Connect with us

Clorox Stock- Anything But A Value Stock

In The Graduate, a young Dustin Hoffman, upon his college graduation, is taken aside by a family friend for career advice. The friend offers Dustin one…



In The Graduate, a young Dustin Hoffman, upon his college graduation, is taken aside by a family friend for career advice. The friend offers Dustin one word; “plastics.” He encourages Hoffman’s character to pursue a career in the explosive growth, up-and-coming plastics industry.  We may want to think of similar advice for our children and their friends with graduation ceremonies upon us. It is also incumbent on us to consider the same advice regarding our portfolios. If we have a longer-term window and can ignore short-term volatility, should we invest in a volatile growth stock like Nvidia or a stable low growth company like Clorox? 

Many investment pundits may rephrase the question as a choice between a value stock and a growth stock. The terms “value” and “growth” have become blurred in recent years. What appears to be a value stock may be in its reputation only.

Valuations Matters

Most readers with long-term investment horizons will answer our earlier question by selecting the semiconductor giant Nvidia.

We confidently state that the semiconductor industry will grow multiples of the bleach industry.

However, the value growth investment question is not which stock is considered growth or value, but which is priced cheaper given their distinctly different growth rates. At the right price, Clorox may be a much better investment than Nvidia, despite Nvidia’s substantial growth potential.

Unfortunately, many passive investors assume companies with long successful histories and mature products in low-growth industries are value stocks. Conversely, a semiconductor company or other high-growth technology must be a growth company in many investors’ eyes. Such assumptions get investors in trouble.

Nvidia or Clorox: Where is the Value?

To help answer our question, we start with a cursory view of their share prices since 2020.

As the graph below shows, CLX had a nice run during the height of the pandemic as bleach was in high demand. After a 60% surge, it gradually erased the gains and is back to similar levels as two years ago.

NVDA initially fell by 35% in March 2020 but stormed back, growing from $50 to a peak of $333. Since hitting a record high in November 2021, it has fallen nearly 50%, although still trading at a reasonable premium to its pre-pandemic levels. 


While most investors stare at stock prices all day, fundamentals are what matter. Simply, what are you getting for the price? This is where the Nvidia and Clorox valuations and recent performance get interesting. Further, it is where the line between value and growth gets hazy.

Since 2020, NVDA has grown its revenue by 146%, while CLX has grown revenue by 15%. Sales are a significant consideration in stock analysis, but how well sales revenue translates into bottom-line growth is more important. NVDA has grown EBITDA by 242%, while CLX has seen a 23% decline in EBITDA over the same period. Earnings are a function of sales and margins. Operating margins at NVDA are up nearly 11 points since 2020, while CLX has dropped 7.5.

NVDA’s Price to Earnings ratio (P/E) has fallen by 14 since 2020. At the same time, CLX has risen by 13.5.

Current Valuations

The above data certainly points to NVDA as the higher growth company with more robust fundamentals. However, we want to stress that price and fundamentals matter, but only in the context of valuations.

A company can have poor growth rates and weakening margins, but it may be an excellent investment at a low enough valuation. Conversely, a company like Tesla is experiencing tremendous growth, but its market cap equals that of the entire auto industry.

With that background, let’s compare NVDA and CLX valuations.

nvda clx stock price

If you only looked at the table above and didn’t know which companies they were, you would likely struggle to pick the value stock. NVDA has a higher P/E but a lower forward P/E. NVDA also has a much lower price to book value but a much higher price to sales ratio.

To help break the tie, let’s compare their PEG ratios. The PEG ratio or price to earnings growth is the price to earnings ratio divided by earnings growth. This ratio helps make sense of P/E within the context of expected growth. A P/E of 100 may be cheap, for instance, if earnings are growing at 200%. Conversely, a P/E of five may be expensive if earnings are shrinking.

A PEG ratio of one typically defines the border between over and undervaluation. By this metric, both companies are overvalued, with ratios well above one. However, NVDA’s PEG ratio is decently lower than CLX.

We believe that NVDA is trading at a lower valuation than Clorox based on the data above. 

SimpleVisor Models

To add to the analysis, we share our internal model. The model helps assess if stocks are rich or cheap to their long-running normalized valuations. The model assigns a fair value price based on its normalized P/E ratio. It then tracks how the stock price trades around that ratio.

In the Clorox graph below, the stock price (black line) tended to gravitate around the gray fair value line from 2012 to 2019. When it was above the gray line, we would say Clorox stock is overvalued and vice versa for when it is below. Currently, Clorox is over two standard deviations or 60% above the model’s fair value.   

clorox valuation fundamental

The following graph shows a similar analysis for NVDA. From 2012 to 2019, it also bounced around its fair value level. However, once the pandemic struck, it traded well above fair value. Until November 2021, Nvidia stock, like Clorox, was over two standard deviations above its fair value. Since then, it has fallen back much closer to fair value, currently trading at a 19% premium.

nvda fundamental valuation

Neither stock is cheap using this model, but the model asserts Nvidia, not Clorox is the more reasonable of the two companies. Dare we say if we must pick a value stock from the two choices, it would be Nvidia, not Clorox.


NVDA is growing earnings and revenues much faster than Clorox. That in and of itself is not a surprise. The real revelation is that these two companies trade at similar valuations despite vastly different growth trajectories.

Given that NVDA is proliferating and CLX growth appears limited, our analysis questions why hold a “value” stock in CLX versus a “growth” stock in NVDA. This article is not a prompt to buy Nvidia or sell Clorox stock, but it highlights that some stocks are perceived as value stocks despite valuations that are on par with growth stocks offering significantly greater growth potential.

Investors tend to lump certain stocks within broad classifications. Clorox, for example, is widely touted as a value stock. NVDA is known as a high-growth stock. The problem with these classifications is that it is not the underlying business that matters; it is the price you pay for their earnings potential.

The post Clorox Stock- Anything But A Value Stock appeared first on RIA.

Read More

Continue Reading


Repeated COVID-19 Vaccination Weakens Immune System: Study

Repeated COVID-19 Vaccination Weakens Immune System: Study

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Repeated COVID-19…



Repeated COVID-19 Vaccination Weakens Immune System: Study

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Repeated COVID-19 vaccination weakens the immune system, potentially making people susceptible to life-threatening conditions such as cancer, according to a new study.

A man is given a COVID-19 vaccine in Chelsea, Mass., on Feb. 16, 2021. (Joseph Prezioso/AFP via Getty Images)

Multiple doses of the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines lead to higher levels of antibodies called IgG4, which can provide a protective effect. But a growing body of evidence indicates that the “abnormally high levels” of the immunoglobulin subclass actually make the immune system more susceptible to the COVID-19 spike protein in the vaccines, researchers said in the paper.

They pointed to experiments performed on mice that found multiple boosters on top of the initial COVID-19 vaccination “significantly decreased” protection against both the Delta and Omicron virus variants and testing that found a spike in IgG4 levels after repeat Pfizer vaccination, suggesting immune exhaustion.

Studies have detected higher levels of IgG4 in people who died with COVID-19 when compared to those who recovered and linked the levels with another known determinant of COVID-19-related mortality, the researchers also noted.

A review of the literature also showed that vaccines against HIV, malaria, and pertussis also induce the production of IgG4.

“In sum, COVID-19 epidemiological studies cited in our work plus the failure of HIV, Malaria, and Pertussis vaccines constitute irrefutable evidence demonstrating that an increase in IgG4 levels impairs immune responses,” Alberto Rubio Casillas, a researcher with the biology laboratory at the University of Guadalajara in Mexico and one of the authors of the new paper, told The Epoch Times via email.

The paper was published by the journal Vaccines in May.

Pfizer and Moderna officials didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Both companies utilize messenger RNA (mRNA) technology in their vaccines.

Dr. Robert Malone, who helped invent the technology, said the paper illustrates why he’s been warning about the negative effects of repeated vaccination.

“I warned that more jabs can result in what’s called high zone tolerance, of which the switch to IgG4 is one of the mechanisms. And now we have data that clearly demonstrate that’s occurring in the case of this as well as some other vaccines,” Malone, who wasn’t involved with the study, told The Epoch Times.

So it’s basically validating that this rush to administer and re-administer without having solid data to back those decisions was highly counterproductive and appears to have resulted in a cohort of people that are actually more susceptible to the disease.”

Possible Problems

The weakened immune systems brought about by repeated vaccination could lead to serious problems, including cancer, the researchers said.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/03/2023 - 22:30

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Banned By Major Social Media Site, Campaign Pages Blocked

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Banned By Major Social Media Site, Campaign Pages Blocked

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),




Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Banned By Major Social Media Site, Campaign Pages Blocked

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Twitter owner Elon Musk invited Democrat presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for a discussion on his Twitter Spaces after Kennedy said his campaign was suspended by Meta-owned Instagram.

Interesting… when we use our TeamKennedy email address to set up @instagram accounts we get an automatic 180-day ban. Can anyone guess why that’s happening?” he wrote on Twitter.

An accompanying image shows that Instagram said it “suspended” his “Team Kennedy” account and that there “are 180 days remaining to disagree” with the company’s decision.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. attends Keep it Clean to benefit Waterkeeper Alliance in Los Angeles, Calif., on March 1, 2018. (John Sciulli/Getty Images for Waterkeeper Alliance)

In response to his post, Musk wrote: “Would you like to do a Spaces discussion with me next week?” Kennedy agreed, saying he would do it Monday at 2 p.m. ET.

Hours later, Kennedy wrote that Instagram “still hasn’t reinstated my account, which was banned years ago with more than 900k followers.” He argued that “to silence a major political candidate is profoundly undemocratic.”

“Social media is the modern equivalent of the town square,” the candidate, who is the nephew of former President John F. Kennedy, wrote. “How can democracy function if only some candidates have access to it?”

The Epoch Times approached Instagram for comment.

It’s not the first time that either Facebook or Instagram has taken action against Kennedy. In 2021, Instagram banned him from posting claims about vaccine safety and COVID-19.

After he was banned by the platform, Kennedy said that his Instagram posts raised legitimate concerns about vaccines and were backed by research. His account was banned just days after Facebook and Instagram announced they would block the spread of what they described as misinformation about vaccines, including research saying the shots cause autism, are dangerous, or are ineffective.

“This kind of censorship is counterproductive if our objective is a safe and effective vaccine supply,” he said at the time.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/03/2023 - 20:30

Read More

Continue Reading


Study Falsely Linking Hydroxychloroquine To Increased Deaths Frequently Cited Even After Retraction

Study Falsely Linking Hydroxychloroquine To Increased Deaths Frequently Cited Even After Retraction

Authored by Jessie Zhang via Thje Epoch…



Study Falsely Linking Hydroxychloroquine To Increased Deaths Frequently Cited Even After Retraction

Authored by Jessie Zhang via Thje Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

An Australian and Swedish investigation has found that among the hundreds of COVID-19 research papers that have been withdrawn, a retracted study linking the drug hydroxychloroquine to increased mortality was the most cited paper.

Hydroxychloroquine sulphate tablets. (Memories Over Mocha/Shutterstock)

With 1,360 citations at the time of data extraction, researchers in the field were still referring to the paper “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis” long after it was retracted.

Authors of the analysis involving the University of Wollongong, Linköping University, and Western Sydney Local Health District wrote (pdf) that “most researchers who cite retracted research do not identify that the paper is retracted, even when submitting long after the paper has been withdrawn.”

“This has serious implications for the reliability of published research and the academic literature, which need to be addressed,” they said.

Retraction is the final safeguard against academic error and misconduct, and thus a cornerstone of the entire process of knowledge generation.”

Scientists Question Findings

Over 100 medical professionals wrote an open letter, raising ten major issues with the paper.

These included the fact that there was “no ethics review” and “unusually small reported variances in baseline variables, interventions and outcomes,” as well as “no mention of the countries or hospitals that contributed to the data source and no acknowledgments to their contributions.”

A bottle of Hydroxychloroquine at the Medicine Shoppe in Wilkes-Barre, Pa on March 31, 2020. Some politicians and doctors were sparring over whether to use hydroxychloroquine against the new coronavirus, with many scientists saying the evidence is too thin to recommend it yet. (Mark Moran/The Citizens’ Voice via AP)

Other concerns were that the average daily doses of hydroxychloroquine were higher than the FDA-recommended amounts, which would present skewed results.

They also found that the data that was reportedly from Australian patients did not seem to match data from the Australian government.

Eventually, the study led the World Health Organization to temporarily suspend the trial of hydroxychloroquine on COVID-19 patients and to the UK regulatory body, MHRA, requesting the temporary pause of recruitment into all hydroxychloroquine trials in the UK.

France also changed its national recommendation of the drug in COVID-19 treatments and halted all trials.

Currently, a total of 337 research papers on COVID-19 have been retracted, according to Retraction Watch.

Further retractions are expected as the investigation of proceeds.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/03/2023 - 17:30

Read More

Continue Reading