Our valuation of CVS shows that it is significantly undervalued on its own while AET is somewhat overvalued. The question then is whether it would still be attractive after the acquisition is completed.
As shown in the lower left graph below, CVS has been valued consistently between 75% and 125% of the market’s Payback over the last two decades. At $70, the stock is undervalued by 71% (VR) assuming estimated EPS of $6.42 for 2018. The calculated range is shown in the lower right graph compared to the actual high, low and close.
The fact that it is undervalued is due both the uncertainty of Amazon’s interest in healthcare services as well as CVS’ role as acquirer.
By the same analysis, Aetna ($178) is only modestly overvalued by 12% (VR). This is a small premium for a takeover target but not uncommon.
The next question is what would be the merged company’s Valuation Return, or Risk (VR).
By adding the VR adjusted Market Caps of each company we get an Adjusted Market Cap total which is 34% higher than the current Market Cap of CVS and AET combined.
||SHARES O/S (M)
||MKT CAP (M)
||ADJ MKT CAP
If the acquisition price of $207 is used, the NET VR is reduced to +24%, still an attractive value.
(c) 2018 Robert L. Colby
 For an explanation of Corequity analysis, please refer to https://corequity.org/category/guide-to-the-corequity-analysis/
Click here to access Corequity Analysis on over 400 US equities
Corequity has been screening its equity universe since 2004. The monthly results shown below cover 13 years, from September 2004-2017 The Undervalued Screen has achieved an average annualized gain over the S&P 500 of 5.20% while the Overvalued underperformed by 2.76% for a spread of 7.95% pa.
While this may not seem like much to some, it is enormous. This chart shows what the actual gains would have been on an investment of $100 over the period. The Undervalued Screens produce a return that is over 5.5 times that of the Overvalued.
The graph below shows the relative performance of the Screens compared to our universe of stocks.
(c) 2017 Robert L. Colby
 For background please refer to https://corequity.org/about-2-2/ . For explanation of methodology please refer to https://corequity.org/category/guide-to-the-corequity-analysis
 Undervalued Stocks are in the highest quartiles of Valuation Return and the ratio of Normalized Earnings (MPEPS) to Estimated Earnings (EPS). Ovevalued Screens’ criteria are the opposite.
 Our universe most closely tracks the equal weighted S&P 500
The performance of the screens have been particularly consistent since June 2016 as the graph below shows. The Undervalued have outperformed our Universe by 31% while the Overvalued underperformed by 19% for a spread of over 50% in 16 months.
Analysis of Short Term Results: Undervalued
The following tables on sectors and stocks show which were the largest contributors to these results. The tables show the sum of the Relative Strength (to the S&P 500).
Here we can see that the major contributors to the superior performance of the Undervalued Screen were Technology, Industrial and Consumer Cyclical.
The top and bottom Undervalued stocks which contributed the most (and least) are shown here:
Analysis of Short Term Results: Overvalued
The Sectors which contributed the most to the underperformance of the Overvalued were Energy, Financial and Basic Materials. The individual companies in the top and bottom 10 are as follows:
These attribution tables do not answer the question of why these results have been so consistent in the last 16 months.
A simple explanation would be value vs growth but this doesn’t hold up as the underlying principal of Corequity analysis is to put a price on growth specific to each company. This is further supported by the recent relative performance of the ETFs SPYG and SPYV, being the Spider ETFs for S&P 500 Growth and Value stocks.
This bears no resemblance to the UV/OV screen graph for the same period especially if the same scale is used.
(C) 2017 Robert L. Colby
The Undervalued and Overvalued Screened stocks by Sector are:
This table below shows the stocks entering and leaving the screens during the month of October together with their relative performance. The two leaving the screen outperformed the S&P by 5.6% while the newly screened UV stocks had declined by 13% relative.
(c) 2017 Robert L. Colby
In the last 9 months the Undervalued Screen has outperformed the S&P 500 by 21.2% while the Overvalued underperformed by -7.2%. The absolute numbers were +33.8% vs +5.4%.
Stay tuned for the a look at what Sectors, Industries and equities contributed to the divergent returns.
The graphs below show the performance of the two screens since inception on September 30th 2004. Relative to the Corequity universe, the respective annualized returns are +2.68% pa vs -3.77% for a spread of over 600 basis points per annum.
The average return on the Universe is +2.04% pa which is more in line with the Equal Weighted S&P 500.
Here is a look at the returns over the last year as well as since inception.
(c) 2017 Robert L. Colby
Our universe of stocks outperformed the S&P by 4.2% last month while the Undervalued Screen gained 6.5% relative. The Overvalued were equal to the universe’s return of 4.2% mainly due to the superior performance of the Energy stocks which numbered 15 out of 26 in the screen.
The Overvalued ended the month on a strong note gaining 2.4% in the last week.
There were huge gains and losses for those stocks entering or leaving the screens from October 31st to November 30th.
Those leaving the Undervalued averaged close to +14%. Those leaving the Overvalued were down 7%.
The 7 stocks entering the Overvalued screen increased an average of 29% in the month, an astonishingly high number. At the beginning of the month, they were fairly valued with an average of -1.8% and a range of -12 to +11%.
(c) 2016 Robert L. Colby
For the current Screens, contact firstname.lastname@example.org