Sentences with phrase «cheap high growth stock»

However, Avangardco (AVGR: LI) is a classic example (rightly, or wrongly) of a particularly reviled & neglected company — while I clearly think it's a cheap high growth stock, it's probably a good idea to limit such holdings unless you're prepared to absorb significant pain & losses (ideally, on an interim basis!).

Not exact matches

His deep - value philosophy can be boiled down to four points: he's looking for high - quality stocks that protect against the downside; he wants businesses where short - term issues have caused investors to abandon the company; he wants to wait until valuations are «out - of - this - world» cheap, and he tries not to pay attention to macro issues like eurozone debt or Chinese growth.

With a track record of high profitability, significant growth opportunities, and a cheap valuation, this stock could offer significant upside for investors.

The stock has dropped over 50 % in the past eight months, and even if the firm's growth slows dramatically and margins shrink, the stock's cheap valuation makes it a safe stock with high potential upside.

For the purposes of this article, we wanted to highlight companies that had a significant recent track record of growth in addition to their high profitability and cheap valuations, which is why the three stocks featured all have five consecutive years of NOPAT growth.

I'd put 75 % of assets into higher growth buy - and - hold - forever stocks like Brown Forman, Colgate - Palmolive, Hershey, and Nike, and then the remaining 25 % into Fisherified value stocks like DineEquity during the 2010 through 2015 stretch when it was cheap at the beginning of the period while simultaneously increasing its intrinsic value due to the receipt of significant one - time franchise fees.

Now what: Abiomed's ability to leverage volume growth into higher profit - friendly margins is intriguing, but the stock is far from cheap.

Because of their high prices and low yields, growth stocks tend to have less downside protection and more volatility than cheaper companies.

Despite high growth, financial strength, and a strong R&D program, Celgene stock is cheap.

The extreme valuation premiums afforded to defensive, high - quality and high - growth stocks means that their inverse corollaries — cyclically geared value stocks — are historically cheap and under - owned.

I'd put 75 % of assets into higher growth buy - and - hold - forever stocks like Brown Forman, Colgate - Palmolive, Hershey, and Nike, and then the remaining 25 % into Fisherified value stocks like DineEquity during the 2010 through 2015 stretch when it was cheap at the beginning of the period while simultaneously increasing its intrinsic value due to the receipt of significant one - time franchise fees.

The extreme valuation premiums afforded to defensive, high - quality and high - growth stocks means that their inverse corollaries — cyclically geared value stocks — are historically cheap and under - owned.

Earlier this week I was able to take advantage of the selloff and pick up two high quality dividend growth stocks on the cheap: Phillip Morris International (PM) and Time Warner (TWX).

While finding young growth stocks, or established growth stocks suffering a short - term problem / reversal, is maybe a cheaper & higher potential strategy, it's also a lot more difficult to execute than it seems like with case studies & a bit of hindsight.

But my main objection comes from a stock picking perspective & is perhaps better served with an example: Let us presume you find two VERY SIMILAR & CHEAP high quality / growth stocks (regardless of market cap) in two different markets — one growing at 2 % real GDP, and the other at 7 % real GDP — which stock would you buy?!

The hard assets & cheap metrics of your typical value stock offer the siren song of safety, whereas investing in high quality / growth stocks may require a far more demanding leap of faith.

And opportunities are often found in the most mundane of stocks & sectors — by definition, activist investing doesn't need to focus on what the market currently thinks is dirt cheap, or high growth.

This performance, and the performance of cyclical stocks during these months, fits with much of the research which shows that during periods of optimism and high expectations cheaper stocks perform better than growth companies.

Capital was plentiful and cheap, property values and investment returns were high, and rising corporate growth was being rewarded by the stock market.