. I would size an initial position cautiously and let operating progress determine whether the thesis deserves more capital.

Where McDonald’s fits in the wider opportunity set

This article gives you my complete McDonald’s analysis for free: the strengths, the risks, the valuation assumptions and the entry price.

The next question is whether it offers better value than the other companies competing for your investment capital.

That is what my paid research is designed to help you assess. Members receive the Ranked Opportunity Dashboard, Fair Value Tracker and DCF research, bringing valuation, business quality and risk together across a wider range of stocks.

If you want to compare McDonald’s with the other opportunities I’m tracking, become a paid member.

Prefer to stay free? Subscribe for future stock research and valuation analysis delivered to your inbox.

Subscribe now

Would you consider McDonald’s around these prices, or do you need to see stronger customer traffic first?

Let me know in the comments.

FICO has fallen almost 61% this year.

Its earnings estimates still point to growth. Its valuation has fallen far below the multiples investors were willing to pay a few years ago.

That combination is worth investigating. It is also where investors can make an expensive mistake: assuming that a dramatic share-price decline automatically creates the best opportunity.

This week, I’m comparing FICO with S&P Global and MSCI.

These are different businesses, but they share an attractive feature. They provide information, standards and tools that help the financial system make decisions. Their products can become embedded in customer workflows, and their relatively low capital requirements can support substantial cash generation.

The investment question is how much confidence we should place in that future cash flow, and what price leaves enough room for things to go wrong.

Before comparing the three, let’s look at the backdrop. It helps explain why a growing business can still become a disappointing investment.

The economy and the stock market are giving different signals

Inflation remains above the Federal Reserve’s target.

August’s official PCE report showed headline inflation of 3.4% year over year and core inflation of 3.0%. Core prices increased 0.2% during the month.

The chart below adds useful context: its three-month annualised core reading is lower than its twelve-month reading. That suggests recent momentum has improved, although a short run of better data does not settle the inflation outlook.

Shorter-term inflation momentum is lower than the twelve-month rate. The measures cover different periods.

Growth also deserves a balanced reading.

September added just 29,000 jobs, with unemployment at 4.2%. July and August payroll estimates were revised down by a combined 60,000. Those figures give us reasons to monitor weakness.

However, August’s real consumer spending increased 0.6%. Households were still spending, and the economy-wide corporate profits chart shows a recent upswing.

This chart tracks economy-wide after-tax corporate profits. It is a different measure from S&P 500 earnings per share.

My interpretation is that we should allow for an economy that keeps growing, while recognising that growth may become less evenly distributed.

That matters for stock selection. Strong aggregate profits can coexist with weak results at an individual business. A healthy market average does not guarantee that every company’s competitive position is intact.

There is another force at work: the return investors can earn elsewhere.

The Treasury chart below shows a US 10-year yield of 5.24%.

The chart’s 5.24% reading is dated 28 September 2026.

When bond yields rise, investors may demand more from equities too. A business can grow its earnings while its share price falls because investors are willing to pay a lower multiple for those earnings.

For companies whose valuations depend heavily on distant cash flows, a small change in the discount rate can make a large difference.

There are therefore two separate questions to answer this week:

Has the valuation become less demanding? And has the business become less dependable?

A multiple reset can create an opportunity when cash generation remains resilient. A weakening competitive position requires a different assessment, because the future cash-flow forecast itself may need to come down.

Three businesses, three different starting valuations

Here is the comparison using the fiscal-year earnings estimates:

FICO looks cheapest on this earnings comparison. MSCI commands the highest multiple. SPGI sits between them.

SPGI also needs a particular adjustment to how we interpret its history. Mobility was separated in July, and shareholders received shares in the new company. The parent’s quoted share-price performance needs to be distinguished from the total return of an investor who retained that distribution.

The lesson applies beyond these three names: whenever a business changes scope, check that the historical earnings, cash flows and price comparisons describe the same economic interest.

New to Dividend Talks? Subscribe free for the weekly research and stock comparisons. Paid membership adds the full valuations, rankings and entry-price analysis.

Subscribe now

FICO: what the headline valuation does not tell us

FICO’s decline is the most dramatic of the three.

At $661, that is a year-to-date fall of approximately 61%. It is also roughly 65% below its 52-week high.

At that price, FICO trades at approximately 15.4 times estimated FY2026 adjusted earnings and 12.9 times FY2027 estimates.

The historical valuation snapshot puts its five-year average forward adjusted P/E at around 43.6.

The snapshot compares forward adjusted P/E of 15.39× with a five-year average of 43.57× alongside other valuation methods.

That is a substantial reset. It does not mean the old multiple is the right destination.

Historical valuations tell us what investors once believed about a business. We need to decide whether those beliefs still deserve the same confidence.

FICO’s latest reported quarter illustrates the issue. Revenue increased 26%, with Scores revenue up 41%. Business-to-business Scores revenue grew 49%, driven primarily by higher mortgage-score unit prices.

Software revenue increased 2%, although software annual recurring revenue rose 10%

Those are different growth engines. More usage, new customers and higher prices can all increase revenue. Their durability depends on different conditions.

If customers keep paying more because the product remains essential and difficult to replace, pricing can support excellent economics. If customers gain a workable alternative, further price increases become harder to assume.

The competitive developments therefore matter.

FHFA permits approved Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lenders to use VantageScore 4.0 for eligible loans. Classic FICO remains eligible. FICO 10T is an approved model, but is not yet eligible for loan delivery under the current policy.

Rocket Mortgage announced on 28 September that it would make VantageScore its preferred model for eligible loans during the fourth quarter. Some products will still use FICO, while its broker channel will offer both.

TransUnion has also extended its advertised 99-cent standalone VantageScore mortgage pricing through the end of 2028.

These announcements do not tell us exactly how much cash flow FICO will lose. They do give customers more practical choice, which makes extrapolating recent mortgage-score price increases less comfortable.

Leverage adds another consideration.

FICO has net debt / EBITDA of approximately 3.7 times trailing and 3.0 times forward.

Forward leverage improves if the forecast earnings arrive. The trailing figure is approximately 3.69x.

A forecast of improving leverage is encouraging, provided the earnings and cash flows supporting it remain achievable. If the cash-flow outlook weakens, both the valuation and financial flexibility need reassessing.

The useful takeaway: a low P/E becomes more persuasive when the cash flow behind it is durable.

For FICO, I would watch customer adoption, score pricing, software progress and actual cash generation together. Another share-price decline would change the entry price; it would not answer those operating questions.

This is the central distinction I want to carry into the comparison with SPGI and MSCI: how much growth is the price asking us to believe, and how much confidence does that growth deserve?

Turning the analysis into a decision

Below, paid members get the three original DCF models, the growth assumptions behind them, and a comparison of what happens at 8%, 9% and 10% discount rates.

I then bring the analysis together into one ranked watchlist, specific entry prices and the evidence that would change my view.

This is part of the ongoing paid research alongside the Ranked Opportunity Dashboard, monthly DCF reports and Fair Value Tracker.

Annual membership is £200, equivalent to £16.67 a month billed annually, compared with £25 on the monthly plan.

Read more

I’ve been away for much of September, so it has been nearly a month since my last ranking. Coming back to the market, one contrast stood out.

Stocks have been rising at the same time that the price of borrowing has been rising.

The S&P 500’s 2026 gain alongside the rise in the 10-year Treasury yield.

That combination changes how I look at a stock. A 3% dividend yield needs to be judged against the return available elsewhere. A low P/E is interesting only if the earnings behind it remain durable. And a business promising years of growth needs enough growth to justify paying for those years today.

Why both stocks and yields have risen

Part of the rise in yields is an inflation story. The latest published core PCE inflation reading was 3.3%, still above the Fed’s 2% goal. On 16 September, the Fed raised its target interest-rate range by a quarter point to 3.75%–4.00%. Its statement described solid economic activity, resilient spending and robust capital investment alongside elevated inflation.

Headline and core inflation have moved further away from the Fed's 2% target

But higher yields do not, by themselves, tell us that company earnings are falling. The Goldman Sachs chart I shared below shows S&P 500 trailing four-quarter earnings per share up 26% over the past year. That is a backward-looking measure, and it does not promise another year of growth. It does help explain why the index has been able to withstand a much higher bond yield so far.

Trailing four-quarter S&P 500 EPS growth.

So I am wary of two easy conclusions: that higher rates must end the stock rally, or that strong index earnings make every stock attractive. The earnings and the valuations have to be tested company by company.

The index is not the whole market

The Nasdaq breadth chart below is the reason I do not want to stop at an index return.

The index is near its highs while the measure of new 52-week highs minus new 52-week lows had turned negative.

That is a dated snapshot, not a prediction of a crash.

It shows how a strong headline index can sit alongside weakness in a wider group of stocks.

Nasdaq Composite and the percentage of new 52-week highs less new 52-week lows.

For October, I wanted to look across that divide. Some companies have strong earnings but offer little current income. Others offer unusually high yields because investors have become less confident about growth. Rate-sensitive businesses may look cheaper while facing a genuinely harder operating environment.

That is exactly when a ranked list becomes useful, provided I am willing to challenge its results.

I started with 217 companies

My latest export contained 217 dividend-paying companies. I first required each to have:

• A market value of at least $5 billion

• A dividend-safety score of 60 or higher

• Positive free cash flow in at least eight of the past ten years

160 passed. I scored those companies out of 100 across valuation (25 points), dividend quality (25), business quality (20), balance sheet (15) and entry setup (15). The highest-scoring 50 became my October research list.

The model imposes discipline. It does not know whether an old P/E average still describes today’s business, whether a higher yield reflects an opportunity or a warning, or whether the next earnings report could change the case. Those are the questions behind my final five.

The October 50

These are the top 50 in alphabetical order.

Making this list means research it further. It does not mean buy it today.

ABT, ACN, ADP, AON, AOS, BF.B, BR, BRO, CBOE, CMCSA
CSL, CTSH, DLB, DOX, FDS, FNF, G, GGG, HRL, INGR
INTU, JKHY, KMB, LII, LOW, MCD, MKC, MKTX, MRSH, NVDA
NVO, PAYX, PEP, PNR, POOL, RELX, RLI, RMD, ROL, SNY
SPGI, STE, STZ, SYK, TRI, TSCO, VRSK, XYL, YUMC, ZTS

The model’s number one did not make my final five

Novo Nordisk ranks first with a score of 93.2/100. It’s priced at $38.80 and a 11.9 P/E, against a five-year average P/E of 30.1. On a valuation screen, that is difficult to ignore.

Then I checked what the company says about this year.

Novo raised its 2026 outlook in August, but its updated guidance still calls for adjusted sales and adjusted operating profit to be flat to down 6% at constant exchange rates.

That does not rule out a recovery. It does mean I cannot simply apply the old 30.1 multiple to today’s earnings and call the result fair value. The data’s $98.35 “Expected Price” is a screening reference; it is not my discounted cash flow valuation or an automatic target.

This is the difference between a stock appearing cheap on a spreadsheet and having a price at which I am prepared to act.

Where my October research led

I took the 50-stock list through a second review and chose five businesses to investigate most closely. They are not simply the first five names on the model. Each has a different source of potential return, a different risk, and a different reason its current price may or may not be good enough.

For paid readers, the rest of this report includes:

• My five in order, with the screen rank beside my rank

• The current evidence and main risk behind each decision

• Bear, base and bull scenarios, with the earnings and P/E assumptions stated

• A research entry price and the specific development that would change my view

• The downloadable October Excel dashboard, including all 217 companies, the recalculating top 50 and an editable scenario model

I will not force a Buy rating simply because it is time for a new monthly article. The valuable decision may be to act, to wait for a price, or to wait for better evidence.

Below, I show which applies to each of my five.

Read more

September begins tomorrow.

And investors are heading into it with an unusual combination:

• The S&P 500 remains close to record territory.

• September has historically been the market’s weakest month.

• The 30-year Treasury yield is above 5%.

• The Federal Reserve is still concerned about inflation.

• Employment growth is slowing.

• Yet corporate profits and AI investment remain remarkably strong.

That makes this a difficult market to summarise.

S&P 500 Heatmap - Drawdown From 52 Week Highs

It isn’t obviously cheap.

It isn’t obviously collapsing.

And underneath the index, individual stocks are producing completely different results.

So this weekend, I went back through a universe of 245 dividend-paying companies and ranked the 50 strongest opportunities heading into September.

I scored each company across valuation, dividend quality, business quality, balance-sheet strength and its current entry setup.

But that was only the first stage.

Because once I took the quantitative results and compared them with the latest economic data, company earnings and the weaknesses built into any mechanical scoring system, I arrived at a noticeably different final five.

And I think the difference between those two rankings may be the most useful part of this entire exercise.

If you enjoy valuation-focused market analysis like this, subscribe to Dividend Talks. Free members receive my weekly research, while Premium members get my complete valuation work, stock rankings and downloadable research dashboards.

I started with 245 companies

The initial universe contained 245 dividend-paying companies.

To qualify for the final ranking, each company needed:

• A market capitalisation of at least $5 billion

• A dividend-safety score of at least 60

• Positive free cash flow in at least eight of the last ten years

The qualifying companies were then scored across five categories:

The objective was not to create a perfect formula.

No formula can do that.

The objective was to apply one consistent framework across a large group of companies and identify where deeper research was most likely to be rewarded.

The 50 highest-ranked stocks

From the original 245-company universe, these were the 50 companies that scored highly enough to enter the final opportunity set:

ABT, ACN, ADP, AOS, BAH, BF.B, BR, BRO, CRM, CTSH

DIS, DLB, DOX, EFX, FDS, G, GGG, HRL, INGR, INTU

JKHY, KMB, LII, META, MKC, MKTX, MSA, MSCI, NKE, NVO

NVDA, OTIS, PEP, PG, PNR, POOL, RLI, RMD, ROL, SNY

SPGI, STE, STZ, TRI, TROW, TSCO, VRSK, XYL, YUMC, ZTS

These are not 50 recommendations.

They are the companies that survived the initial quality and financial-strength requirements before being ranked across valuation, dividend quality, business quality, balance-sheet strength and entry setup.

And the difference between merely qualifying for the list and becoming one of my final five is substantial.

Know another investor preparing for September? Share this 50-stock opportunity screen.

Share

September’s reputation is well deserved

September has historically been the weakest month of the year for the S&P 500.

Based on monthly market returns since 1990, August and September are the only two months that have produced negative average returns.

September’s average decline has been approximately 0.7%.

That doesn’t mean the market must fall over the next four weeks.

Historical averages are useful for understanding tendencies, not for predicting exactly what will happen next.

September has delivered plenty of positive returns throughout market history. Selling simply because the calendar changes would be a weak investment strategy.

But seasonality can still matter.

Trading volumes tend to increase as investors return from the summer. Companies begin approaching the final quarter of the year. Economic expectations are reassessed. Portfolio managers reposition ahead of year-end.

And when valuations are already demanding, even a modest change in expectations can create significant volatility.

So I don’t view September’s history as a reason to sell.

I view it as a reason to know exactly what I would want to buy if volatility gives us the opportunity.

The bond market is the bigger concern

The more important development is happening in the Treasury market.

The 30-year Treasury yield recently reached approximately 5.2%, close to its highest level since 2007.

The 10-year yield has also climbed to approximately 4.7%, despite the Federal Reserve holding its target range at 3.50%–3.75%.

This matters because interest rates affect the value of almost every financial asset.

When long-term government bonds offered yields close to zero, investors had considerably less incentive to hold them. That helped push capital into equities and supported higher valuation multiples.

The situation today is very different.

If an investor can earn approximately 5% from a long-dated Treasury, a stock needs to offer a sufficiently attractive potential return to compensate for the additional uncertainty.

That doesn’t automatically make stocks unattractive.

But it raises the hurdle rate.

It also places considerably more pressure on companies whose valuations depend on cash flows arriving many years into the future.

Higher yields don’t affect every stock equally.

A company generating significant cash today may be able to absorb a higher discount rate. A highly leveraged business may struggle as borrowing costs rise. A company priced for exceptional growth may experience severe multiple compression if expectations weaken slightly.

That is one reason I don’t want to enter September simply owning whatever has performed best.

Price matters.

Balance-sheet strength matters.

And the assumptions already embedded in a company’s valuation matter more than ever.

The economy is sending conflicting signals

The latest economic data do not support a straightforward recession narrative.

But they don’t support complete complacency either.

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, real GDP increased at an annualised rate of 1.5% during the second quarter, down from 2.1% in the first quarter.

That headline suggests the economy is slowing.

However, real final sales to private domestic purchasers, a measure of underlying consumer and business demand, increased by a much stronger 4.2%.

Corporate profits from current production also increased by approximately $401 billion during the quarter.

So economic growth has slowed, but underlying private-sector demand and corporate profitability remain resilient.

The labour market presents a similar contradiction.

The July employment report showed payroll employment declining by 23,000. The May and June figures were also revised down by a combined 103,000.

At the same time, unemployment remained relatively low at 4.1%, wage growth was still positive and initial unemployment claims remained subdued.

This is a labour market losing momentum, not one that has completely broken down.

That distinction will be tested again this Friday when the August employment report is released.

Why I didn’t simply select the five highest scores

A quantitative screen is an extremely useful starting point.

It forces consistency.

It prevents me from changing the rules simply because I like a particular company.

And it can uncover opportunities that might otherwise receive very little attention.

But a model can only measure what it has been designed to measure.

For example, this model rewards a long history of dividend growth. That is normally positive, but it can heavily penalise an exceptional company that has only recently started paying a dividend.

It penalises leverage, even when the business operates with recurring revenues, high retention and capital-light economics.

It uses historical returns and payout data that may not fully capture an ongoing business transformation.

And it cannot independently decide whether an apparently attractive valuation reflects temporary uncertainty or a permanent deterioration in the company.

That requires a second layer of research.

So after producing the quantitative ranking, I examined:

• The latest company earnings

• Revenue and free-cash-flow momentum

• Competitive advantages

• Capital-allocation priorities

• Exposure to interest rates and economic activity

• The reason each stock currently trades where it does

• What the quantitative model may be missing

That changed the result considerably.

Only one company from the model’s original top ten remained in my final five.

The other four came from much further down the quantitative ranking.

This does not mean the quantitative model failed.

It means it did exactly what I wanted it to do.

It narrowed 245 companies to a manageable opportunity set, and then showed me where the numbers required more investigation.

Which five made the final cut?

Only one of the screen’s ten highest-ranked companies made my final five.

Below, I explain which businesses moved up the list, why I prefer them and what would change my view. Premium members also receive:

• My final five in order of research conviction.

• Each company’s DCF valuation, assumptions and sensitivity tests.

• The complete 50-stock quantitative ranking.

• The downloadable September workbook covering all 245 companies.

The stock names are a starting point. The paid research explains what I think they are worth, and what has to go right to justify that valuation.

Become a Premium member to read the final five and download the September dashboard.

Read more

Something unusual is happening underneath the stock market right now.

Expectations for future Federal Reserve rates have been falling.

But long-term Treasury yields have been moving in the opposite direction.

At the same time, corporate earnings expectations are being revised sharply higher, the broader market is outperforming the Magnificent Seven and dozens of high-quality companies have experienced significant declines.

It has created one of the more interesting setups we’ve seen this year.

The market isn’t cheap. But parts of it suddenly are.

And that distinction matters.

Before getting into the 29 stocks trading near their 52-week lows, there are a few things happening underneath the market that I think every investor should understand.

Subscribe now

If you enjoy valuation-focused market analysis like this, subscribe to Dividend Talks. Free members receive my weekly research, while Premium members get access to my valuation tools, stock rankings and deeper analysis.

The bond market is sending a warning

Take a look at what has happened recently.

10-year Treasury yield vs. the market-implied December 2026 federal funds rate.

Normally, falling expectations for Federal Reserve rates should put downward pressure on longer-term Treasury yields.

Recently, the opposite has happened.

The market-implied Fed rate for December has moved lower, while the 10-year Treasury yield has pushed higher.

That tells us something important.

The rise in long-term rates is increasingly about more than simply what the Federal Reserve does next.

Investors are also demanding greater compensation for holding long-dated government debt.

There are several possible reasons:

• Large fiscal deficits

• Increased Treasury issuance

• Heavy corporate borrowing

• Continued uncertainty around inflation

• Greater uncertainty around the future path of interest rates

And we can see this starting to show up in the Treasury term premium.

The term premium is essentially the additional return investors demand for accepting the uncertainty involved in holding long-term bonds.

After spending much of the post-financial-crisis period around zero or even negative territory, it has moved meaningfully higher again.

That doesn’t automatically signal a crisis.

But it does mean the hurdle rate for every other investment has increased.

If an investor can earn an attractive return from a relatively low-risk Treasury, a stock needs to offer a sufficiently attractive potential return to compensate for the additional risk.

That is one of the reasons valuation becomes increasingly important as yields rise.

And the move at the very long end of the Treasury market has become difficult to ignore.

The 30-year Treasury yield recently reached approximately 5.3%, putting it close to levels last seen in 2007.

To be clear, this does not mean another 2008 is coming.

But investors have spent much of the past 15 years operating in an environment where extremely low interest rates helped support higher asset valuations.

That environment has changed.

Higher rates are beginning to bite

Housing provides one of the clearest examples.

Mortgage rates have remained elevated, while existing-home sales have fallen considerably from the levels seen several years ago.

This is exactly what tighter financial conditions are supposed to do.

Higher borrowing costs make mortgages less affordable, discourage transactions and reduce activity in some of the most interest-rate-sensitive areas of the economy.

So there are genuine signs of pressure underneath the surface.

But this is where the picture becomes much more interesting.

Because despite those pressures...

Corporate America is doing remarkably well.

Earnings are getting much stronger

This may be the most important chart in today’s article.

At the beginning of the year, analysts expected 2026 earnings growth of approximately:

• 14.8% for the S&P 500

• 19.1% for mid-cap stocks

• 15.5% for small-cap stocks

Those estimates have now risen to roughly:

• 31.2% for the S&P 500

• 24.9% for mid-caps

• 23.8% for small-caps

That is a significant change.

And it helps explain why the stock market has remained resilient even as long-term borrowing costs have climbed.

Stocks aren’t simply ignoring higher rates. Earnings have been rising quickly enough to offset some of the valuation pressure.

There is another encouraging development too.

This earnings strength is no longer solely about a handful of mega-cap technology companies.

So far in 2026:

S&P 493: +17.56%

S&P 500: +13.74%

Magnificent Seven: +9.23%

The companies outside the Magnificent Seven have actually outperformed the mega-cap technology leaders.

That is a significant change from the market investors became accustomed to over the past few years.

Market breadth has improved.

And for stock pickers, I think that is important.

There are increasingly opportunities being created outside the small group of companies that dominated investor attention during the first stage of the AI boom.

Share

Know an investor who is still only watching the Magnificent Seven? Share this article with them.

There is just one problem: stocks still aren’t cheap

Strong earnings can justify higher stock prices.

But price still matters.

The S&P 500 currently trades at approximately 20 times forward earnings.

For some context, the index didn’t reach 20x forward earnings at any point between 2008 and 2019.

Since 2020, however, the average has moved dramatically higher.

There are good arguments for why today’s market deserves a higher valuation than it did historically.

Corporate margins are higher. Some of the largest businesses in the index are incredibly profitable. Technology represents a larger percentage of the market. Earnings growth remains strong.

But none of that makes valuation irrelevant.

In fact, with long-term Treasury yields above 4% and the 30-year yield around 5%, the price investors pay becomes even more important.

That leads us to what I think is the most interesting part of today’s market.

The index may not look particularly cheap.

But underneath the index, individual stocks have been crushed.

Over the past few months we’ve seen significant declines across technology, consumer stocks, healthcare, financials and industrials.

Some companies are down because their fundamentals have deteriorated.

Some remain expensive despite falling 20%, 30% or even more.

But others are beginning to trade at prices I haven’t seen for quite some time.

So rather than trying to decide whether the entire S&P 500 is cheap or expensive, I took a different approach.

I screened 29 stocks trading near their 52-week lows.

And then I asked a much more useful question:

Which of them are actually worth buying?

29 Stocks Near Their 52-Week Lows

Here is the complete list I started with:

Share

There are some huge names on this list. If you know another investor looking for opportunities after the recent sell-off, share this with them.

A 52-week low does not mean a stock is cheap

This is the most important point before we go any further.

It is incredibly easy to look at a stock that has fallen 30%, 40% or even 50% and assume that it must now represent better value.

Sometimes it does.

But sometimes the stock price has fallen because the value of the underlying business has fallen with it.

A company can be trading at its lowest price in a year and still be expensive.

Another can fall just 15% and suddenly offer one of the most attractive risk/reward opportunities in the market.

That is why I don’t think simply buying the biggest losers is a particularly useful strategy.

For each company on this list, I’m much more interested in five things:

1. Business quality

Is this a company I would actually want to own for the next five or ten years?

A low valuation doesn’t help much if revenues are permanently declining, competitive advantages are disappearing or management is destroying shareholder value.

2. Earnings and free-cash-flow potential

What matters isn’t where earnings were last year.

It is what the business can realistically earn several years from now.

That is particularly important for companies where the market is currently pricing in a major slowdown.

3. Valuation

How much optimism is still embedded in today’s share price?

A stock being down 40% means very little if it was 80% overvalued before the decline.

4. Margin of safety

Even a fantastic company can be a poor investment at the wrong price.

I want enough potential upside between today’s price and what I believe the business is worth to compensate me for the possibility that my assumptions are wrong.

5. Why the stock has fallen

Finally, I want to understand what the market is worried about.

Is the problem temporary?

Or has something fundamentally changed?

That distinction is often where the best opportunities are found.

And the differences are enormous

Once you look beyond the share-price declines, these 29 companies are not remotely equal opportunities.

Some remain priced at valuations I would struggle to justify even after their recent falls.

Some look inexpensive, but I don’t think the quality or growth outlook is attractive enough.

Others are excellent companies that are getting closer to interesting prices, but still aren’t quite cheap enough for me yet.

And then there is a much smaller group where I think the combination of:

business quality + valuation + long-term growth + potential upside

has become considerably more attractive.

I narrowed the entire list down to four stocks that stand out most to me today.

And importantly, they are not all the same type of investment.

One is among the highest-quality businesses in the entire market.

One is benefiting from a powerful long-term structural trend.

One has transformed its free-cash-flow profile.

And one offers substantially more upside if its current growth trajectory can continue.

There are also several very familiar names on the original list that didn’t make the cut.

That may actually be the more important part of the exercise.

Because the objective isn’t to find stocks that have fallen.

It’s to find situations where price has fallen further than long-term value.

The 4 stocks that stand out

For Premium members, I’ve gone deeper on the four companies that I believe offer the most interesting setups from the 29 above.

For each one, I’ll cover:

• Why the stock has fallen

• What the market may be getting wrong

• The long-term investment case

• My valuation

• The biggest risk to the thesis

• The price at which I would be comfortable buying

• My final verdict

I’ll also explain why several other beaten-down names didn’t make my four, despite looking optically cheap after their declines.

Dividend Talks Premium gives you access to my full valuation work, buy-below prices, stock rankings and deeper research designed to answer the question that matters most: not simply whether a company is good, but whether it is worth buying at today’s price.

Read more

The latest 13F filings are in.

And some of the world’s most closely followed investors have been putting fresh money to work.

Bill Ackman opened several entirely new positions.

Berkshire Hathaway made a huge move into Alphabet.

David Tepper added aggressively to some of the market’s biggest technology names.

Pat Dorsey increased several positions by 40%, 60% and even 80%.

And Terry Smith reshaped a sizeable portion of his portfolio.

Superinvestor Portfolio Updates

But there is a problem with simply copying any of them.

Largest Q2 Buys by Superinvestors

The price we pay matters.

A great business can still be a terrible investment at the wrong valuation.

And a stock purchased by a famous investor during the second quarter may look very different at today’s price.

So this week I wanted to take the analysis one step further.

First, we’re going to look at what the superinvestors actually bought.

Then I’ve compared the most interesting stocks against:

• Wall Street’s current price targets;

• expected growth;

• historical valuation;

• my own DCF models;

• reverse-DCF expectations; and

• the risk/reward I see at today’s prices.

And there are some major disagreements.

One company has more than 70% potential upside according to Wall Street, yet I still wouldn’t rank it first.

Another has remarkable agreement between superinvestors, analysts and my own valuation.

And one of the world’s largest companies has an even more interesting problem:

Wall Street sees roughly 24% upside. My DCF currently sees virtually none.

That difference is exactly why I think looking beyond the headline 13F purchase is so important.

If you’re new here, I publish weekly research on valuation, earnings power and what some of the world’s best investors are doing with their money.

Subscribe now

First, An Important Warning About 13F Filings

Before looking at the purchases, there is one important distinction to make.

13F filings show us a snapshot of US-listed long positions held at the end of the quarter.

They don’t show every asset a manager owns.

They don’t reveal all cash positions, shorts or foreign holdings.

And crucially:

The reported price is not necessarily the price the investor actually paid.

Most Held Stocks by Superinvestors

That means I don’t think the right question is:

“What did Bill Ackman buy so I can buy it too?”

The more useful questions are:

Where are respected investors independently reaching similar conclusions?

And:

Does the valuation still make sense today?

With that in mind, there were some fascinating moves this quarter.

Bill Ackman: A Major Portfolio Rotation

Ackman’s quarter was one of the most interesting.

He opened new positions in:

Visa

Mastercard

S&P Global

Netflix

He also added to:

Uber

Meta

Restaurant Brands

Microsoft

Bill Ackman Q2 Activity

Uber became his largest disclosed position at around 12.7% of the portfolio.

At the same time, Ackman reduced Amazon by approximately 25% and exited both Alphabet share classes completely.

Bill Ackman’s Holdings

That is a significant portfolio shift.

There appears to be increasing exposure to businesses with powerful networks, recurring data, payments, platforms and high incremental margins.

And several of those same stocks appeared in other investors’ filings.

David Tepper: Buying Growth Aggressively

David Tepper took a more aggressive approach.

Among his additions:

Baidu +87%

Meta +55%

TSM +24%

Uber +22%

Amazon +16%

Tepper Q2 activity

He also purchased Boeing, American Airlines, CoreWeave, Broadcom and SpaceX.

Amazon remained his largest disclosed holding.

Tepper’s Holdings

But importantly, this wasn’t simply indiscriminate enthusiasm for technology.

Tepper also reduced Micron, AMD, Alibaba and Qualcomm.

The interesting signal isn’t that Tepper is bullish on everything.

It’s where he chose to increase exposure.

And one of those names, Uber, is going to appear repeatedly.

Berkshire Hathaway: A Huge Alphabet Move

Perhaps the most eye-catching filing came from Berkshire Hathaway.

Berkshire dramatically increased its Alphabet exposure.

GOOG shares increased by more than 600%, while its GOOGL position also rose substantially.

Berkshire Q2 Activity

Across the two share classes, Alphabet became one of Berkshire’s largest disclosed equity positions.

Berkshire Holdings

And this creates one of the most fascinating disagreements of the entire quarter.

Because while Berkshire was buying Alphabet aggressively…

Bill Ackman sold it completely.

Terry Smith reduced his position.

Meanwhile, Tepper, Chris Hohn and Seth Klarman were buying.

Great investors.

Completely different conclusions.

That’s exactly why I don’t believe following the famous name beside a filing is enough.

Pat Dorsey: Some Of The Quarter’s Most Interesting Purchases

Pat Dorsey’s portfolio produced several major additions:

Booking +80%

Uber +61%

S&P Global +42%

AppLovin +39%

Meta +24%

Pat Dorsey Q2 Activity

There isn’t one obvious industry connecting these companies.

Instead, the common theme is quality economics:

Networks.

Data.

Pricing power.

Asset-light business models.

Strong incremental margins.

Dorsey’s Holdings

Uber, S&P Global and AppLovin are particularly interesting because other highly regarded managers were buying those companies too.

Terry Smith: A Very Different Portfolio

Terry Smith made an unusually large number of changes.

He opened 13 new positions, including:

Uber

Mastercard

TSM

Netflix

GE Vernova

AppLovin

TJX

NextTracker

Terry Smith’s New Positions/Activity

Meanwhile, he reduced Alphabet, Visa, Microsoft and Meta, while exiting Home Depot completely.

Terry Smith’s Holdings

Again, I wouldn’t interpret every reduction as bearish.

If a manager opens multiple new positions, that capital has to come from somewhere.

A trim can simply reflect position sizing, valuation or portfolio construction.

What interests me much more is when several unrelated investors independently buy the same company.

And that’s where things become particularly interesting.

Where The Superinvestors Agree

Uber Q2 Activity

Looking across the filings, several names keep appearing.

Uber

Ackman added.

Tepper added.

Pat Dorsey increased his position by more than 60%.

Terry Smith opened a new position.

Four very different investors independently decided to put additional capital into Uber.

That makes it one of the clearest consensus ideas in this group.

S&P Global

SPGI Q2 Activity

Ackman opened a new position.

Pat Dorsey increased his stake by more than 40%.

Chris Hohn added to an already significant position.

And across the wider group tracked in my research:

Nine managers bought or added S&P Global during the quarter.

It’s nowhere near as exciting a story as AI.

But sometimes that’s exactly what makes a setup interesting.

Mastercard

Mastercard Q2 Activity

Ackman bought Mastercard.

Terry Smith opened a position.

Chuck Akre reduced his holding, but Mastercard still represented roughly 20% of his disclosed portfolio.

Across the broader data, six tracked managers bought or added Mastercard and 22 already owned it.

Few businesses have the same combination of network effects, margins and consistency.

The question is simply how much of that quality is already priced in.

TSM

TSM Q2 Activity

Tepper added approximately 24%.

Terry Smith opened a new position.

And across the wider database, seven managers bought or added TSM while 24 tracked superinvestors already owned shares.

With AI infrastructure spending remaining enormous, the appeal is obvious.

But unlike some of the other stocks in this article, TSM’s valuation isn’t particularly depressed relative to its own history.

Meta

Meta Q2 Activity

Tepper increased Meta substantially.

Dorsey bought more.

Ackman added.

Terry Smith moved in the opposite direction and reduced his holding.

That disagreement is particularly interesting because Meta may be one of the clearest examples of the market trying to answer a difficult question:

How much should investors be willing to pay today for AI spending that may not produce its full financial return for years?

AppLovin

APP Q2 Activity

AppLovin might be the most controversial stock here.

Pat Dorsey increased his position.

Terry Smith opened a new one.

And they were buying after an enormous decline in the share price.

The operating forecasts remain extraordinary.

But so does the uncertainty.

We’ll come back to this one shortly.

The Lesson From The Filings

The takeaway from this quarter isn’t simply that famous investors are bullish.

They aren’t all buying the same thing.

They disagree.

They trim excellent businesses.

They sell stocks other great investors are buying.

They rotate capital.

And they operate with different time horizons, portfolio constraints and required returns.

That’s why I think 13F filings work best as an idea generator.

Not as a shopping list.

The part that matters to us now is whether these ideas still make sense at today’s prices.

And that’s where the analysis becomes much more interesting.

If you know another investor who follows 13F filings, send them this breakdown.

Share

So Which Of These Stocks Is Actually Attractive Today?

Knowing what a superinvestor bought is only half of the analysis.

A filing can tell us where capital moved.

It doesn’t tell us whether a stock still offers an attractive return from today’s price.

So I took the eight most interesting companies from the research and compared three different signals:

1. What the superinvestors are doing

2. What Wall Street believes the stocks are worth

3. What my own valuation work suggests

And the differences are substantial.

One company offers the highest Wall Street upside in the entire group.

Another has remarkably strong agreement between superinvestors, analysts and my valuation.

And one of the world’s largest companies has a major problem:

Wall Street sees around 24% upside. My DCF currently sees virtually none.

For Premium members, below I’m breaking down all eight before revealing the risk/reward ranking I would use today.

Read more

There are certain times when a falling share price makes perfect sense.

Revenue disappoints.

Growth slows.

Margins collapse because the underlying business is deteriorating.

Customers leave.

Competition gets stronger.

Meta’s situation today is much more interesting than that.

The broader market has just broken out to new highs.

Technology stocks have started moving again.

Second-quarter earnings have been incredibly strong.

Yet Meta remains roughly 25% below its recent high.

And that makes the sell-off particularly interesting.

And at the end, I’ll show you whether I think META is actually cheap at today’s price and why, despite my conclusion, I recently chose to put fresh money into another stock instead.

What’s strange is that underneath that falling share price, the actual business Meta owns is still performing exceptionally well.

Revenue increased 28% year over year to $60.8 billion.

Advertising revenue reached approximately $59.4 billion.

Ad impressions increased 14%.

The average price per advertisement increased another 12%.

And Meta’s Family of Apps continues to reach billions of people every single day.

These aren’t the numbers of a company whose core business has suddenly stopped working.

And that’s the first thing I think investors need to understand.

The underlying business isn’t the problem.

Meta’s advertising machine remains extraordinary.

One of the most impressive numbers from the quarter was not simply revenue growth.

It was the combination of:

Ad impressions: +14%

and

Average price per ad: +12%

That is a very powerful combination.

Meta is serving more advertising inventory while advertisers are simultaneously paying more for that inventory.

And AI is already contributing here. Better recommendations can drive engagement and advertising inventory, while better targeting and creative tools can improve advertiser returns. If advertisers generate better returns on Meta's platforms, Meta ultimately has more room to monetise that value.

This is important because Meta does not need to invent some completely new AI business before AI can create economic value.

AI is already improving the business that pays the bills.

But impressions are only one side of the equation.

The other side is pricing.

When you can simultaneously increase volume and pricing, the economics become extremely powerful.

And we can see the result directly in advertising revenue.

This is why I’m reluctant to describe Meta as a broken investment simply because the stock is falling.

The advertising engine isn’t collapsing.

Quite the opposite.

So why did investors react so badly?

Enjoying the deep dive? I publish research like this regularly, including valuation models, earnings analysis and the stocks I’m personally watching and buying.

Subscribe now

Why Is META Being Punished?

The answer can be summarised in one word.

Spending.

Meta’s reported costs and expenses increased 55% year over year.

But there is some important context here. Q2 included $2.4 billion of legal charges and $1.18 billion of severance expenses, so I would not treat that entire increase as structural.

The cleaner concern for me is capital intensity.

Meta spent approximately $31.1 billion on capital expenditure in Q2 alone, and management now expects $130–145 billion for the full year.

That headline gets directly to the problem.

The market didn’t punish Meta because advertisers suddenly stopped spending.

It punished Meta because investors are increasingly asking:

How much money is Zuckerberg going to spend before shareholders can see the return?

And the acceleration has been enormous.

A year earlier, quarterly capex was roughly $17 billion. Today, it’s more than $31 billion.

That’s almost a doubling in twelve months.

But even that chart doesn’t fully communicate how dramatic the shift has been.

Look at Meta’s quarterly spending over a longer period.

That is the chart that really changes the investment case.

For most of Meta’s history, this was an enormously scalable digital advertising platform.

Today, we’re increasingly analysing it like an infrastructure company as well.

Data centres.

GPUs.

Networking.

Energy.

Custom silicon.

Training.

Inference.

And potentially hundreds of billions of dollars of additional infrastructure over the coming years.

But Meta isn’t alone.

This is an industry-wide AI arms race.

But I think Meta faces a slightly more uncomfortable question than several of its peers.

Microsoft has Azure.

Amazon has AWS.

Google has Google Cloud.

Those businesses provide investors with relatively visible ways of connecting infrastructure investment with paying external customers.

Meta’s situation is different.

Its advertising business generates enormous amounts of cash.

But the relationship between spending another $50 billion on AI infrastructure and receiving another $50 billion of incremental future cash flow is much harder to see.

And that’s why the market has become more demanding.

The Market Now Wants Proof

There was a time when simply announcing more AI spending was enough to excite investors.

I don’t think we’re in that market anymore.

Investors increasingly want evidence that the capital being deployed will eventually produce attractive returns.

And Meta has found itself right in the centre of that debate.

I don’t completely agree with that headline.

But I understand why it exists.

Because this isn’t ultimately a debate about whether Meta can afford $130–145 billion of annual capex.

It can.

The advertising machine is extraordinarily profitable.

The balance sheet is strong.

The question is whether shareholders receive an attractive return on that capital.

And to understand why investors care so much, we need to follow the cash.

Free Cash Flow Has Become the Number That Matters

Meta can produce fantastic accounting earnings while simultaneously producing much weaker free cash flow.

That’s exactly what infrastructure spending does.

It doesn’t necessarily mean the business is deteriorating.

But it does change what shareholders receive today.

That chart captures the contradiction.

Earnings aren’t disappearing. Cash available after investment is.

And that distinction matters enormously for valuation. A company can grow revenue, EPS and operating profit and still disappoint shareholders if sustaining that growth requires continually reinvesting an ever-larger amount of cash.

That chart is important because it puts the current period into context.

This isn’t simply a META problem.

The entire hyperscaler complex is sacrificing enormous amounts of near-term free cash flow to build AI infrastructure.

The optimistic interpretation is straightforward:

Free cash flow is temporarily depressed because these companies are making investments that generate much greater cash flow later.

The pessimistic interpretation is equally straightforward:

The infrastructure is enormously expensive and the eventual economic returns may not justify what is being spent.

Meta’s valuation depends heavily on which one proves correct.

If you know someone trying to work out whether Big Tech’s AI spending is a temporary cash-flow trough or a permanent return problem, send them this analysis.

Share

But What If Meta Has Built Too Much Compute?

This is where the story becomes much more interesting.

Because if Meta builds more compute than it ultimately needs internally, that doesn’t necessarily mean the investment becomes worthless.

There could be an external market for that infrastructure.

And Meta itself has acknowledged that demand for compute is extremely strong.

That doesn’t mean I am suddenly putting an AWS-sized Meta Cloud business into my valuation.

I absolutely am not.

But it does give the infrastructure optionality.

If Meta needs all of that compute internally, great.

If it eventually discovers that part of the infrastructure can generate attractive third-party revenue, that creates another monetisation route.

And that becomes particularly interesting because Meta is also starting to broaden the ways it monetises AI directly.

Meta Finally Has More Than One AI Monetisation Path

This is where the bull case has become much more interesting to me.

For years, the criticism was obvious: Meta was spending billions building AI without giving investors a particularly clear route towards direct monetisation.

That is starting to change.

There has been discussion around paid AI functionality across Meta’s consumer ecosystem, while Meta is also building products that developers and businesses can potentially pay to use.

I’m not saying those products justify today’s spending. They don’t, not yet.

But Meta also has one advantage that very few AI companies can replicate: distribution.

A startup can build an incredible AI product and still need to acquire users. Meta already owns Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Messenger. If it develops a compelling AI product, it potentially has billions of existing users to distribute it to.

That doesn’t guarantee success.

But it dramatically changes the potential economics.

The Bear Case Still Isn’t Crazy

I don’t want the article to become an exercise in explaining away every risk.

Because there are legitimate reasons the market is sceptical.

Meta itself has acknowledged that its current models are not yet at the level of the leading frontier models.

In the interview material we reviewed for the video, Meta’s AI leadership described Muse Spark as an early point on the scaling path rather than a finished frontier-leading product.

That is the uncomfortable part.

If you’re spending at this scale, simply being competitive isn’t enough.

Meta needs to create enormous economic value.

Because the cost of being wrong has become very large.

Meta is spending like an AI leader.

Now it has to prove that it can generate the economics of one.

And that uncertainty is exactly why I don’t think one valuation scenario is enough.

There Is Another Risk Investors Shouldn’t Ignore

Most investors look at Meta’s legal problems, see a fine of several hundred million dollars or even around $1 billion, and understandably conclude:

Meta can afford that.

They’re right.

The fine itself isn’t what concerns me most.

Meta can financially absorb even very large penalties.

The bigger risk would be regulation that changes how its products work.

Meta’s moat isn’t simply that billions of people have Instagram or Facebook. It’s also Meta’s ability to keep those users engaged through personalised recommendations and product design.

If regulation materially limits those engagement mechanisms, the potential chain is straightforward:

lower engagement → fewer impressions → weaker advertising monetisation.

I’m not modelling a catastrophic regulatory outcome in my base case. But that risk matters far more to me than the headline dollar amount of an individual fine.

And Yet META Isn’t Expensively Priced

This is the part that makes the whole situation compelling.

If Meta were trading at 35 or 40 times forward earnings while all of this uncertainty existed, I wouldn’t find the risk/reward particularly attractive.

But it isn’t.

Consensus estimates show Meta’s earnings multiple falling considerably over the next several years if earnings expectations are achieved.

Obviously those earnings estimates aren’t guaranteed.

But the important point is that Meta isn’t being priced as if every part of the AI strategy works perfectly.

That becomes even clearer when we compare it against some of the other mega-cap technology companies.

That doesn’t automatically make Meta cheap.

But it does mean the valuation is beginning to reflect meaningful uncertainty.

And that’s the point where I stop looking at headlines and start looking at cash flow.

So What Is META Actually Worth?

I don’t think anybody can confidently tell you exactly how profitable Meta’s AI infrastructure will ultimately become.

So I don’t want to pretend I can.

Instead, I’ve modelled three different outcomes.

And importantly, I’m not just changing random assumptions until I get whatever valuation I want.

The major variable is the one that I think matters most:

How much free cash flow can Meta ultimately generate once this investment cycle matures?

My three scenarios produce three completely different answers.

🐻 Scenario 1: AI Disappoints

Let’s start with the bear case.

And again, this isn’t a Meta-collapse scenario.

Facebook doesn’t disappear.

Instagram doesn’t become irrelevant.

Advertisers don’t suddenly leave.

The advertising business remains highly profitable.

But the extraordinary AI investment fails to create an equally extraordinary new source of cash flow.

Meta improves recommendations.

It improves advertising.

Some AI products gain adoption.

But the company never earns the sort of returns that would fully justify the scale of the capital deployed.

Capex remains structurally elevated.

Depreciation rises.

Cash conversion remains weaker.

And Meta effectively becomes a more capital-intensive version of the company investors owned historically.

In that scenario, I model free cash flow reaching approximately:

$65 Billion by 2030

That gives me an estimated intrinsic value of roughly:

$501 Per Share

At around $592 today, that represents approximately:

15% Downside

This is why I’m not comfortable saying:

Meta has fallen, therefore Meta is automatically cheap.

If Zuckerberg earns poor returns on this investment, there is still downside.

And that is a very real scenario.

But it’s not the scenario I think is most likely.

⚖️ Scenario 2: My Base Case

My base case is much less dramatic.

My base case doesn’t require Meta to dominate AI, build the next AWS or become the world’s leading model provider.

What it does require is that Meta earns a reasonable return on the money it is spending.

The core advertising business keeps compounding.

AI continues improving engagement.

Advertisers receive better returns.

Meta gradually develops additional monetisation from models, agents, subscriptions and developer products.

And eventually:

Cash-flow growth begins to outpace infrastructure growth.

Under that scenario, I model free cash flow reaching approximately:

$95 Billion by 2030

That produces my current base-case valuation of:

$734 Per Share

Against approximately $592 today, that’s roughly:

24% Upside

This is the scenario I currently find most reasonable.

And what I like about it is that I don’t need some heroic AI outcome to justify today’s share price.

I need one of the world’s best advertising businesses to continue compounding while management earns a sensible return on the enormous amount of money currently being deployed.

I think that’s achievable.

🐂 Scenario 3: Zuckerberg Is Right

And then we have the scenario where today’s spending looks almost absurdly cheap in hindsight.

Imagine the existing advertising engine keeps compounding.

AI recommendation systems substantially increase engagement.

AI advertising tools materially improve advertiser returns.

Meta AI becomes one of the world’s major consumer AI products.

Agents become useful.

Developer products generate meaningful revenue.

Subscriptions work.

AI glasses become important.

And part of Meta’s enormous compute footprint becomes externally monetisable.

Suddenly we’re no longer talking about AI merely defending Facebook and Instagram.

AI becomes Meta’s next major business.

In that world, I can see Meta eventually producing approximately:

$135 Billion of Free Cash Flow by 2030

And under the same underlying valuation methodology, that gives me an intrinsic value of roughly:

$1,040 Per Share

Against approximately $592 today:

~76% Upside

Do I think investors should simply assume this happens?

No.

Absolutely not.

There is far too much execution risk for that.

But I also don’t think the scenario is ridiculous anymore.

Meta has:

the users

the distribution

the advertising machine

the capital

the infrastructure

and increasingly:

actual routes towards AI monetisation.

The big unanswered question is whether those pieces eventually create enough free cash flow.

My Three Scenarios

And that’s really the entire META debate in one table.

The advertising business can remain excellent in all three scenarios.

The difference is what happens to the enormous amount of cash Zuckerberg is investing today.

So Am I Buying META?

After going through all of this again, my view is fairly simple.

I think META is undervalued.

But I also don’t think the bear case is stupid.

There is a legitimate scenario where Meta remains an extraordinary company while simultaneously becoming a less attractive investment because the returns on incremental capital aren’t high enough.

That distinction matters.

An amazing company is not automatically an amazing stock at every price.

At the other extreme, I’m not anchoring myself to $1,040 and assuming Zuckerberg gets everything right.

That would be equally dangerous.

My conclusion remains in the middle.

My current base-case valuation is approximately $734 per share.

At around $592, I think that gives investors an attractive margin between price and value.

And crucially, that conclusion does not require me to ignore the capex issue.

Quite the opposite.

The capex issue is why I built three scenarios in the first place.

I think investors make a mistake when they choose one extreme.

Either:

“Zuckerberg always wins, so ignore the spending.”

Or:

“Free cash flow collapsed, so Meta’s AI strategy is a disaster.”

Neither is good enough.

Meta remains one of the best digital advertising businesses ever created.

AI is already improving parts of the existing business.

But shareholders are simultaneously funding one of the largest investment cycles in corporate history.

And over the next few years, I think one number will tell us whether today’s buyers were right:

Free Cash Flow.

If cash flow rebounds aggressively as these investments mature, META at around $592 could look exceptionally cheap in hindsight.

If it doesn’t?

The market’s concern today will have been justified.

For now:

I lean towards bargain, not value trap.

But there’s an important difference between believing Meta is undervalued…

…and deciding where I personally want to put fresh money today.

Recently, I had exactly that decision to make.

I could have added more META.

I didn’t.

Instead, I put fresh money into another company.

And I think the gap between what the market currently fears and what the underlying business is actually delivering is even more attractive than the opportunity I see in META.

🔒 The Stock I Actually Bought Instead

Below, I’m breaking down why I bought it, why I chose it over adding to META, what I think the market is getting wrong, my valuation, the biggest risk to my thesis, and the price where I’d buy even more.

Read more

The easiest mistake in dividend investing is confusing a higher yield with a better opportunity.

A dividend yield usually rises because a share price has fallen. Sometimes that creates an unusually attractive entry point into a high-quality business.

Other times, the share price is falling for a very good reason.

The dividend may be growing more slowly. Earnings expectations may be too optimistic. Debt may be rising. Or the company may deserve a permanently lower valuation than it received in the past.

That distinction matters even more in the current market.

The underlying market has broadened considerably. The average S&P 500 stock is up 12.2% this year, compared with an 8.7% gain for the traditional market-cap-weighted index.

The equal-weight S&P 500 has also reached a new high.

This is encouraging.

It suggests the market is no longer being supported exclusively by a narrow group of mega-cap technology companies. More businesses and sectors are beginning to participate.

The earnings backdrop also remains strong.

Second-quarter S&P 500 earnings growth is now projected at approximately 37%, with analysts expecting positive growth across every subsequent quarter shown through the end of 2027.

But this is not an environment in which investors can afford to buy every stock that appears cheaper than it was six months ago.

Headline PCE inflation eased in June but remains at 3.7%. Core PCE, which excludes the more volatile food and energy categories, remains elevated at 3.3%.

Both remain well above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target.

Bond markets have responded.

Treasury yields have moved higher, particularly at the long end of the curve. Higher bond yields increase the return available from lower-risk assets and raise the return investors should demand before taking equity risk.

They also reduce the present value of future cash flows, placing additional pressure on companies whose valuations depend heavily on distant growth.

August and September have also historically been the weakest months of the year for stocks, producing average monthly returns of -0.49% and -0.72%, respectively, since 1990.

Seasonality is never enough reason to sell a good business.

But sticky inflation, elevated yields and weaker seasonal trends all reinforce the same conclusion:

This is a market for selection, not blind optimism.

So rather than searching for the highest yields, I looked for dividend-paying companies capable of passing a much more demanding test.

How I built the shortlist

I started with a dividend-focused universe of 76 companies.

I then compared them using the following criteria:

• Dividend safety rated at least “Borderline Safe”

• Dividend yield above 1%

• At least 10 consecutive years of dividend growth

• A valuation that appeared reasonable or undervalued

• A yield in line with, or above, its historical average

• Zero or relatively low net debt to EBITDA

• A P/E multiple in line with, or below, its historical average

• Positive free cash flow in each of the past 10 years

• Return on invested capital above 10%

The aim was to find companies offering more than income alone.

I wanted a combination of:

Dividend safety. Financial strength. Cash-flow consistency. Profitability. Valuation.

Five companies ranked highest.

Every one currently offers a higher dividend yield than its five-year average.

Every one trades at a lower forward P/E than its five-year average.

But that does not automatically make all five equally attractive.

The screening estimates discussed below are starting points for further analysis, not guaranteed price targets. The final ratings also remain consistent with the full August stock report published a few days ago, which you can read below:

Get the next stock screen free

I publish valuation-led stock research, earnings breakdowns and market analysis throughout the month.

Amdocs

Amdocs is the least widely followed company in this group, but it may be the clearest traditional value opportunity.

The shares currently offer a 4.08% dividend yield, compared with a five-year average of 2.10%.

Its forward P/E has fallen to just 7.2 times earnings, against a five-year average of 13.3 times.

The Numbers That Matter

This is one of the most balanced income profiles in the screen.

The 4.08% yield is meaningful, but Amdocs is only distributing around 30% of earnings as dividends.

That gives the company considerable flexibility to continue investing, repurchasing shares, reducing debt and raising the dividend.

Amdocs also carries:

• A dividend safety rating of 90

• Relatively low leverage

• A 13-year dividend growth streak

• Double-digit five-year dividend growth

• Positive free cash flow in every year of the past decade

The business does not require spectacular growth to generate an attractive return at seven times forward earnings.

However, a valuation this low rarely appears without concerns.

The market is questioning the company’s growth outlook, customer spending and the pace at which its backlog will convert into revenue.

That makes the durability of the current earnings base more important than the apparent discount alone.

Amdocs could remain inexpensive for an extended period if growth continues to disappoint.

But if earnings prove resilient, the current yield and valuation provide a compelling starting point.

Badger Meter

Badger Meter possesses arguably the cleanest financial profile in this group.

It has:

• Zero net debt

• Positive free cash flow in every year of the past decade

• A dividend safety rating of 94

• A 33-year dividend growth streak

• An 18% return on invested capital

Its dividend yield of 1.19% remains modest in absolute terms, but it is well above the company’s five-year average of 0.76%.

Its forward P/E has also fallen to 27.9 times earnings, compared with a five-year average of 45 times.

The Numbers That Matter

Badger Meter has also delivered the fastest recent dividend growth of the five finalists.

Its latest dividend increase was 17.6%, while the payout has grown at approximately 16.2% annually over the past five years.

Few companies can combine that level of dividend growth with no net debt and an 18% return on invested capital.

The problem is that Badger Meter remains expensive in absolute terms.

A 27.9 times forward P/E is significantly lower than the company’s historical average, but it is not a traditional value multiple.

That means future returns will remain dependent on the company maintaining strong earnings growth.

If growth slows, the multiple could compress further, even if the underlying business remains healthy.

Badger Meter is a considerably more attractive investment than it was at 45 times earnings.

That does not automatically mean it offers the best margin of safety today.

FactSet

FactSet is a high-quality recurring-revenue business that has experienced a significant valuation reset.

Its dividend yield has climbed to 1.76%, almost double its five-year average of 0.91%.

Its forward P/E has also fallen to approximately 13.8 times earnings, compared with a five-year average of 26.7 times.

The Numbers That Matter

The dividend profile is excellent.

FactSet has increased its dividend for 26 consecutive years while distributing only around 25% of earnings.

Its dividend safety rating of 95 is the highest among the five finalists.

The company has also produced:

• Positive free cash flow in every year of the past decade

• A 17% return on invested capital

• High levels of recurring revenue

• Considerable room for future dividend growth

The issue is not business quality.

It is the growth rate investors should reasonably expect from here.

A company can possess a strong balance sheet, recurring revenue and an outstanding dividend record while still deserving a lower valuation if its growth outlook has weakened.

For FactSet, annual subscription value growth and customer retention will be important.

The current multiple is unusually low relative to history, but I would want stronger evidence that operating momentum is stabilising before assuming the shares should return to their previous valuation.

FactSet is a compelling company.

Whether it is a compelling investment at this exact moment is a more difficult question.

Novo Nordisk

Novo Nordisk has experienced a substantial valuation reset despite retaining unusually strong profitability.

Its dividend yield has risen to 3.91%, compared with a five-year average of just 1.41%.

At the same time, its forward P/E has fallen to approximately 14.3 times earnings, less than half its five-year average of 30.4 times.

The Numbers That Matter

The 36% return on invested capital immediately stands out.

It means Novo Nordisk has historically generated an unusually high level of operating profit relative to the capital required to run the business.

The company has also:

• Generated positive free cash flow in every year of the past decade

• Increased its dividend for 29 consecutive years

• Maintained net debt below one times EBITDA

• Delivered dividend growth of more than 20% annually over the past five years

The current valuation clearly reflects genuine concerns.

Novo Nordisk faces increasing competition, pricing pressure, execution risk and the normal uncertainties attached to a concentrated pharmaceutical portfolio.

The company’s dividend safety rating of 70 is also lower than those of the other four finalists.

International investors may additionally need to account for currency movements and dividend withholding tax.

Those risks cannot be dismissed.

But neither can the valuation.

Novo Nordisk’s yield is almost three times its five-year average, while its earnings multiple has been cut by more than half.

The market is no longer valuing the company as a flawless growth story.

The question is whether it has now moved too far in the opposite direction.

PepsiCo

PepsiCo represents a different type of opportunity.

Novo Nordisk and Amdocs screen as deeper-value candidates. PepsiCo is primarily a defensive income opportunity.

Its dividend yield has risen to 4.24%, compared with a five-year average of 3.02%.

Meanwhile, the shares trade at approximately 16 times forward earnings, below their five-year average of 21 times.

The Numbers That Matter

PepsiCo’s greatest strength is consistency.

The company has increased its dividend for 53 consecutive years and continued rewarding shareholders through multiple recessions, inflationary periods and market declines.

It has also generated positive free cash flow in every year of the past decade.

The current 4.24% yield is unusually high relative to PepsiCo’s recent history.

That gives investors a much more attractive income starting point than was available when the company traded above 20 times earnings.

The trade-off is slower growth and less financial flexibility.

PepsiCo’s payout ratio of 69% is the highest among these five companies. Net debt to EBITDA is also close to two times.

Neither figure necessarily places the dividend at immediate risk, but they leave less room for rapid dividend growth if earnings remain under pressure.

The thesis therefore depends on PepsiCo stabilising volumes, protecting margins and converting productivity improvements into stronger earnings growth.

For investors focused primarily on income and defensive exposure, the shares are becoming increasingly interesting.

For investors seeking the highest total-return potential, there may be stronger opportunities elsewhere in the group.

Finding genuinely attractive dividend stocks is difficult

High yields often appear just before dividend growth slows or business fundamentals deteriorate.

If this analysis helped you separate the opportunity from the headline yield, please share it with another long-term investor.

Share

The screen produced five finalists.

The hard part comes next. All five passed the initial screen. But they did not survive the deeper analysis equally well.

One remains expensive despite its decline. Another offers dependable income but limited growth. One appears exceptionally cheap, yet carries risks that explain part of the discount.

After comparing dividend safety, valuation, cash-flow durability, profitability, balance-sheet strength and downside risk, only one retained my highest rating.

And it was not simply the stock with the highest yield or lowest P/E.

Continue with a paid subscription to unlock:

• My complete ranking from #5 to #1

• The hidden weakness preventing four stocks from earning my top rating

• The single company rated Buy in tranches

• How I would approach building the position

• The clean premium spreadsheet containing all 76 screened companies

Read more

Even with the S&P 500 sitting near record highs, investor sentiment is still flashing fear.

That contrast matters.

On the surface, this market looks expensive, crowded and increasingly difficult to navigate. But underneath the headline index, the picture is far more interesting.

The S&P 500 is up more than 8% for the year.

By headline level, that looks like a strong market. But an index return alone does not tell us where the underlying opportunities are or how unevenly those returns are being distributed.

The average S&P 500 stock has performed better than the traditional market-cap-weighted index.

That tells us the market has been broadening beyond a small group of mega-cap winners.

This is no longer simply a case of buying the largest technology companies and expecting them all to move together.

The divergence inside the Magnificent 7 makes that especially clear.

Around 55 percentage points separated the best and worst-performing members of the group by late July. Some remain firmly in positive territory, while others have fallen deeply into the red.

Lumping every mega-cap technology company into the same trade therefore makes increasingly little sense.

The quality, expectations and valuation attached to each business now matter far more.

At the same time, valuations are not stretched everywhere.

The broad market is not cheap, and long-term measures such as the Shiller CAPE remain uncomfortable. But forward valuations across equal-weighted stocks, mid-caps, small-caps and international equities are far less demanding than the most expensive headline numbers suggest.

There are still pockets where earnings can justify the current multiple.

This is becoming much more of a stock-picker’s market.

The July heatmap reinforces that point.

There were major winners, violent declines and substantial rotation both between and within sectors.

That is exactly the kind of market where a disciplined screening process becomes valuable.

So for August, I screened 244 stocks, ranked them across valuation, quality, risk, income and data confidence, and narrowed the universe down to the ten opportunities I believe deserve the closest attention.

That table is the final output of the August screen but there is an important distinction:

Ten stocks made my final ranking. I am not calling all ten outright buys today.

Six currently fall into my Buy in Tranches or Accumulate categories.

The remaining four are businesses I would rather purchase at a better price, after fresh earnings or only once I have greater confidence in the valuation.

That selectivity matters.

A stock can score highly because it appears inexpensive, but that does not automatically make it investable.

An unusually high estimated value might be stale. A low earnings multiple could be masking deteriorating profits. And an exceptional company can still be a poor investment at the wrong price.

For every stock that made the final list, I therefore assigned:

• A clear action

• An estimated valuation range

• The main reason it could outperform

• The most important threat to the thesis

• The next result or development I will be watching

Before revealing the complete ranking, I want to share one of the ten selections with every reader.

One August Pick I’m Sharing for Free

No. 2: Meta Platforms

Action: Buy in tranches
Value basis: My DCF
Estimated value: $743
Estimated upside: approximately 38%

Meta’s latest earnings created one of the most interesting disconnects in the market.

The shares sold off sharply, but the underlying advertising business remained exceptionally strong.

Quarterly revenue increased 28% to $60.8 billion. Ad impressions across the Family of Apps rose 14%, while the average price per advertisement increased another 12%.

Those are not the numbers of a core business losing momentum.

Why did the stock fall?

The concern was not revenue. It was the cost of delivering that growth.

Meta’s total costs increased 55%, its operating margin fell from 43% to 31%, capital expenditure reached $31.1 billion, and quarterly free cash flow collapsed to just $784 million. Management now expects 2026 capital expenditure of between $130 billion and $145 billion.

Investors are therefore being asked to trust that today’s extraordinary infrastructure spending will generate sufficient returns in future years.

That is the central question surrounding Meta now:

Is this a temporary free-cash-flow collapse caused by a major investment cycle or the beginning of structurally lower returns?

Why it still made my Top 10

The expenditure risk is real, but so is the strength of Meta’s core business.

Its advertising engine continues to grow at a rate that most companies of this size could not replicate. Management is also guiding for third-quarter revenue of between $61 billion and $64 billion, suggesting that demand remains healthy even as the company absorbs much heavier infrastructure costs.

At the price used in my August workbook, my $743 DCF estimate leaves approximately 38% potential upside.

I would not treat that as a guaranteed destination. The valuation depends on Meta converting its AI investment into sustained revenue growth while eventually restoring stronger cash conversion.

But the post-earnings decline has improved the balance between risk and potential reward.

My action

I would buy Meta in tranches, rather than establishing a full position immediately.

An initial allocation gives exposure to one of the strongest advertising franchises in the world. Keeping capital back provides room to add if:

• The market becomes more concerned about expenditure

• The stock falls further without a comparable deterioration in the business

• Future results demonstrate that AI spending is producing measurable returns

Meta is not the safest selection in the August list but at the current valuation, I believe the potential reward now justifies accepting the higher uncertainty.

The Complete August Report

Meta is only one of the ten stocks that made my final list.

Premium members receive:

• The complete August Top 10 and my action for every stock

• The six opportunities I would buy or accumulate today

• Full analysis of the No. 1 selection, NVIDIA and the leading value and income ideas

• A concise investment case for every remaining stock

• Bear, base and bull valuation scenarios

• Estimated buy-below prices

• The complete 244-stock ranked screener

• The downloadable August premium workbook

• The stocks that narrowly missed the final list and why

Continue reading and download the complete August workbook containing all 244 stocks, valuation scenarios and action categories.

Annual members receive both of my flagship monthly research releases: the full market screen and the mid-month DCF report.

Read more

The Index Is Holding Up. Individual Stocks Are Crashing.

The S&P 500 is still positive this year.

You would not know it from looking at many individual stocks.

Across the market, high-quality businesses have quietly fallen toward or through their 52-week lows. Some have declined because earnings expectations weakened. Others have been caught in sector rotations, valuation compression or company-specific uncertainty.

And a falling share price creates a dangerous illusion:

A stock can look considerably cheaper without becoming genuinely undervalued.

That distinction matters today.

Over recent weeks, market leadership has shifted dramatically. Financials and healthcare have advanced, while technology, communication services and consumer discretionary stocks have lagged.

This is not an indiscriminate market collapse.

It is a market increasingly separating companies, sectors and investment narratives from one another.

The S&P 500 recently fell by approximately 1.6% over five trading days, yet beneath the surface several widely followed companies suffered significantly larger declines. Fear has returned, individual-stock volatility is rising and investors are becoming less willing to pay premium valuations without clear evidence of durable earnings growth.

Yet there is an important contradiction.

While share prices have weakened across parts of the market, aggregate earnings expectations have not collapsed. S&P 500 second-quarter earnings-growth forecasts have actually been revised materially higher, with technology and energy responsible for much of the improvement.

That means today’s market is not offering one simple conclusion.

Some stocks are falling because their previous valuations were unsustainable.

Some are falling because the underlying businesses are deteriorating.

And some may be falling despite their long-term fundamentals remaining intact.

Those three situations can look almost identical on a share-price chart - but they produce completely different investment outcomes.

This Is Becoming a Stockpicker’s Market

The dispersion between the index and its individual constituents has increased sharply.

That is precisely the environment in which valuation discipline matters most.

I am not interested in buying a stock simply because it is down 20%, 30% or even 50%.

A lower share price is only attractive when the decline creates a sufficient gap between price and conservative intrinsic value - without requiring heroic assumptions or ignoring structural damage to the business.

I selected eight established companies trading near their 52-week lows or significantly below their recent highs:

• Each has a recognisable and established business.

• Each has suffered a meaningful valuation reset.

• Each has a plausible recovery or long-term compounding case.

• But each must clear the same non-negotiable hurdle.

A Minimum 20% Margin of Safety

To qualify, a company must trade at least 20% below my conservatively estimated intrinsic value.

But the DCF result is only the starting point.

I also examined:

• What growth the current share price already implies

• Forward valuation relative to historical levels

• Bear, base and bull-case outcomes

• Balance-sheet and free-cash-flow strength

• Whether recent weakness is temporary or structural

• The principal risk that could invalidate the valuation

The objective is not to identify the stock with the largest theoretical upside.

It is to find the businesses where quality, price and expectations finally align.

Of the eight companies tested, only three currently offer a margin of safety above 20%.

Several famous businesses came surprisingly close.

Others remain significantly overvalued despite trading near their lows.

And one of the three that passed offers the widest gap between price and my estimate of intrinsic value in this screen.

Let’s begin with the first company.

7. Microsoft: Cheaper — But Not Cheap Enough

Microsoft is precisely the type of stock that makes a 52-week-low screen dangerous.

The share price has fallen approximately 19% this year. Its forward P/E has compressed dramatically, sentiment has weakened and the stock is trading much closer to the bottom of its 52-week range.

At first glance, this appears to be the opportunity investors have been waiting for.

The decline has not been caused by a collapse in Microsoft’s underlying business.

In its latest quarter, revenue increased 18%, Microsoft Cloud revenue grew 29% to $54.5 billion and commercial remaining performance obligations reached $627 billion. Azure continues to benefit from strong demand, although the cost of building the infrastructure required to meet that demand is rising rapidly.

The central debate is therefore not whether Microsoft remains a high-quality business.

It clearly does.

The question is whether a great business has finally reached a great price.

A Significant Valuation Reset

Microsoft currently trades at approximately 21.3 times forward earnings, compared with a five-year average of 30.6 times.

Its dividend yield has also risen to approximately 0.92%, above its five-year average of 0.81%.

That is a meaningful reset.

However, historical valuation comparisons only tell us that Microsoft is cheaper than it used to be. They do not tell us whether the current share price offers sufficient protection if growth slows, AI infrastructure spending remains elevated or investors become less willing to pay a premium multiple.

That requires an intrinsic-value calculation.

My Updated Microsoft DCF

For the central scenario, I have assumed:

• Starting free cash flow of approximately $90 billion

• Long-term free-cash-flow growth of 13%

• An 8% discount rate

• A 3% perpetual growth rate

Those assumptions produce the following valuation range:

The base-case intrinsic value is approximately $422.91.

Against a share price of approximately $393, that provides a margin of safety of only:

7.1%

That suggests modest valuation upside, but it falls well short of the 20% hurdle required for this report.

The reverse DCF reaches a similar conclusion. At the current price, Microsoft must grow free cash flow by approximately 11.4% annually to justify the valuation.

That is achievable for Microsoft. But it is not a pessimistic expectation.

The market may be less optimistic than it was previously, but it is not pricing Microsoft like a struggling business.

My Microsoft Verdict

Microsoft is cheaper.

Its multiple is far below its recent norm, the business remains exceptionally strong and the long-term AI opportunity is substantial.

But cheaper is not the same as cheap enough.

At approximately $393, my base-case valuation offers only a 7% margin of safety. To provide the full 20% margin required by this screen, Microsoft would need to trade closer to:

$338

That does not mean Microsoft cannot deliver attractive long-term returns from today’s price.

It means investors are still being asked to pay for a significant amount of future success, while carrying the risk that AI spending remains capital-intensive, margins compress or growth merely meets rather than exceeds expectations.

Verdict: Watchlist — not a qualifying buy

Microsoft fails the test.

And it is far from the only famous company that does.

One business trading almost 30% below its 52-week high remains slightly overvalued under my base case. Two companies came within only a few percentage points of passing. And just three of the eight produced the full 20% margin of safety.

The highest-ranked stock offers:

• A 6.7% dividend yield

• A valuation materially below its five-year norm

• Nearly 29% margin of safety

• Three separate valuation methods that all point to undervaluation

Paid members unlock the complete report

This includes:

• The full eight-stock ranking

• All intrinsic values and qualifying buy prices

• The three stocks that passed

• Two near-buys within touching distance of qualifying

• Bear, base and bull-case outcomes

• The risks that could invalidate each valuation

• My final order of preference

Paid members will also receive the next Undervalued Dividend Dashboard on 1 August, alongside immediate access to every previous premium valuation report.

Read more

Every month on the 15th, I take a fresh look at the stocks Wall Street believes offer the most upside.

On the surface, the process sounds straightforward:

Find the biggest gaps between current share prices and analyst targets, sort them from highest to lowest and buy the names at the top.

That is also one of the easiest ways to be misled by a stock screener.

The most “undervalued” company in this month’s raw data appeared to offer:

849.8% upside

It did not.

The likely explanation was a simple but dangerous unit mismatch.

A Vodafone analyst target quoted in pence appeared to have been compared with the price of its US-listed ADR in dollars.

One broken comparison was enough to transform an ordinary analyst target into what looked like a potential ten-bagger.

That single example captures the entire purpose of today’s report.

A free screener can show us where analysts are optimistic.

It cannot reliably tell us:

• Whether the target is current;

• whether the company has completed a stock split;

• whether a spin-off has changed the underlying business;

• whether currencies and share classes are being compared correctly;

• whether a low P/E reflects sustainable earnings or the top of a cycle;

• or whether the business is strong enough to deserve our money.

So this month, I went much further.

I reviewed 328 stocks carrying either a Strong Buy or Moderate Buy analyst consensus.

I then applied a stricter quantitative filter, reduced the universe to 70 qualifying names, ranked the most interesting candidates, investigated the biggest data-quality risks and manually selected the:

Five stocks worth researching first

This is not a list of five stocks I am blindly buying today.

It is something more useful:

A structured research queue showing where Wall Street’s optimism appears credible, where patience is required and where the headline upside should not be trusted at all.

The market is rising but conviction is not

The S&P 500 is up approximately 10.2% year to date, having recovered strongly from the correction earlier in the year.

The S&P 500 is up roughly 10.2% year to date after recovering from its spring correction.

At first glance, that looks like a straightforward risk-on market.

Underneath the index, however, the picture is considerably less comfortable.

The Fear & Greed Index remains in Fear territory at 44.

Retail net inflows have fallen sharply.

Single-stock volatility premiums are near cyclical highs.

And July’s performance has been extremely uneven.

Some of the market’s largest AI beneficiaries have continued to rise, while parts of semiconductors, software, industrials and healthcare have been hit hard.

July’s heatmap so far. The index-level move hides enormous dispersion beneath the surface.

That dispersion matters.

When almost everything rises together, stock selection can look easier than it really is.

When leadership narrows and volatility increases, the difference between a durable business and a fragile narrative becomes much more visible.

This is exactly the environment in which analyst targets can be useful but only as a starting point.

Earnings are doing the heavy lifting

The underlying earnings picture remains strong.

Current estimates point to approximately:

• 12% year-over-year S&P 500 revenue growth

• 23% year-over-year S&P 500 earnings growth

Technology is expected to lead revenue growth, while Energy and Technology are forecast to deliver the strongest earnings growth.

Technology and Energy are expected to lead Q2 growth, but the bar for positive surprises is already high.

There is also an important reason not to dismiss Wall Street estimates completely.

Wall Street has underestimated final S&P 500 earnings growth for 13 consecutive quarters.

Wall Street has repeatedly started too cautiously but that does not mean every individual stock target is reliable.

The key distinction is between earnings estimates and price targets.

Earnings estimates can be revised each quarter as companies report new information.

A price target adds several more layers of judgement:

• What valuation multiple should investors pay?

• How quickly will margins expand?

• How durable is the company’s growth?

• How much risk should be discounted?

• What will interest rates and investor sentiment look like?

• Will the market still reward the same sector in 12 months?

That is why a company can beat earnings while its stock falls.

It is also why a price target can remain far above a share price for years without ever being reached.

AI is still leading but the easy phase may be over

AI beneficiaries produced a stellar second quarter, but volatility has increased sharply at the start of Q3.

The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index and Korea’s KOSPI surged during the first half of the year before experiencing much larger swings.

AI beneficiaries delivered extraordinary first-half returns, but volatility has started to rise.

That does not necessarily mean the AI investment cycle is ending.

It does mean the market is becoming less willing to reward every company simply for spending more money on AI.

The next phase is likely to be more selective.

Investors will increasingly want evidence that:

• AI spending is producing revenue and cash flow;

• demand remains strong after the initial infrastructure buildout;

• margins can absorb continued capital expenditure;

• end customers are receiving measurable value;

• and valuations still leave room for upside if growth remains merely good rather than extraordinary.

This matters for today’s screen.

Technology produced the largest number of qualifying names, while Industrials and Energy were close behind.

The opportunity set is broad but it is not neutral.

It contains major underlying bets on:

• AI infrastructure;

• software monetisation;

• industrial restructuring;

• power demand;

and the commodity cycle.

The index looks calm, but the opportunity set underneath it is changing quickly. Share this report with an investor who would find the full screening process useful.

What I found after screening 328 Buy-rated stocks

Here is the headline data:

328 stocks screened
166 Strong Buy ratings
162 Moderate Buy ratings
21.8% median analyst upside
70 stocks passed the premium quantitative filter
27.4% median upside among the 70 passes
Only five passed my final editorial review

The raw list was undeniably attractive.

Across the full universe, the median company was expected to rise almost 22%.

After removing Vodafone’s obvious data anomaly, average target upside was approximately 24.6%.

The stricter group looked even stronger.

The 70 premium-filter passes had:

• Median upside of 27.4%

• Average upside of roughly 31%

But the more impressive those numbers became, the more important it was to challenge them.

High upside can be created by several very different situations.

It may represent:

1. A genuinely undervalued, high-quality business;

2. a stock that has collapsed because earnings expectations are falling;

3. a cyclical company being valued on peak profits;

4. an analyst target that has not been updated;

5. a corporate action that has broken the historical comparison;

6. a company carrying risks that are difficult to capture in a spreadsheet.

My job was not to find the biggest percentage.

It was to identify which percentages deserved further work.

What paid members receive today

Paid members receive:

• My complete five-stock ranking;

• the full investment case for every finalist;

• current price, target, upside, valuation and dividend data;

• the evidence that allowed each stock to pass;

• the specific risk that could break each thesis;

• what I would investigate before buying;

• my full Top 30 quantitative research queue;

• additional quality, dividend and cyclical watchlists;

• the stocks whose headline upside should not be trusted;

• a 30-day earnings and research plan;

• and the companion Excel workbook containing the complete 328-stock universe, scoring methodology and editable research tracker.

The five finalists include:

• A European software leader with nearly 50% analyst upside;

• a dominant software compounder trading at a compressed valuation;

• the strongest growth company in the entire screen;

• an industrial special situation where the headline target requires careful repair;

and a media turnaround finally showing evidence of sustainable streaming economics.

Paid members receive the complete High-Upside Stock Report every month on the 15th, alongside the full screening database and research tracker.

Paid members will also receive the downloadable 328-stock workbook at the end of today’s report.

Read more

The AI Chip Trade Is Finally Splitting

The AI trade is no longer moving as one.

For most of the last few years, investors could almost treat the entire AI infrastructure basket as a single trade. Nvidia, Broadcom, Micron, AMD, semiconductor equipment, data centres, power infrastructure, hyperscalers - if it had any connection to AI spending, the market was willing to bid it higher.

But that is starting to change.

The AI trade is starting to split. Some of the biggest semiconductor winners are selling off, while other parts of the supply chain are still holding up.

Over the past month, some of the biggest AI winners have started to sell off sharply.

Nvidia is down around 13%.
Broadcom is down around 25%.
Micron is down around 8%.
Oracle is down more than 40%.
Microsoft is down more than 11%.

And yet, not everything in the AI supply chain is falling.

Applied Materials is still up strongly.
KLA is still holding up.
Intel has rallied.
Parts of the semiconductor equipment trade are still green.

That is the important point.

This is no longer a market where every AI-related stock is being rewarded equally. The market is starting to separate the companies with durable earnings power from the companies where expectations may have moved too far, too fast.

Before we get into the models, a quick note.

If you enjoy deep-dive valuation work like this, you can subscribe below. I publish regular DCF models, fair value estimates, stock screens, dividend dashboards, and premium stock rankings for investors who want to cut through the noise.

Premium members get access to:

• My full DCF assumptions

• Bear, base and bull case fair values

• Margin of safety estimates

• Ranked stock lists

• Monthly undervalued stock dashboards

• High-upside DCF model updates

The stocks I think offer the best risk/reward today

The Market Is Strong — But Fear Is Back

The strange thing is that this sell-off is happening while the broader market still looks strong.

The S&P 500 is up roughly 9.5% year-to-date, almost exactly in line with its long-term average annual path.

Over the past year, the S&P 500 has also delivered a return of around 31%, which is a very strong one-year move by historical standards.

But under the surface, sentiment has weakened.

The Fear & Greed Index is sitting in fear territory, around 32. One month ago, it was neutral. One year ago, it was in extreme greed.

That shift matters.

When sentiment is euphoric, investors often stop asking whether the valuation makes sense. They simply chase the story. But when fear returns, the market starts asking a much harder question:

How much future growth is already priced in?

That question is especially important for AI chip stocks.

Because these are not bad businesses. In many cases, they are some of the highest-quality businesses in the market. The issue is that even a great company can become a poor investment if the expectations are too aggressive.

Market sentiment has cooled sharply, even while the broader index remains up strongly this year.

The Economy Is Not Falling Apart

The macro backdrop is still fairly supportive.

The labour market has been bumpy, but it has not collapsed. Monthly job gains in 2026 have averaged around 92,000, compared with roughly 9,700 in 2025. That is not a booming labour market, but it is still enough to support consumer spending and keep the economy moving forward.

Oil has also cooled off. WTI crude has fallen back near pre-Iran war levels, which should help ease some pressure on inflation and consumers if gas prices follow with a lag.

The Fed remains split. Around half of FOMC members appear to think rates should stay on hold or move lower in 2026, while the other half think raising rates may still be appropriate. So this is not a perfect environment, but it is also not an obvious recession setup.

That is why this market is so interesting.

The economy is not broken.
The market is not collapsing.
AI spending is still real.
But valuations are starting to matter again.

And that is exactly the kind of environment where DCF work becomes useful.

The Bull Market Is Broadening Away From the Mag 7

One of the biggest changes this year is that the market is no longer being driven only by the Magnificent 7.

The Russell 2000 is up strongly.
The equal-weight S&P 500 is outperforming the cap-weighted index.
Small caps, mid caps, value stocks, and non-Mag 7 names have all started to participate.

This is important because it tells us the market is not simply saying, “AI is over.”

Instead, the market seems to be saying:

“We still like growth. We still like risk assets. But we are no longer willing to pay any price for the same narrow group of mega-cap winners.”

That is a much healthier market, but it is also a more dangerous one for overvalued AI stocks.

In 2023 and 2024, the market rewarded the AI story almost regardless of valuation. In 2026, that is changing. Investors are still willing to pay for AI exposure, but only where the numbers make sense.

AI Is Still the Centre of the Market

Even with the recent sell-off, AI remains one of the most important forces inside the S&P 500.

One chart I found especially interesting shows that AI-related stocks now make up roughly 45% of the S&P 500’s market cap.

Another shows the broader AI complex rising from 37.5% of the index at the end of 2025 to 42.3% by mid-2026.

Semiconductors and semiconductor capital equipment alone have become a much larger part of the index. According to one chart, semiconductor weight in the S&P 500 has climbed to almost 20%, far above previous cycles.

That is both bullish and risky.

Bullish because it shows how important AI infrastructure has become.

Risky because when one theme becomes this large, small changes in expectations can have a huge impact on the entire market.

This is why I do not want to simply say, “AI stocks are down, therefore they are cheap.”

That is lazy.

The better question is:

Which AI chip stocks still have enough future free cash flow growth to justify their current valuation?

That is what today’s article is trying to answer.

The AI Spending Boom Is Still Real

The strongest argument for the AI trade is that the spending boom has not disappeared.

Data centre construction spending in the U.S. has now eclipsed $50 billion, and private data centre construction has surged over the last few years. This is not just a stock market narrative anymore. Real capital is being deployed into real infrastructure.

That matters for semiconductor demand.

AI chips are not just a software story. They sit at the centre of a much larger physical buildout:

• GPUs

• custom accelerators

• high-bandwidth memory

• networking chips

• semiconductor equipment

• advanced packaging

• data centres

• cooling

• power infrastructure

So yes, the long-term AI infrastructure story is still very much alive.

But here is the problem.

A great long-term story does not automatically equal a great stock today.

If a stock already prices in years of perfect execution, the risk/reward can still be poor. If margins are already near peak levels, revenue growth needs to stay extremely high for a long time. And if the market starts questioning the pace of AI capex, even the best companies can see sharp multiple compression.

That is why valuation matters most when the story sounds most obvious.

The Other Side: Crowding Risk Is Rising

There is also a clear risk building beneath the surface.

Prime brokerage data suggests investors have recently been net sellers of U.S. information technology. The chart from Goldman Sachs showed a very sharp negative reading in weekly net trading flow for U.S. Info Tech.

That does not mean AI stocks have to crash.

But it does show that the trade has become more fragile.

When everyone owns the same theme, the downside can move quickly. And when the most crowded stocks start missing expectations, even slightly, the market can punish them very aggressively.

This is why I think the next phase of the AI trade will be much more selective.

The question is no longer:

“Which companies benefit from AI?”

That list is too broad.

The better question is:

“Which companies benefit from AI and still offer attractive upside after updating the assumptions?”

That is a much smaller list.

So I Re-Ran My DCF Models

That brings us to today’s screen.

I re-ran my DCF models across 6 AI chip stocks to see which names still offer attractive risk/reward after the recent moves.

For each company, I looked at:

• updated revenue growth assumptions

• free cash flow growth potential

• margin durability

• terminal multiple assumptions

• discount rate sensitivity

• bear, base and bull case fair values

• current upside or downside to fair value

• margin of safety

The goal was not to find the most exciting AI story.

The goal was to find the best investment setup.

Because those are not always the same thing.

Some of these companies are outstanding businesses, but the valuation still looks stretched. Some have sold off, but not enough to create a real margin of safety. And a few now look much more interesting after the recent weakness.

After updating the assumptions, most of the stocks still failed my screen.

But two passed.

And one stood out as the clearest risk/reward opportunity in the group.

ASML: World-Class Business, But Not Enough Margin of Safety

ASML has rallied strongly this year, but the valuation now leaves very little room for error.

Before we get into the full paid screen, I want to show one example of why this article is not simply about buying every AI chip stock that has exposure to the theme.

And I think ASML is the perfect case study.

ASML is one of the most important companies in the entire semiconductor supply chain. The company dominates extreme ultraviolet lithography, which is essential for producing the most advanced chips in the world. If AI demand keeps growing, the world will need more advanced chips. And if the world needs more advanced chips, companies like TSMC, Samsung and Intel will continue relying on ASML’s machines.

So from a business quality perspective, ASML is exceptional.

But the stock has already moved a lot.

ASML is up around 65% year-to-date. That is the key tension. This is not a stock that has collapsed and suddenly become obviously cheap. It is a high-quality AI infrastructure business that has already been rewarded by the market.

And that makes the valuation much harder.

The Market Still Loves ASML

Wall Street remains very positive on the company.

The analyst rating is still sitting at Strong Buy, and the average price target is around $1,781, which is almost exactly where the stock trades today.

That tells us something important.

Analysts clearly still like the business, but the average price target implies almost no upside from the current share price.

So even the bullish Wall Street view is not screaming “bargain” at today’s valuation.

Wall Street still likes ASML, but the average price target implies almost no upside from the current price.

Growth Is Strong — But Expectations Are Already High

The growth profile is still impressive.

ASML’s forward revenue growth is around 23.9%, forward EBITDA growth is around 32.1%, forward EBIT growth is around 33.4%, and forward diluted EPS growth is around 35.1%.

That is exactly why investors are willing to pay a premium multiple for this business.

But again, the problem is not the company.

The problem is the price.

ASML currently trades at a forward P/E ratio of roughly 45x to 49x, depending on the data source, compared with a 5-year average closer to 33x.

That means investors are not just paying for a great business. They are paying a historically elevated multiple for a great business after a very strong run.

And when a stock already trades well above its historical valuation range, the DCF has to do more work. The future free cash flow growth needs to be strong enough to justify not only the current price, but also the premium multiple already embedded in the stock.

My DCF Result

In my base-case DCF, I assumed ASML can grow free cash flow at 15% annually over the next 10 years, with a 3% perpetual growth rate and an 8% discount rate.

That is not a bearish model.

A 15% free cash flow CAGR for a company of ASML’s size is still a very strong assumption. It reflects the quality of the business, the importance of EUV, and the long-term demand tailwind from AI, advanced chips and semiconductor capacity expansion.

But even with that assumption, my intrinsic value estimate came out at around:

$1,571 per share

Against a current price of roughly $1,769, that implies the stock is trading around 11% above my base-case fair value estimate.

My margin of safety is therefore negative, at around -12.6%.

So based on my model, ASML does not pass.

Reverse DCF: What Is Already Priced In?

The reverse DCF also tells the same story.

At the current price, ASML appears to be pricing in roughly 16.7% annual free cash flow growth over the next decade.

That is possible.

But it is not low-risk.

Especially for a business that is still exposed to semiconductor cycles, customer capex timing, China restrictions, and the broader question of how long AI infrastructure spending can continue at this pace.

This is why ASML failed my screen.

Not because the business is weak.

But because the stock already expects a lot.

My Verdict on ASML

ASML remains one of the highest-quality companies in the semiconductor ecosystem.

It has a dominant competitive position, excellent long-term relevance, strong forward growth expectations, and direct exposure to the most important parts of the AI chip supply chain.

But at today’s valuation, I do not see enough margin of safety.

The stock is already up heavily this year. The forward P/E ratio is above its historical average. Wall Street’s average price target implies almost no upside. And my base-case DCF suggests the stock is trading above fair value.

So for me, ASML is a:

High-Quality Fail

I would happily keep it on the watchlist. But based on my updated assumptions, it was not one of the two AI chip stocks that passed my DCF screen.

Want the full DCF screen?

Premium members get the full breakdown of all six AI chip stocks, including my updated fair value estimates, bear/base/bull cases, margin of safety calculations, and the two stocks that actually passed the model.

And that is the key point of this article.

ASML is a world-class business, and it still failed.

Across the six AI chip stocks I modelled, four failed my updated DCF screen.

Only two passed.

And one stood out as the clearest risk/reward opportunity in the group.

Read more

The market is back near highs.

But that does not mean every opportunity is gone.

In fact, this is where screens become even more useful.

When markets are falling, almost everything can look cheap.

But when markets rebound, the easy discounts disappear first.

The weak businesses stop looking obvious.

The high-quality names start getting bid up again.

And the market becomes much less forgiving.

That is why July’s screen is different.

This month is not about finding the stocks that crashed the hardest.

It is about finding the companies that still look mispriced even after the rebound.

Because if a stock still screens as undervalued when sentiment has improved, that is usually worth paying attention to.

For July, I screened 260 stocks using the Dividend Talks framework.

The goal was simple:

Which stocks still deserve capital when the market is no longer handing investors easy bargains?

Not the most popular names.

Not the biggest winners.

Not the loudest AI trades.

But the businesses where the numbers still suggest the market may be too pessimistic.

Why July’s Screen Is Different

This is the part that matters.

The opportunity set has changed.

April was about broad valuation resets.

May was about the market punishing the wrong stocks.

June was about quality businesses being repriced.

July is different.

The market has already bounced.

Sentiment has improved.

And many of the obvious discounts are no longer as obvious.

So the question is no longer:

“What looks cheap after the selloff?”

The question is now:

“What still looks cheap after the rebound?”

That is a much stricter test.

And it is why this month’s spreadsheet is designed less like a simple stock screener and more like a capital allocation tool.

I do not want a list of random cheap stocks.

I want to know where the strongest balance exists between:

• valuation reset

• business durability

• dividend support

• balance sheet resilience

• risk-adjusted upside

• quality of earnings

• margin of safety

That is the whole point of this month’s work.

What Stood Out This Month

The July screen produced a few important patterns.

1. The best opportunities are more selective now

This was not a screen where everything looked cheap.

Out of 260 companies reviewed, only 15 reached the highest conviction tier.

That matters.

When too many companies rank highly, the filter probably is not strict enough.

This month, the model was selective.

The median fair value upside across the universe was around 15.9%, but the top-ranked opportunities stood out far more clearly.

That tells me the market is not broadly cheap.

But there are still pockets where the risk/reward looks very attractive.

2. Quality still matters more than pure upside

The ranking is not based on upside alone.

That is important.

If the model only ranked stocks by fair value upside, the list would simply reward the most aggressive valuation gaps.

But large upside can sometimes be a warning sign.

It may mean:

• the fair value estimate is stale

• the market is pricing in a real deterioration

• the business has higher uncertainty

• the downside case has not been fully considered

That is why the allocation score blends valuation with quality, risk and income support.

The framework weights:

• 40% valuation

• 35% quality

• 15% risk

• 10% income

This means a company with slightly lower upside can rank above a company with larger theoretical upside if the overall risk/reward is stronger.

That is how I want to think about capital allocation.

Not:

“What is the cheapest stock?”

But:

“Where is the best balance between price, quality and risk?”

3. The top-ranked names are not all from one sector

One thing I liked about this month’s output is that the opportunity set was not concentrated in just one theme.

The top 10 included:

• healthcare

• information technology

• industrials

• consumer staples

• financial data / exchanges

That is a healthy sign.

It suggests the screen is not just chasing one beaten-down sector.

It is finding individual businesses where valuation has compressed faster than the underlying quality score.

Inside the top 25, industrials and information technology were especially well represented.

That is interesting because it shows the market is still offering opportunities in quality compounders, technology services, and business infrastructure names not just obvious deep-value stocks.

4. Some large upside names need extra verification

A few companies in the screen show very large upside to model fair value.

That can be attractive.

But it also needs discipline.

A big fair value gap does not automatically make a stock a buy.

It means the assumptions need to be checked carefully.

That is why the upgraded spreadsheet now includes:

• data quality checks

• extreme upside flags

• payout ratio checks

• leverage checks

• dividend safety checks

• bear / base / bull scenario analysis

• investment committee-style research notes

This matters because a premium stock screen should not just show upside.

It should also show where the model could be wrong.

Before We Start

Most investors do not lose money because they only buy bad companies.

They lose money because they overpay for good ones.

That is why I built this valuation framework around one simple question:

What is actually worth buying now and what only looks attractive on the surface?

Paid members get the same tools I use to rank upside, size risk, compare quality and avoid value traps.

Each month, members receive:

📊 Undervalued Dividend Dashboard
A premium workbook ranking income and quality stocks by valuation, dividend safety, upside and margin of safety.

🚀 High-Upside Valuation Models
Fair value estimates, buy-below prices, scenario analysis and risk-adjusted rankings across market leaders and mispriced compounders.

🧠 Buy / Hold / Avoid Research
Clear decisions tied directly to the numbers not just market commentary.

Free readers can understand the setup.

Paid members get the rankings, the fair values, the risk flags, the buy zones and the decision-making framework.

What Paid Members Get Below

Below, paid members get access to the full July research pack, including:

• the full premium spreadsheet

• the Word-style research report

• the complete top 10 ranked list

• fair value estimates

• expected upside

• allocation scores

• quality scores

• risk scores

• dividend and income scores

• conviction tiers

• buy-below prices

• bear / base / bull scenario analysis

• investment committee summary

• data quality checks

• research notes and watchlist framework

This is not designed to be a blind buy list.

It is designed to be a structured starting point for better capital allocation.

The goal is simple:

Screen the market.
Filter for quality.
Stress test the downside.
Rank the opportunity.
Allocate with discipline.

Read more

Most investors don’t lose money by picking bad companies, they lose it by overpaying for great ones.

That is why I built a valuation system to answer one question every week:

👉 What’s actually worth buying now, and what only looks attractive?

Paid members get the same tools I use to size risk, find upside, and avoid value traps.

Each month, members receive:

📊 Undervalued Dividend Dashboard - A live spreadsheet ranking income stocks by valuation, yield safety, and margin of safety.

🚀 High-Upside S&P 500 Valuations - Market leaders scored by upside, downside risk, and exact buy zones.

🧠 Weekly Buy / Hold / Avoid analysis - Clear decisions, not just commentary, tied directly to articles like this one.

Free readers get the story.
Paid readers get the numbers, the risk, and the decision.

Over 150,000 investors follow my work across YouTube and Substack, using these models to manage real portfolios, not paper ideas.

Introduction

The Magnificent 7 setup is finally getting interesting.

Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta and Tesla are some of the most powerful businesses on earth, but at the wrong price, even a world-class company can become a poor investment.

And after the latest sell-off, the question has changed.

It is no longer: are these great companies?

Most of them clearly are.

The real question is: are any of them finally cheap enough to buy?

Some Magnificent 7 stocks are now down heavily from their highs.

Microsoft has been hit hard. Meta has pulled back sharply. Tesla has rolled over again. Nvidia, Amazon, Alphabet and Apple have all weakened too.

The headline looks scary.

But the important point is this:

This is not a broad market collapse.

It looks much more like a leadership reset.

Market Update

The S&P 500 fell around 2% over the past five days, but the real pain has been concentrated in the same group of stocks that carried the market for most of the last two years: mega-cap technology.

The broader market is wobbling, but it is not falling apart.

Last week’s heatmap tells the story clearly.

Last Week’s Winners & Losers

Before getting into the Mag 7 specifically, here is what leadership looked like last week.

Top performers:

• AbbVie (+17%)

• Merck & Co (+13%)

• Johnson & Johnson (+12%)

• Danaher (+11%)

• Thermo Fisher (+10%)

Biggest drops:

• Western Digital (-21%)

• Oracle (-19%)

• Seagate (-16%)

• Qualcomm (-16%)

• Broadcom (-11%)

Technology and semiconductors were under pressure, with Nvidia, Apple, Alphabet, Amazon, Microsoft and Tesla all red.

But beneath the surface, large parts of the market held up far better.

Healthcare was strong. Financials were resilient. Industrials were mixed, but far from broken. Consumer defensives were not collapsing either.

In other words, money is not simply leaving the stock market.

It is rotating.

That distinction matters.

When everything sells off together, fear usually creates broad opportunity. But when only the most crowded part of the market starts breaking down, the question becomes more specific:

Are investors finally being offered value in the Magnificent 7, or are these stocks just correcting from overvalued levels?

Macro News

There are reasons for the rotation.

Oil prices have fallen sharply after the recent geopolitical spike began to unwind, inflation pressure from energy should ease in the coming months, and markets are already pricing in less pressure on central banks to keep hiking rates.

That matters because if inflation pressure cools, the market no longer needs to hide exclusively in the same handful of AI-linked mega-cap winners.

The broader economy also still looks more resilient than the tech sell-off suggests.

Households have continued spending, even after the spring inflation squeeze. Lower oil prices could give consumers some breathing room, help rebuild savings, and support a broader market where leadership is not dominated by the same seven stocks.

At the same time, the AI trade itself is being questioned.

Investors are starting to ask harder questions about capital expenditure, margins, competition, buybacks, and whether every dollar being poured into AI infrastructure will generate the returns currently implied by valuations.

Magnificent 7 Sell-Off

So the Mag 7 sell-off is not random.

It reflects three things happening at once:

1. Crowded positioning is unwinding.

2. The market is rotating into broader leadership.

3. Investors are demanding more valuation discipline from AI and mega-cap growth stocks.

And that brings us to the real question.

Lower prices alone do not automatically create value.

A stock can fall 20% and still be expensive.

A stock can fall 30% and still lack margin of safety.

And sometimes, a great business falling with the crowd can create one of the best buying opportunities in the market.

That is why I rebuilt every Magnificent 7 DCF model from scratch.

The goal was simple:

Which of these stocks are actually worth buying after the sell-off?

After updating the numbers, the answer was not “buy all seven.”

Three now look deeply undervalued in my DCF.

One looks attractive, but is more execution-dependent.

And three still lack enough margin of safety at today’s price.

Paid members get the full valuation models, fair values, buy zones, downside scenarios and final Buy / Hold / Avoid decisions behind articles like this.

Free readers get the story.
Paid readers get the numbers, the risk, and the decision.

Fear & Greed Index

Sentiment has also weakened.

The Fear & Greed Index is back in fear territory, which is exactly when valuation discipline matters most.

Fear creates opportunity, but it also creates traps.

The job is not to buy everything that has fallen.

The job is to separate the real bargains from the names that still have too much optimism priced in.

This is why the current setup is so interesting.

The Mag 7 trade is cracking, but the market itself is not broken.

That creates a very different opportunity set.

If the entire market were collapsing, the answer might be simple: raise cash, manage risk, and wait for panic.

But if the weakness is concentrated in the most crowded mega-cap growth stocks, then the better question is:

Which of these companies are being unfairly punished?

That is what the DCF models are designed to answer.

Earnings Week