|Bid||59.09 x 1100|
|Ask||59.28 x 800|
|Day's range||58.15 - 59.24|
|52-week range||51.67 - 64.84|
|Beta (5Y monthly)||0.36|
|PE ratio (TTM)||23.43|
|Forward dividend & yield||1.81 (3.13%)|
|Ex-dividend date||30 Oct 2019|
|1y target est||N/A|
The gold price might look attractive right now, but this FTSE 100 dividend champion has outperformed the market for decades. The post Forget gold! I'd buy this FTSE 100 dividend champion to make a million appeared first on The Motley Fool UK.
Roland Head explains why he thinks these FTSE 100 (INDEXFTSE: UKX) stocks are star buys for long-term investors.The post 3 FTSE 100 stocks I'd buy and hold forever appeared first on The Motley Fool UK.
These two stocks should be far more rewarding than leaving your money in cash, in my view.The post Forget the Cash ISA! I'd buy these 2 FTSE 100 stocks today to boost my State Pension appeared first on The Motley Fool UK.
Investing small amounts of money in single stocks can lead to high-risk portfolios and exorbitant fees. Following this two-stage plan can help avoid these issues.The post How to invest small amounts of money regularly in a Stocks and Shares ISA appeared first on The Motley Fool UK.
There is some evidence that buying progressive dividend payers with solid balance sheets is a strategy well-rewarded by the market. After all, who doesn’t like8230;
When it comes to dividend stocks for retirement, you need to be selective, says Edward Sheldon. Now is not the time to be taking large risks.
Even the Oracle of Omaha had a mentor in Benjamin Graham, and you can learn something from both of them.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Amid the grim march of the retail apocalypse, the industry has derived some hope in recent years from the rise of scores of digital-centric startups. There is cause for optimism, but there’s also reason to be skeptical of the hype surrounding these brands — not just because their business models aren’t proving durable, but also because many of them are now intertwined with the companies they are ostensibly disrupting.Consider, for example, the November announcement from supermarket behemoth Albertsons Cos. about the future of meal-kit maker Plated, which the grocer paid $200 million for only two years ago. The company said it was ending the subscription model for Plated and that its products would now simply be part of its private-label business. It’s hard to see that as anything other than a concession that the format is a dud.And that’s not the only meal-kit business that’s gone cold: Blue Apron Holdings Inc. had only 386,000 paid customers in its latest quarter, down from 646,000 in the same quarter a year earlier and 856,000 the year before that. The decline partly reflects a deliberate shift to focus on its best customers, but it’s also an indication that the long-term market for online meal-kits is just not that big.Dollar Shave Club’s low-priced, subscription-based model for grooming gear was similarly seen as a disruptive game-changer when it captured attention with a viral YouTube video in 2012. Unilever NV acquired it for $1 billion in 2016, a testament to its growing market share. But the Wall Street Journal recently reported that the digital brand is still not profitable and the consumer-products giant “has concluded that selling staples as online subscriptions doesn’t make financial sense.”Still other 2010s wunderkinds are pursuing growth in ways that don’t look so different than the playbooks embraced by their predecessors. Quip toothbrushes, Native deodorant, Bark pet toys, and Harry’s razors can all now be found in the aisles of Target stores. Men’s clothing from Bonobos and Mizzen + Main is sold at Nordstrom Inc., while beauty brand Glossier recently launched pop-ups at the department store. Everlane has brick-and-mortar stores, as does bedding brand Parachute.The result is that the term “digital-native brand” is all but meaningless. How could a startup not be digital-native in the year 2019? How are their hybrid online-and-store selling models any different from what mature brands are doing? This is not to write off this crop of retailers entirely. They have collectively snatched billions of dollars of market share from incumbents and have made some genuinely alluring products, such as the Allbirds sneakers that have spawned copycats. Mall landlords have been forced to rethink their leasing models and floor plans to accommodate their needs. But, so far, these startups are no more than spoilers for legacy brands. They’re not replacing them.The constellation of insurgents collectively is poised to open 850 physical stores over five years, according to a 2018 analysis by JLL. In other words, the entire group will add roughly as many stores as are in the Macy’s Inc. portfolio. That means their growth doesn’t come anywhere close to offsetting the massive shakeout of established chains. In 2019 alone, Coresight Research estimates, there have been 9,302 store closures.Also, if these digital brands were finding easy paths to profitability and customer growth, many more of them would probably be going public or agreeing to be acquired for dizzying sums. But IPO hopefuls such as Casper remain on the public market sidelines, and the aforementioned Dollar Shave acquisition and Edgewell Personal Care Co.’s $1.4 billion deal for Harry’s are exceptions, not the rule.Meanwhile, Bonobos founder Andy Dunn is set to exit a companywide role at Walmart Inc. a little more than two years after the big-box chain acquired his clothing brand, a change that may turn out to be a cautionary tale about the ability of these scrappy virtuosos to apply their skills within retail’s old guard.All of this leads to a bracing conclusion: The transformative power of the digitally oriented swashbucklers has been overestimated. Would-be investors and entrepreneurs, consider yourselves warned.To contact the author of this story: Sarah Halzack at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Newman at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Sarah Halzack is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering the consumer and retail industries. She was previously a national retail reporter for the Washington Post.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
London's exporter-heavy FTSE 100 hit a more than four-month high on Thursday partly in response to a weaker pound, which came under pressure from fears Britain may leave the European Union without a trade deal at the end of 2020. The FTSE 100 was up by 0.4%, rising for the seventh straight session. Its gains have been supported by a breakthrough on a U.S.-China trade deal and a landslide victory for Prime Minister Boris Johnson in the British national election.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Unilever NV has made a great deal of “instilling purpose” into its products, trying to flag up the social and environmental credentials of things from Dove shower gel to Magnum ice cream to appeal to millennial consumers. It doesn’t seem to be doing much for its sales.The Anglo-Dutch company surprised the stock market on Tuesday, warning that revenue growth this year would be below its 3% to 5% range. And it won’t bounce back quickly. Unilever forecasts sales increases will be in the lower half of its target range in 2020, with most progress coming in the second half.The company said it was suffering from an economic slowdown in south Asia, particularly India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and difficult trading conditions in west Africa. Meanwhile, its big-selling north American products such as ice cream and hair care are still recovering from a sluggish period, while competition is fierce in parts of Europe.Yet Unilever must take some of the blame for its own predicament. Its rival Nestle SA has managed steady sales growth, while pulling off some canny acquisitions and disposals.After a failed takeover approach from Kraft Heinz Co. back in 2017, Unilever set the goal of lifting its operating margin from 16% to 20% by 2020. Alan Jope, the chief executive officer, could have ditched this target when he took the reins at the start of this year to give himself more firepower to invest. But it seems he’s sticking with it: The company said on Tuesday that the goal wouldn’t be affected by the sales slowdown. While Unilever insists it’s spending enough on research and development and marketing, Jope may have to back his biggest brands with more funds to make sure they’re competitive. That would have to come at the expense of margins. He also needs to decide in which categories Unilever wants to compete, and reshape its sprawling portfolio accordingly. It’s admirable that the company generates close to 60% of its sales in emerging markets, and operates in popular areas such as beauty and personal care. Unfortunately, it is also over-exposed to more sluggish food ranges such as tea and dressings.Jope could do worse than learn from Nestle’s CEO Mark Schneider. The latter has been quick to prune unwanted categories, recently selling its U.S. ice cream business to a joint venture between itself and private equity. Nestle has also been buying in its preferred product areas, such as coffee.Unilever, meanwhile, has been less bold, undertaking a plethora of small acquisitions — from fake meat to fancy laundry products. The group generated only about 0.5 percentage points of growth from its acquisitions and disposals in the first half of the financial year; Jope says he’ll slow the pace of bolt-on deals and step up disposals.If he doesn’t hurry, someone else might attempt to do some portfolio tidying for him. Kraft Heinz isn’t in a position to make another approach. But an activist investor may be tempted. Selling Unilever’s foods and refreshments business for cash is a possibility, although a demerger might be complicated by Unilever’s dual British and Dutch structure.The food unit could have an enterprise value of 55 billion euros ($61 billion), according to UBS analysts. So offloading it would generate proceeds to invest in higher growth products, while allowing the return of cash to investors. On a price-to-earnings basis, Nestle’s premium over Unilever is widening. An aggressive investor may spot a corporate purpose of their own.To contact the author of this story: Andrea Felsted at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: James Boxell at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Andrea Felsted is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering the consumer and retail industries. She previously worked at the Financial Times.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
In an unscheduled trading update, Anglo-Dutch Unilever also struck a downbeat tone on its prospects for meeting its mid-term target for sales growth of 3-5% next year. "Our full-year underlying sales growth is expected to be in the lower half of the multi-year range," added Jope, who took on the top job earlier this year. Shares in Unilever were down 5.1% at 1025 GMT, while rival Nestle slipped 1.2%.
Investing.com -- Here is a summary of the most important regulatory news releases from the London Stock Exchange on Tuesday, 17th December. Please refresh for updates.