HP's Moat Dries Up
We no longer believe that HP's business entities benefit from sustainable competitive advantages.
We no longer believe that HP's business entities benefit from sustainable competitive advantages.
Pete Wahlstrom: Last fall, Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) announced that it will split into two publicly traded companies: HP Inc. and HP Enterprise. As we look forward, we no longer believe that the combined entity benefits from sustainable competitive advantages, and it's unlikely to earn economic profits in excess of WACC [weighted average cost of capital] over the next 10 years.
As a result, we've moved our economic moat rating to none from narrow, although the Morningstar Moat Trend Rating remains at negative. For HP Enterprise, this is a business that sells hardware to enterprises as well as software and maintenance services. These are generally sticky businesses. Network equipment, server arrays, storage arrays, and related software tools are difficult to rip out from an operational data center. IT managers are really reluctant to change; however, we view HP as seeing competitive threats from Chinese white-box manufacturers and, over the long-term, we've grown less comfortable that the company has any sort of sustainable competitive advantage in its enterprise-hardware business.
On the services side, HP is large, at number three in terms of revenue in a very large and fragmented industry. But we think the company operates at a competitive disadvantage relative to focused players such as IBM (IBM) and Accenture (ACN) and top-tier offshore providers.
Switching over to HP Inc., this includes the company's printing and PC businesses. We generally view PCs and printing as commodified businesses, as there are relatively low customer switching costs. It's true that HP is well entrenched with its customers here; however, we are concerned about secular trends toward mobile computing, which represents a significant headwind for the company.
From a valuation perspective, we view HP shares as modestly undervalued but still sitting in 3-star territory. We'd seek a wider margin of safety before investing in the name.
Transparency is how we protect the integrity of our work and keep empowering investors to achieve their goals and dreams. And we have unwavering standards for how we keep that integrity intact, from our research and data to our policies on content and your personal data.
We’d like to share more about how we work and what drives our day-to-day business.
We sell different types of products and services to both investment professionals
and individual investors. These products and services are usually sold through
license agreements or subscriptions. Our investment management business generates
asset-based fees, which are calculated as a percentage of assets under management.
We also sell both admissions and sponsorship packages for our investment conferences
and advertising on our websites and newsletters.
How we use your information depends on the product and service that you use and your relationship with us. We may use it to:
To learn more about how we handle and protect your data, visit our privacy center.
Maintaining independence and editorial freedom is essential to our mission of empowering investor success. We provide a platform for our authors to report on investments fairly, accurately, and from the investor’s point of view. We also respect individual opinions––they represent the unvarnished thinking of our people and exacting analysis of our research processes. Our authors can publish views that we may or may not agree with, but they show their work, distinguish facts from opinions, and make sure their analysis is clear and in no way misleading or deceptive.
To further protect the integrity of our editorial content, we keep a strict separation between our sales teams and authors to remove any pressure or influence on our analyses and research.
Read our editorial policy to learn more about our process.