Skip to Content
Stocks

Investing Insights: Earnings Analysis, China Debt, Novartis

Investing Insights: Earnings Analysis, China Debt, Novartis

Editor's note: We are presenting Morningstar's Investing Insights podcast here. You can subscribe for free on iTunes.

***

Jim Sinegal: American Express reported strong results this quarter with double-digit growth in billed business, double-digit growth in loans, and double-digit growth in revenue. At the same time, the tax cuts helped them out, and an extensive program of capital return over the last year helped them generate earnings per share growth of 38% over the course of the year.

American Express is still facing some headwinds. Their partners, hotels, and airlines are demanding more in payments for their co-brand relationships. Merchants are demanding lower prices, and rewards competition is still fairly intense. However, the strong economy is helping them to grow despite all of that. Consumers are spending. Unemployment is low, and loan-loss rates are very low, and consumers are once again willing to borrow. We also like that American Express is refocusing on its strengths.

Those include relationships with corporations, relationships with merchants, and the ability to gather data from its customers. Its new strategies are still in the very early stages. American Express has only had a few months under the new CEO, but we think over time, they will pay off.

We also think American Express is relatively undervalued in the financial space. It's trading at about a 10% discount to our $112 fair value estimate and only about 14 times the midpoint of management's guidance for 2018.

***

Andrew Lange: IBM's first-quarter results came mostly in line with expectations, although sales slightly disappointed after the company's storage hardware business had some sales execution issues. We think the sales executions are down to the comparative nature of the industry.

In addition, the company also announced restructuring to its sales and cost structures. We think that this restructuring really follows the company's transition toward higher value, enterprise IT services--what the company deems as strategic imperatives.

While the strategic imperatives business continues to grow and will become the majority of IBM's revenue over the midterm, we are seeing a moderation in the growth rate of their business. Still, we think it is the right direction for the company to be heading, even if it is to achieve modest midterm revenue growth.

With management reiterating its full-year outlook and us retaining our outlook for IBM, we reiterate our $168 fair value estimate and narrow economic moat rating.

***

Damien Conover: Johnson & Johnson reported first-quarter earnings that slightly exceeded our expectations. We're really driven by strong top-line growth from its immunology franchise and its oncology drug franchise. These are two areas where the company's done a lot of innovative development with drugs, and these drugs continue to help unmet medical need, which really enables Johnson & Johnson to have strong pricing power.

Beyond the drug division, the consumer division and medical device division continue to post modest gains that should support continued long-term growth for Johnson & Johnson. Based on the strong results today, we have increased our fair value by close to 5%, and we anticipate the stock will continue to do well; however the stock is trading pretty close to our fair value. We do think it's a very strongly positioned firm, and we do have it as a wide economic moat firm, really supported by the drugs in its drug division that have patent protection that enable it to get these strong returns on invested capital.

When thinking about the other divisions, brand power can also be really important in the consumer division. In time, we expect the medical device division and the consumer division to do better, boasted by better capital campaigns in getting the branded group to get more entrenched with the consumers, particularly in the baby care division, which had some pressure this quarter. Looking ahead in the device division, some new products in eye care look very well positioned to continue to support robust growth within the eye care division.

Looking forward we really expect the drug division to continue to drive the majority of the growth for J & J, and its pipeline is well positioned to continue to offset some of the generic threats that it is facing.

***

Neil Macker: Netflix started off 2018 on a strong note, as it beat its own subscriber guidance once again. The firm continues to expand and now has over 56 million subscribers to the United States, with over 125 million globally. Management continues to attribute its out performance on subscriber growth to the continued adoption of streaming video worldwide and its expanding content library.

The firm projects to spend $7.5 billion to $8 billion on content in 2018, up sharply from $6 billion in 2017. The firm has expanded its content focus, moving away from the original scripted shows that have been previously focused on into unscripted shows such as the "Queer Eye" reboot and "Nailed It." We expect the firm to continue to expand its content focus as it ramps up its content library in anticipation of Disney's entrance into the market in 2019.

As the result of the increased content spend, Netflix now projects to have a cash flow burn of $3 billion to $4 billion in 2018, up sharply from $2 billion in 2017. Most of the cash flow burn will happen in the second half of the year, as the firm has pushed out both its content and marketing spent. We are maintaining our narrow moat rating for Netflix and our $90 fair value estimate.

***

Christine Benz: Hi, I'm Christine Benz for Morningstar.com. Many Americans are providing long-term care for their loved ones, and that can take an emotional and financial toll. Joining me to discuss some research on this topic is Jennifer Benz. She is with the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

Jennie, thank you so much for being here.

Jennifer Benz: Yeah, thank you for having me. I appreciate it.

Christine Benz: Let's discuss the research. But before we get into it, I'd like to talk about how you conducted the survey. How did you find people who are providing care for their loved ones?

Jennifer Benz: The study was conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research back in the summer of 2017. We did a national survey representative of Americans who are 40 and older who have some sort of long-term care experience, either as a caregiver or a recipient themselves. To do the survey we went out and used NORC's probability-based survey research panel, called AmeriSpeak, and we were able to go out to the 40-plus population and screen them for this caregiving experience to make sure that we had a representative sample.

Christine Benz: Let's talk about the characteristics of people who are providing care. They tend to be older and more female than the general population, right?

Jennifer Benz: Right. It is true that if you compare caregivers to the population of Americans 40 and over overall, they tend to be more female; they tend to be a little lower in income; and a little bit older. But I would say that those skews maybe aren't as dramatic as some people might expect. Especially, in terms of gender, we see caregivers are about 60% female, 40% male, whereas the population overall is 53%-47%. There is definitely a skew, but it's not too severe. Similarly, for age, they are just a couple of years older on average. And in terms of income, there are fewer caregivers in sort of the higher-level income bracket, $100,000 a year household income or more.

Christine Benz: Do you have a conjecture about why that is?

Jennifer Benz: No, I'm not sure that we know precisely why the lower income is more representative, other than the fact that we are asking people about personal caregiving and informal caregiving. It's possible that …

Christine Benz: Not paid caregiving.

Jennifer Benz: Right, that higher-income families are able to put more of the caregiving on to the paid side.

Christine Benz: Right. That makes sense. Let's talk about the population to whom these caregivers are providing care, if you can kind of talk about the characteristics of that population, and also what type of care is being provided in the context of long-term care.

Jennifer Benz: First on the who: For informal caregivers, the vast majority of this care is going to parents. About 60% of the respondents said that they are caring for a parent or a parent-in-law. About 20% are caring for a spouse; the other 20% is really a mix of extended relatives, close friends. Then for some of these caregivers, it's not just one person that they are caring for. So, we asked …

Christine Benz: Maybe both parents …

Jennifer Benz: Both parents, right. About a quarter or the respondents who provided care in the past year said that they were caring for more than one person at a time.

Christine Benz: In terms of type of care, the care is being provided just for sort of basic daily functioning--showering, cooking meals and so forth--but also a lot of medical care being provided by some of these informal caregivers. Let's talk about the type of care being provided.

Jennifer Benz: You are right. We've tried to sort of quantify what all was under this umbrella of long-term care services that were being provided by mainly family members. We asked about 16 different types of long-term care tasks or duties, everything ranging from basic cooking and keeping up house to bathing and helping someone get dressed all the way to the other side of the spectrum, caring for pretty clinical needs--glucose testing, caring for an IV, or a feeding tube.

From these 16 things that we asked about we sort of got two big findings that came out of that. One is that these informal caregivers are providing a lot of different types of care. Fifty percent of these caregivers are providing between six and 10 of those different types of activities, and another quarter are providing 11 or more. They are doing a lot. As you said, the other finding is that almost everybody is providing the basic upkeep of the house and helping out, daily activities. But we saw close to three quarters are providing some sort of assistance with medication, either administering or managing medications, doing health monitoring, like glucose and blood pressure screenings, and then almost half are doing some sort of clinical aspect of things, like, caring for IVs or feeding tubes.

Christine Benz: An interesting finding from your research was that many of these folks providing this type of care, especially the clinical care, had done so and were doing so without a lot of training. Let's talk about that.

Jennifer Benz: Despite all the care that's happening in these informal settings, most people aren't getting any formal training to go with it. Only 30% of the caregivers said that they had some sort of training--either directly being coached by a physician or going to a caregiving seminar, that kind of thing. Most of them are saying that they are teaching themselves or they are learning on the job …

Christine Benz: YouTube videos.

Jennifer Benz: Doing some reading on their own. That's the vast majority of it. It is true that the caregivers who are providing that sort of more clinical level of care have slightly higher rates of formal training, but it's still fewer than half.

Christine Benz: I want to look at the impact of people who are providing care while at the same time they are employed somewhere else. Let's talk about that balancing act that a lot of adult children strike where they are helping mom and dad or helping some other person who needs care while also holding down a job. What did you find there?

Jennifer Benz: We found that almost two thirds of the caregivers had been providing care and working at the same time. Many of them, about half of them, said that it's a difficult balance to strike. A lot of people are having to take time off from work in order to perform caregiving duties, and they do that through paid time off and vacation leave, any number of ways that they can cobble together.

I think one striking finding was that of those who do have to take some time off, a good proportion of them feel like it's--about a third--feel like it is a threat to their job security to have to make that choice. Then we saw infrequently, but there are some people who felt like they are suffered repercussions for being a working caregiver in terms of missed opportunities for advancement all the way through to feeling as though they were let go or fired because of the work-life balance with caregiving.

Christine Benz: That's an important dimension as well. Certainly, you can't discuss this topic without discussing the emotional toll that this caregiving takes. Before we get there I thought one interesting point was most people said they found it gratifying. Let's talk about that.

Jennifer Benz: We asked people a range of emotions or phrases, whether or not it described their caregiving experience. By far, the most commonly selected item was that it's worthwhile. The caregiving makes it feel worthwhile. Whatever sacrifices they are making, whether it's in the work-life balance or all of these myriads of duties that they have to perform, in the end they do consider it worthwhile.

Christine Benz: That's a big positive, but people did express that they had experienced a lot of stress related to providing long-term care, in some cases, depression and other issues. Let's talk about that dimension, which can be very, very real. It's isolating to be a caregiver.

Jennifer Benz: We definitely saw evidence in the survey of a bit of an emotional roller coaster. We've got almost everybody saying that it's worthwhile, but then almost three quarters say that it's also stressful and can be very time consuming. Then you also have about half who say that it makes them feel honorable and they enjoy it, it's a positive experience, but on the flip side can also say that it's difficult and some more of the negative emotions that they sometimes feel sad or depressed about it, too.

Christine Benz: People wrestling with a lot of different emotions. One interesting finding from your research was that the emotional toll probably not surprisingly tended to be higher among folks who are providing care to people with cognitive decline?

Jennifer Benz: We saw two interesting dimensions or characteristics of the caregiving situation where the negative emotions were a little bit higher. One of them certainly is when the recipient of their care has Alzheimer's or other cognitive impairments. The other one is that in the caregiving relationship when you are caring for a spouse, the levels of stress reported were higher in spousal caregiving than caregiving for a parent.

Christine Benz: Do you have a conjecture about why that might be?

Jennifer Benz: You know, it's unclear. I think one aspect of it maybe--we did ask people where caregiving was taking place. When caregiving is happening for a spouse, it's generally in the home. Whereas caregiving for a parent oftentimes about equally is taking place in the caregiver's home or in the recipient's home. Maybe that distance for some people is enough time to decompress. Whereas when it's your own spouse and your own home, it really is a nonstop …

Christine Benz: Twenty-four seven-type job. A lot of great information here. I know that this issue is top of mind for a lot of viewers. Do you have any broad takeaways from this research, ways that people who are confronted with providing long-term care, things that they could think about? Any thoughts on that front?

Jennifer Benz: As a nation this is an issue now. It is an issue that is going to continue to grow as the population is aging. While it's a nationwide issue, there is also an interesting dimension that a caregiver's experience can be very different depending on what state they are providing care in, because we don't have a nationwide long-term care system. All of these sorts of key topics we've talked about today--the training, paid time off, financial reimbursement for care--all of those aspects differ. Some states offer some of that compensation or programs and other states don't …

Christine Benz: To informal caregivers.

Jennifer Benz: Right. To informal caregivers. Our growing nation of caregivers is going to be a little bit of a patchwork depending on what state they are in. But there are a lot of resources out there for caregivers, and the foundation that funded this work, the SCAN Foundation out of California, has some really good tip sheets to work through--everything from foundations about how to even have that first conversation with your family, about what type of care you want and what situations you are looking for, all the way through navigating different programs and policies that are available.

Christine Benz: There's certainly a lot of caregivers' support networks in many communities as well. Jennie, fascinating research. Thank you so much for being here to discuss it with us.

Jennifer Benz: Thank you. I appreciate it.

Christine Benz: Thanks for watching. I'm Christine Benz for Morningstar.com.

***

Daniel Sotiroff: A new fund that we have on our radar is iShares Core MSCI International Developed Markets ETF (IDEV). It was launched in March 2017, making it just over one year old, and has already garnered about $900 million in assets. It tracks the MSCI World Ex-USA Investible Market Index.

As its name suggests, it covers the entire market-cap spectrum of stocks listed in foreign developed markets, making it one of the most diversified portfolios in the foreign large-blend category. Stocks listed in foreign developed markets account for roughly 85% of the foreign investable market cap, so this fund could easily be used as a core portfolio holding.

BlackRock charges an ultralow expense ratio of just 7 basis points annually for this fund, which ranks among the lowest in the category. This low-fee advantage is complimented by a construction process that weights holdings by market capitalization--a technique that helps reduce turnover and any related trading costs while maintaining diversification.

The combination of extensive coverage and an ultralow expense ratio should make this fund competitive with other comprehensive, foreign developed-market funds like Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets ETF and iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF, which currently both carry Analyst Ratings of Silver.

***

Christine Benz: Hi, I'm Christine Benz for Morningstar.com. Starting with the January 2007 issue, Morningstar FundInvestor editor Russ Kinnel has been naming fund picks in each January issue. He is here with me today to recap some of his greatest hits and misses over the years.

Russ, thank you so much for being here.

Russ Kinnel: Good to be here.

Benz: I love that you do this Russ, because, A, you put out investment picks and investment themes for the years ahead. But I love that recently you just did a recap of what has worked out and what has worked out not so well, which is really helpful accounting. You took stock of some of the funds that you have recommended over the years. Let's start on a high note. We'll talk about some of the fund picks that you've made that actually worked out very well. Let's talk about Champlain Small Company.

Kinnel: This was a fund we really liked. We knew the manager from his previous gig at Sentinel.

Benz: And you recommended it back in 2007 when you started doing this?

Kinnel: Right. This was a manager who had a good track record and had vowed to close the fund at an earlier level than he had done at previous fund. Just really in our wheelhouse, a good manager with a good track record, but still room to run because he was relatively new with this new fund. Just everything you want in a small-cap fund really.

Benz: It's one that we still recommend. It's Gold-rated small cap growth.

Kinnel: Yes. We still like it today. It's really satisfying to have a fund that's stayed on our recommended list for a long time. Not all of them do, but this one has really consistently delivered. He continues to invest the way we expect, and the fund has performed well.

Benz: Another fund that you recommended right out of the box in 2007 was Vanguard Tax-Managed Balanced. It's Gold-rated, and it's a fund that is meant to be tax-efficient. Let's talk about why you picked it initially and performance has actually unfolded very nicely as well.

Kinnel: Sometimes, boring can be pretty good. This is a fund that's 50% S&P 500, 50% munis, which is unusual for a balanced fund, but it makes a lot of sense because munies are more tax-efficient than taxable bonds. And when you have it within a fund like this, they can do a better job of managing those shifts, essentially rebalancing, than you could. If you own the funds, you might have to pay some capital gains along the way, rebalancing in a taxable account. It's much more efficient done in this format. Really boring, but really good even before tax returns, and then on an after-tax basis, particularly good. I think, again, what could be more boring than indexing in munis, but Vanguard has just done a really nice job here.

Benz: It's a great one-stop fund. If you have some taxable investments that you don't need imminently, it seems like a good pick to just kind of set and forget it?

Kinnel: Yeah, I love the conservative approach of these balanced funds, because it does take away some of the downside of a pure equity fund. For some people, that's really important.

Benz: Right. Let's talk about another one of the picks that you made that went on to perform quite well. This is the one that I own, Vanguard Primecap Core. It's run by the Primecap team. So, in a way, picking this fund was a little bit of a gimme, right, because we liked Primecap going into this fund's launch?

Kinnel: For sure. Primecap started off running Vanguard Primecap. Then they later added a couple of more funds at Vanguard as well as three of their own proprietary funds that were not from Vanguard. They are all great. We knew they were great. In the case of these funds, it takes a little more effort in that you have to buy them more or less from Vanguard. Even the Primecap-labeled funds or go straight to Primecap. Just really great growth managers, more experienced. They just go a little deeper. They are a little more valuation-sensitive. It's been a really rewarding fund, as have the rest of their funds. It's just another one that it's nice when it works out this way. Low cost, good management, stable management, and here we are 11 years later, and it still looks really good.

Benz: Right. You recommended that one back in 2008. Let's move to the other side of the ledger and talk about some picks that you made that subsequently did not perform as well as you had expected. Let's start with what was then called Artio International; it's now called Aberdeen Select International. Let's talk about why you picked it initially and what has sort of unfolded in the ensuing years?

Kinnel: This is a fund that had a really good track record and a couple of good managers. It did kind of a nice blend apparently of macro and micro. But unfortunately, from the '08 crisis on, the kind of macro they did stopped really working--the kind of macro that's more like valuation-driven as opposed to central bank driven. It really stopped working very well. They later sold to Aberdeen and Aberdeen took it over, but after a number of years of disappointing performance. Really this was close to the end of its very nice long run. It seemed to have good ingredients, but it didn't work out.

Benz: Another fund that you recommended that has not had such great performance, you recommended it in 2008, over the next decade it did not perform particularly well, Longleaf Partners. This was a real favorite. I know when I was on board as an analyst, we really liked the team here and the strategy. Why do you think the fund underdelivered?

Kinnel: As you say, it had a lot of things we look for--really good stewardship, managers who really looked at the long haul and were very cautious with their investments, but it didn't work. I think part of it is that they ran a concentrated portfolio and some of their names just didn't work. They really stuck with them, and in the ensuing 10 years growth has been a better place than value and they have really avoided a lot of the growth names that have done well. Avoiding the winners and unfortunately, really got locked into some stocks that haven't done well. It's evidence sometimes even good ingredients don't work so well. You had a lot to like. Looking back, it's hard to see what should have spotted, but now we look and see it just hasn't executed that well and they have just held some names too long really.

Benz: When you survey this group of winners and losers, are there any big takeaways that jump out at you, things that you've learned, things that other investors could potentially take away from some of these picks and misses?

Kinnel: It's great to celebrate the wins, but it's also really sobering to see that I've missed on a number. And I think on the plus side, stable management, good strategy, low costs tend to work really well. But as the Longleaf case illustrates, it doesn't always work so well. I think one of the errors I made in a number of these annual issues was, because investors tend to do better conservative funds, I leaned probably little too heavily to conservative funds with the idea of keeping people invested. As it turned out, some of the conservative funds just were disappointing and obviously, a long-running bull market didn't work for them. I would say, that's maybe my biggest takeaway, maybe I was a little too conservative. I don't think you are going to hit all of your picks, but for sure, that was maybe my greatest takeaway.

Benz: Overall, we should say that your hits did outnumber your misses.

Kinnel: There were more hits than misses, thank goodness.

Benz: Russ, thank you so much for being here.

Kinnel: You're welcome.

Benz: Thanks for watching. I'm Christine Benz for Morningstar.com.

***

Jeremy Glaser: For Morningstar, I'm Jeremy Glaser. Trade with China has been in the news recently. But Stephen Ellis, a strategist here at Morningstar, thinks that investors should also pay attention to Chinese debt.

Stephen, thanks for joining me.

Stephen Ellis: Thank you for having me.

Glaser: Thinking about debt in China, why is this a topic that's important to an investor here in the United States?

Ellis: The big picture is that the Chinese credit to GDP ratio had been increasingly significantly over the past couple of years. We found that when that ratio increases very significantly in a short period of time--and China had increased faster than just about any other country in history--that it really raises the prospect of a financial crisis or a sharp slowdown, a sharp and sustained slowdown, in GDP growth.

Glaser: Where is this debt coming from? Is it the government borrowing? Is it households? Is it corporations? What's the mix there?

Ellis: This is primarily, right now, nonfinancial corporate debt and this is primarily from state-owned enterprises which have generally been less productive. Banks have generally lent to them, and they haven't been able to necessarily turnaround and invest that credit in a productive fashion.

Glaser: You see this debt growing. How does that compare to--you said it was the fastest we've seen--how does it compare to other credit crisis that we've seen elsewhere in the world?

Ellis: China's credit to GDP increase has been significantly faster than just about any other country we have seen--Korea, Chile, Brazil have been very, very rapid. All of those countries when the credit bubble has popped, if you will, have seen a 50% decline in real GDP growth. For China, that could be a similar outcome.

Glaser: When you think of those potential outcomes, we kind of talk about the cataclysmic one; is there kind of a muddle-through option as well? How would you think about that?

Ellis: I think there are two major outcomes, and I think really, you're going to see either financial crisis, where you are going to see banks have to recognize no losses have built up over time, and that kind of slowdown could be very disruptive to the Chinese economy. I think the second outcome is, you have a lower for longer scenario where Chinese debt continuing to see cash rolled over by Beijing and by the government and you end up with a lower for longer scenario where basically the growth rate can be very, very slow for a very long period of time.

Glaser: What would be some potential catalysts for this to become a major problem? How long can they continue just adding debt without seeing any of the consequence?

Ellis: I think the main thing that I would be looking would be the real estate market as well as silo banking. The real estate market, I think has experienced a massive boom since the early 2000s. This is primarily in what they are called Tier 1 cities, which are some of the largest and most important cities in China such as Beijing and Shenzhen. What we've found is we've found that essentially those cities have seen basically very, very low supply adding since 2010, while prices have nearly doubled over the last the same time frame.

In contrast, if we look at smaller cities, what they are called Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities, these are significantly sized, but different bucket, if you will, where we are seeing significantly more supply and lower levels of household price growth. To me that is an area where you have the Chinese household growth will get anywhere from 50%, 60%, 70% of household growth tied to the real estate market with the lack of alternatives. If that is an area that potentially slows down or ends up being disrupted by for whatever number of reasons, that would certainly be a catalyst.

Second reason would be silo banking. Silo banking is primarily unregulated financial instruments that have been introduced because of the, again, lack of true market alternatives. This is pretty substantial, $35 trillion to $40 trillion market, that is primarily unregulated products. Again, crack down on regulation and some sort of potentially slowdown in growth or other types of defaults could potentially introduce more risk into the system as well.

Glaser: Stephen, thank you for joining me today.

Ellis: Thank you for having me.

Glaser: For Morningstar, I'm Jeremy Glaser. Thanks for watching.

***

Damien Conover: In looking at opportunities for dividend-yielding stocks, one stock we're highlighting is Novartis. This is a big pharmaceutical company that is focused on several different therapeutic areas, including generic drugs as well as areas within the ophthalmology space.

The reason why we like Novartis is, we think it's undervalued from a stock standpoint, but also has the potential for really strong dividend yield for quite some time. Right now it's over a 3% dividend yield. It's been raising its dividend over the last 20 years, so we think there's opportunity for further dividend increases.

When we think about the drivers of that dividend, it really comes down to how many drugs are losing exclusivity versus how many drugs are coming in to the market from the pipeline. We think about Novartis, they do have some patent losses, so that dividend growth that we've talked about in the past will probably moderate. We anticipate more of a stable to slightly growing dividend into the future. Right now the dividend payout ratio is a little but over 50%, so that's in line with its peer group.

There are some interesting dynamics for Novartis that we think support the dividend going forward. Most notably, a couple new products. Most importantly is Cosentyx. This is a drug for immunology, and it will likely transform people's experience with psoriasis. For severe psoriasis right now, there's only limited treatment options, and Cosentyx has the opportunity to develop into a multibillion dollar drug.

Similarly, Entresto is another drug that's just launching right now that is doing incredibly well in the cardiovascular disease space, also another major blockbuster. These blockbusters should more than offset the patent losses that Novartis is facing over the next three years. We think the dividend should be stable to slightly growing over these next three years.

Beyond the dividend yield, we also see Novartis as undervalued. There's concerns right now on drug pricing pressure, and we think drug prices that are innovative, which is really where Novartis is focused, will continue to price very, very well. That strong pricing power, we think in time, will be reflected in the stock price. Not only do you get a strong dividend yield with Novartis, you also get the opportunity for capital appreciation.

More on this Topic

10 Undervalued Wide-Moat Stocks
Cheap high-quality names from the Morningstar Wide Moat Focus Index are attractive stocks to buy for long-term investors.

Sponsor Center