Buy both

5
Comment
Favorite

HuatKueh313
2022-03-27

Buy both

Alphabet Vs. Meta: One Is The Much Better Buy

FotoMaximum/iStock via Getty ImagesAlphabet (NASDAQ:GOOG) (NASDAQ:GOOGL) and Meta (NASDAQ:FB) are fa

Alphabet Vs. Meta: One Is The Much Better Buy

Disclaimer: Investing carries risk. This is not financial advice. The above content should not be regarded as an offer, recommendation, or solicitation on acquiring or disposing of any financial products, any associated discussions, comments, or posts by author or other users should not be considered as such either. It is solely for general information purpose only, which does not consider your own investment objectives, financial situations or needs. TTM assumes no responsibility or warranty for the accuracy and completeness of the information, investors should do their own research and may seek professional advice before investing.

Report

Comment

Top
Latest

DannyPhan
·2022-03-27
Ya, both
Reply
Like
Report

Most Discussed

Terms and Conditions·Privacy Policy

Company: TTMF Limited. Tech supported by Xiangshang Yixin.

Email：uservice@ttm.financial

{"i18n":{"language":"en_US"},"data":{"magic":2,"id":9010676686,"tweetId":"9010676686","gmtCreate":1648374519608,"gmtModify":1676534332302,"author":{"id":3565832091209909,"idStr":"3565832091209909","authorId":3565832091209909,"authorIdStr":"3565832091209909","name":"HuatKueh313","avatar":"https://static.itradeup.com/news/fb2a3aa1007fa02bcad27f2593b66592","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":1,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":22,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body>Buy both</body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body>Buy both</body></html>","text":"Buy both","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9010676686","repostId":2221071429,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2221071429","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1648343569,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2221071429?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2022-03-27 09:12","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Alphabet Vs. Meta: One Is The Much Better Buy","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2221071429","media":"seekingalpha","summary":"FotoMaximum/iStock via Getty ImagesAlphabet (NASDAQ:GOOG) (NASDAQ:GOOGL) and Meta (NASDAQ:FB) are fa","content":"<html><head></head><body><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f8682b68644fb0e700ccf73bfd598736\" tg-width=\"750\" tg-height=\"500\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/>FotoMaximum/iStock via Getty ImagesAlphabet (NASDAQ:GOOG) (NASDAQ:GOOGL) and Meta (NASDAQ:FB) are famous for enriching millions of investors over the last eight years. Alphabet And Meta Returns Since 2013<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c7de1c1120c62c3dad9c49e5d4e5a134\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"112\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/>Portfolio Visualizer PremiumIn fact, both have crushed even the red hot Nasdaq during <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a> of the hottest tech bull runs in US history, delivering Buffett-like 25% returns that resulted in an 8X return.<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ad549342543f2ced891f57b6c43bb4fd\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"388\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/>YchartsWhile the market is currently in a correction, and growth stocks have been especially hard hit, Meta has been crushed, falling into a 50% bear market.I&#39;ve bought both growth legends in this correction, but one is a core growth name in my correction plan, and the other is a non-core holding.So let me explain why both Meta and Alphabet are great companies, worth owning, and even buying more of right now.However, a careful examination of both of their fundamentals makes it clear that Alphabet is the global king of digital marketing, and this is likely to remain the case for the foreseeable future.<h2>The Challenge Facing Digital Marketers Right Now</h2><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a556ac1fd6482c83da2db4af6d5b7540\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"637\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/>eMarketerGOOG, FB, and Amazon (AMZN) have a triopoly on US digital marketing, commanding an estimated 65% of the market.Both GOOG and FB are losing market share to AMZN because Amazon&#39;s ads are 3X as effective at converting to actual sales.That&#39;s because Amazon has spent decades gathering customer sales data and knows what its customers want better than anyone on earth.Apple&#39;s (AAPL) recent privacy shift in iOS, makes it much easier to opt out of data tracking, and 62% of iPhone users have indeed opted out.This has proven a hammer blow to FB, which management says could cost it $10 billion in 2022 alone.GOOG is less at risk since it still has the search data it can use to optimize for targeted ads.AMZN is the least at risk since it relies far less on cookie tracking than its rivals.This kind of business model disruption is part of FB and GOOG&#39;s risk profile, which brings us to our first point of comparison.<h2>Long-Term Risk Management: Winner Alphabet</h2>How do we quantify, monitor, and track such a complex risk profile? By doing what big institutions do.<h2>Material Financial ESG Risk Analysis: How Large Institutions Measure Total Risk</h2><ul><li>4 Things You Need To Know To Profit From ESG Investing</li><li>What Investors Need To Know About Company Long-Term Risk Management (Video)</li></ul>Here is a special report that outlines the most important aspects of understanding long-term ESG financial risks for your investments.<ul><li>ESG is NOT &#34;political or personal ethics based investing&#34;</li><li>it&#39;s total long-term risk management analysis</li></ul><blockquote>ESG is just normal risk by another name.&#34; Simon MacMahon, head of ESG and corporate governance research, Sustainalytics&#34; - Morningstar</blockquote><blockquote>ESG factors are taken into consideration, alongside all other credit factors, when we consider they are relevant to and have or may have a material influence on creditworthiness.&#34; - S&amp;P</blockquote>ESG is a measure of risk, not of ethics, political correctness, or personal opinion.S&amp;P, Fitch, Moody&#39;s, DBRS (Canadian rating agency), AMBest (insurance rating agency), R&amp;I Credit Rating (Japanese rating agency), and the Japan Credit Rating Agency have been using ESG models in their credit ratings for decades.<ul><li>every credit rating for the last 30 years has included these risk models, you just weren&#39;t aware of it </li><li>credit and risk management ratings make up 41% of the DK safety and quality model</li><li>dividend/balance sheet/risk ratings make up 82% of the DK safety and quality model</li></ul>Every major financial institution also tracks long-term risk management and considers it essential to sound long-term investing including,<ul><li>BlackRock</li><li>MSCI</li><li>JPMorgan</li><li>Wells Fargo</li><li>Bank of America</li><li>Deutsche Bank</li><li>virtually every major financial institution in the world</li></ul>We use six rating agencies to get a consensus risk management percentile, comparing how well a company manages its risk relative to its peers.For context:<ul><li>master list average: 62nd percentile</li><li>dividend kings: 63rd percentile</li><li>dividend aristocrats: 67th percentile</li><li>Ultra SWANs: 71st percentile</li></ul>The better a company&#39;s risk management consensus the more likely it will be able to adapt to challenges to its business model, as we&#39;re seeing now with GOOG and FB.<h4>Meta Long-Term Risk-Management Consensus</h4><table><colgroup></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Rating Agency</td><td>Industry Percentile</td><td>Rating Agency Classification</td></tr><tr><td>MSCI 37 Metric Model</td><td>26.0%</td><td>B Industry Laggard, Negative Trend</td></tr><tr><td>Morningstar/Sustainalytics 20 Metric Model</td><td>0.7%</td><td>32.4/100 High-Risk</td></tr><tr><td>Reuters&#39;/Refinitiv 500+ Metric Model</td><td>88.9%</td><td>Good</td></tr><tr><td>S&amp;P 1,000+ Metric Model</td><td>18.0%</td><td>Very Poor- Stable Trend</td></tr><tr><td>Just Capital 19 Metric Model</td><td>50.0%</td><td>Average</td></tr><tr><td>FactSet</td><td>30.0%</td><td>Below-Average Stable Trend</td></tr><tr><td>Morningstar Global Percentile</td><td>30.6%</td><td>Below-Average</td></tr><tr><td>Just Capital Global Percentile</td><td>25.4%</td><td>Poor</td></tr><tr><td>Consensus</td><td>33.7%</td><td>Below-Average (verging on poor) - medium risk</td></tr></tbody></table>(Sources: MSCI, Morningstar, Reuters&#39;, Just Capital, S&amp;P, FactSet Research)The rating agency consensus is that FB is below-average at managing its risk, verging on poor.Now contrast that with GOOG.<h4>Alphabet Long-Term Risk-Management Consensus</h4><table><colgroup></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Rating Agency</td><td>Industry Percentile</td><td>Rating Agency Classification</td></tr><tr><td>MSCI 37 Metric Model</td><td>53.0%</td><td>BBB Average, Negative Trend</td></tr><tr><td>Morningstar/Sustainalytics 20 Metric Model</td><td>39.7%</td><td>24.3/100 Medium-Risk</td></tr><tr><td>Reuters&#39;/Refinitiv 500+ Metric Model</td><td>85.88%</td><td>Good</td></tr><tr><td>S&amp;P 1,000+ Metric Model</td><td>47.0%</td><td>Average- Positive Trend</td></tr><tr><td>Just Capital 19 Metric Model</td><td>100.00%</td><td>#1 Industry Leader</td></tr><tr><td>FactSet</td><td>30.0%</td><td>Below-Average Stable Trend</td></tr><tr><td>Morningstar Global Percentile</td><td>60.88</td><td>Above-Average</td></tr><tr><td>Just Capital Global Percentile</td><td>100%</td><td>#1 Industry Leader, #1 Company In America</td></tr><tr><td>Consensus</td><td>64.6%</td><td>Above-Average - low risk </td></tr></tbody></table>(Sources: MSCI, Morningstar, Reuters&#39;, Just Capital, S&amp;P, FactSet Research)GOOG doesn&#39;t just manage its long-term risk better than FB, it&#39;s beating FB by 31%.<ul><li>far more likely to successfully deal with privacy policy shifts, regulators, and every other major risk to its business model</li></ul>And risk-management isn&#39;t the only factor in which GOOG outshines FB by a wide margin.<h2>Overall Quality: Winner, Alphabet</h2>The Dividend King&#39;s overall quality scores are based on a 241 point model that includes:<ul><li>dividend safety</li><li>balance sheet strength</li><li>credit ratings</li><li>credit default swap medium-term bankruptcy risk data</li><li>short and long-term bankruptcy risk</li><li>accounting and corporate fraud risk</li><li>profitability and business model</li><li>growth consensus estimates</li><li>management growth guidance</li><li>historical earnings growth rates</li><li>historical cash flow growth rates</li><li>historical dividend growth rates</li><li>historical sales growth rates</li><li>cost of capital</li><li>long-term risk-management scores from MSCI, Morningstar, FactSet, S&amp;P, Reuters&#39;/Refinitiv, and Just Capital</li><li>management quality</li><li>dividend friendly corporate culture/income dependability</li><li>long-term total returns (a Ben Graham sign of quality)</li><li>analyst consensus long-term return potential</li></ul>It actually includes over 1,000 metrics if you count everything factored in by 12 rating agencies we use to assess fundamental risk.<ul><li>credit and risk management ratings make up 41% of the DK safety and quality model</li><li>dividend/balance sheet/risk ratings make up 82% of the DK safety and quality model</li></ul>How do we know that our safety and quality model works well?During the two worst recessions in 75 years, our safety model predicted 87% of blue-chip dividend cuts during the ultimate baptism by fire for any dividend safety model.That&#39;s because we don&#39;t miss anything important about a company&#39;s fundamental safety and quality.So how do GOOG and FB stack up on one of the world&#39;s most comprehensive and accurate safety and quality models?<h2>Meta: A Speculative 11/19 Quality Blue-Chip</h2>Meta Balance Sheet Safety<table><colgroup></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Rating</td><td>Dividend Kings Safety Score (151 Point Safety Model)</td><td>Approximate Dividend Cut Risk (Average Recession)</td><td>Approximate Dividend Cut Risk In Pandemic Level Recession</td></tr><tr><td>1 - unsafe</td><td>0% to 20%</td><td>over 4%</td><td>16+%</td></tr><tr><td>2- below average</td><td>21% to 40%</td><td>over 2%</td><td>8% to 16%</td></tr><tr><td>3 - average</td><td>41% to 60%</td><td>2%</td><td>4% to 8%</td></tr><tr><td>4 - safe</td><td>61% to 80%</td><td>1%</td><td>2% to 4%</td></tr><tr><td>5- very safe</td><td>81% to 100%</td><td>0.5%</td><td>1% to 2%</td></tr><tr><td>FB</td><td>100%</td><td>NA</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>Risk Rating</td><td>Medium Risk (34th industry percentile risk-management consensus)</td><td>Effective AAA stable outlook credit rating 0.07% 30-year bankruptcy risk</td><td>2.5% OR LESS Max Risk Cap Recommendation - speculative, turnaround stock</td></tr></tbody></table>Long-Term Dependability<table><colgroup></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Company</td><td>DK Long-Term Dependability Score</td><td>Interpretation</td><td>Points</td></tr><tr><td>Non-Dependable Companies</td><td>21% or below</td><td>Poor Dependability</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Low Dependability Companies</td><td>22% to 60%</td><td>Below-Average Dependability</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>S&amp;P 500/Industry Average</td><td>61% (58% to 70% range)</td><td>Average Dependability</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Above-Average</td><td>71% to 80%</td><td>Very Dependable</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Very Good</td><td>81% or higher</td><td>Exceptional Dependability</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>FB</td><td>67%</td><td>Average Dependability</td><td>3</td></tr></tbody></table>Overall Quality<table><colgroup></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>FB</td><td>Final Score</td><td>Rating</td></tr><tr><td>Safety</td><td>100%</td><td>5/5 very safe</td></tr><tr><td>Business Model</td><td>100%</td><td>3/3 wide moat</td></tr><tr><td>Dependability</td><td>67%</td><td>3/5 average dependability</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>84%</td><td>11/13 Speculative Blue-Chip</td></tr><tr><td>Risk Rating</td><td>2/3 Medium Risk</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2.5% OR LESS Max Risk Cap Rec - speculative, turnaround stock</td><td>20% Margin of Safety For A Potentially Good Buy</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>And here&#39;s GOOG.<h2>Alphabet: A 13/13 Quality Ultra SWAN</h2>Alphabet Balance Sheet Safety<table><colgroup></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Rating</td><td>Dividend Kings Safety Score (151 Point Safety Model)</td><td>Approximate Dividend Cut Risk (Average Recession)</td><td>Approximate Dividend Cut Risk In Pandemic Level Recession</td></tr><tr><td>1 - unsafe</td><td>0% to 20%</td><td>over 4%</td><td>16+%</td></tr><tr><td>2- below average</td><td>21% to 40%</td><td>over 2%</td><td>8% to 16%</td></tr><tr><td>3 - average</td><td>41% to 60%</td><td>2%</td><td>4% to 8%</td></tr><tr><td>4 - safe</td><td>61% to 80%</td><td>1%</td><td>2% to 4%</td></tr><tr><td>5- very safe</td><td>81% to 100%</td><td>0.5%</td><td>1% to 2%</td></tr><tr><td>GOOG</td><td>100%</td><td>NA</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>Risk Rating</td><td>Low Risk (65th industry percentile risk-management consensus)</td><td>AA+ stable outlook credit rating 0.29% 30-year bankruptcy risk</td><td>20% OR LESS Max Risk Cap Recommendation</td></tr></tbody></table>Long-Term Dependability<table><colgroup></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Company</td><td>DK Long-Term Dependability Score</td><td>Interpretation</td><td>Points</td></tr><tr><td>Non-Dependable Companies</td><td>21% or below</td><td>Poor Dependability</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Low Dependability Companies</td><td>22% to 60%</td><td>Below-Average Dependability</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>S&amp;P 500/Industry Average</td><td>61% (58% to 70% range)</td><td>Average Dependability</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Above-Average</td><td>71% to 80%</td><td>Very Dependable</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Very Good</td><td>81% or higher</td><td>Exceptional Dependability</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>GOOG</td><td>89%</td><td>Exceptional Dependability</td><td>5</td></tr></tbody></table>Overall Quality<table><colgroup></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>GOOG</td><td>Final Score</td><td>Rating</td></tr><tr><td>Safety</td><td>100%</td><td>5/5 very safe</td></tr><tr><td>Business Model</td><td>100%</td><td>3/3 wide moat</td></tr><tr><td>Dependability</td><td>89%</td><td>5/5 exceptional</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>95%</td><td>13/13 Ultra SWAN</td></tr><tr><td>Risk Rating</td><td>3/3 Low Risk</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>20% OR LESS Max Risk Cap Rec</td><td>5% Margin of Safety For A Potentially Good Buy</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><ul><li>Meta: 114th highest quality company on the Masterlist: 78th percentile</li><li>Alphabet: 39th highest quality: 92nd percentile</li></ul>Both companies are exceptionally high quality given that our company database is one of the best in the world.The DK 500 Master List includes the world&#39;s highest quality companies including:<ul><li>All dividend champions</li><li>All dividend aristocrats</li><li>All dividend kings</li><li>All global aristocrats (such as BTI, ENB, and NVS)</li><li>All 13/13 Ultra Swans (as close to perfect quality as exists on Wall Street)</li><li>48 of the world&#39;s best growth stocks (on its way to 100)</li></ul>But when it comes to overall quality, factoring in over 1,000 fundamental metrics, the winner is clearly once more Alphabet.Why is GOOG the hands-down winner in this quality fight with FB?<table><colgroup></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Company</td><td>Quality Rating (out Of 13)</td><td>Quality Score (Out Of 100)</td><td>Dividend/Balance Sheet Safety Rating (out of 5)</td><td>Safety Score (Out Of 100)</td><td>Dependability Rating (Out Of 5)</td><td>Dependability Score (out Of 100)</td></tr><tr><td><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/FB\">Meta Platforms</a></td><td>11 Speculative Blue-Chip</td><td>84%</td><td>5 Very Safe</td><td>100%</td><td>3 average</td><td>67%</td></tr><tr><td>Alphabet</td><td>13 Ultra SWAN</td><td>95%</td><td>5 Very Safe</td><td>100%</td><td>5 exceptional</td><td>89%</td></tr></tbody></table>(Source: DK Research Terminal)Both FB and Meta have exceptionally strong balance sheets, making the risk of bankruptcy as close to zero as you can find on Wall Street.<h4>Alphabet&#39;s Balance Sheet: AA+ Rated By S&amp;P</h4><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a13f13c309fa748452dfea0afb27ebdf\" tg-width=\"491\" tg-height=\"373\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/>GuruFocus PremiumGOOG has $140 billion in cash and just $13 billion in debt.Its advanced accounting metrics (F, Z, and M-score) are exceptional.<ul><li>F-score is a measure of short-term bankruptcy risk</li><li>4+ is safe, 7+ very safe and GOOG&#39;s is 8</li><li>M-score is 84% to 92% accurate at forecasting long-term bankruptcies</li><li>1.81+ is safe, 3+ is very safe and GOOG&#39;s is 13.04</li><li>M-score is 76% accurate at catching accounting fraud, and 82.5% accurate at finding companies with honest accounting</li><li>-1.78 or lower is safe and GOOG&#39;s is -2.48</li></ul><h4>Meta&#39;s Balance Sheet: Effectively AAA</h4><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/68209d14c736c8328e46572200e82060\" tg-width=\"487\" tg-height=\"373\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/>GuruFocus PremiumThe only &#34;debt&#34; Meta has is receivables, it actually carries no long-term debt.That is why it&#39;s the largest company on earth that doesn&#39;t pay the $500K per year for a credit rating.However, given its current and historical advanced credit metrics, as well as its exceptionally strong solvency ratios (current ratio, quick ratio, and cash ratios), I&#39;m highly confident that it would be AAA-rated.<ul><li>because it&#39;s literally not possible for FB to default on debt it doesn&#39;t have</li></ul><table><colgroup></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Credit Rating</td><td>30-Year Bankruptcy Probability</td></tr><tr><td>AAA (Meta)</td><td>0.07%</td></tr><tr><td>AA+ (Alphabet)</td><td>0.29%</td></tr><tr><td>AA</td><td>0.51%</td></tr><tr><td>AA-</td><td>0.55%</td></tr><tr><td>A+</td><td>0.60%</td></tr><tr><td>A</td><td>0.66%</td></tr><tr><td>A-</td><td>2.5%</td></tr><tr><td>BBB+</td><td>5%</td></tr><tr><td>BBB</td><td>7.5%</td></tr><tr><td>BBB-</td><td>11%</td></tr><tr><td>BB+</td><td>14%</td></tr><tr><td>BB</td><td>17%</td></tr><tr><td>BB-</td><td>21%</td></tr><tr><td>B+</td><td>25%</td></tr><tr><td>B</td><td>37%</td></tr><tr><td>B-</td><td>45%</td></tr><tr><td>CCC+</td><td>52%</td></tr><tr><td>CCC</td><td>59%</td></tr><tr><td>CCC-</td><td>65%</td></tr><tr><td>CC</td><td>70%</td></tr><tr><td>C</td><td>80%</td></tr><tr><td>D</td><td>100%</td></tr></tbody></table>(Sources: S&amp;P, University of St. Petersberg)This means the fundamental risk of losing all your money over the next 30 years buying FB or GOOG today is approximately<ul><li>1 in 1,429 for FB</li><li>1 in 345 for GOOG</li></ul>And both companies&#39; balance sheets are expected to keep getting stronger over time.Alphabet: Consensus $441 Billion In Net Cash By 2027 <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/76c3a6843c329c2b16d3839e0e124674\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"308\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/>FactSet Research TerminalMeta: Consensus $71 Billion In Net Cash By 2027<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ec44680d5d8318ba8ed74d4b40ae28e9\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"268\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/>FactSet Research TerminalNow let&#39;s consider profitability, Wall Street&#39;s favorite quality proxy.<h2>Profitability: Winner, Meta By A Small Amount</h2>Meta Profitability Vs Peers<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9e2b501a3cd5bb6da5299422362bed67\" tg-width=\"486\" tg-height=\"342\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/>Gurufocus PremiumAlphabet Profitability Vs Peers<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/926a2ab456d218b3ef8cd49552df5565\" tg-width=\"488\" tg-height=\"345\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/>Gurufocus PremiumBoth companies are profit-minting machines.<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/673b7f04eadaf433b4fe704dda171180\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"391\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/>YchartsThese are two of the most profitable companies on earth, and their industry-leading profitability has been stable or improving for over a decade, confirming a wide and stable moat.<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9a1b491d8a76dd73ddc3b2ea13e999c8\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"187\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/>FactSet Research TerminalFB&#39;s free cash flow is expected to keep growing and reach $77 billion in 2027.This is expected to result in impressive buybacks in the coming years.<ul><li>$219 billion in consensus buybacks through 2027</li><li>38% of shares at current valuations</li></ul><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/93f9e72220887060384ea19dc975503c\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"165\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/>FactSet Research TerminalGOOG&#39;s annual free cash flow is expected to grow to $139 billion in 2027, allowing it to undertake even more impressive buybacks.<ul><li>$380 billion in consensus buybacks through 2027</li><li>21% of shares at current valuations</li></ul>Now let&#39;s consider one important profitability metric in particular.Return on capital or ROC is Joel Greenblatt&#39;s gold standard proxy for quality and moatiness.ROC = pre-tax profit/operating capital (the money it takes to run the business).<ul><li>S&amp;P 500&#39;s average in 2021 was 14.6% (average investment pays for itself in 7 years)</li></ul><table><colgroup></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Company</td><td>ROC (Greenblatt)</td><td>ROC Industry Percentile</td><td>13-Year Median ROC</td><td>5-Year ROC Trend (OTC:CAGR)</td></tr><tr><td>Meta Platforms</td><td>74%</td><td>65%</td><td>95%</td><td>-16%</td></tr><tr><td>Alphabet</td><td>87%</td><td>67%</td><td>74%</td><td>-7%</td></tr></tbody></table>(Source: DK Research Terminal, FactSet)In the past year, GOOG&#39;s return on capital was higher than FB&#39;s and it&#39;s also above its 13-year median indicating a more stable moat.In other words, when it comes to profitability, FB edges out GOOG by a small amount, except in terms of return on capital, where it&#39;s once more the winner.<h2>Valuation: Winner, Meta</h2><table><colgroup></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Company</td><td>Average Fair Value</td><td>Current Price</td><td>Discount To Fair Value</td><td>DK Rating</td><td>PE 2022</td><td>PEG 2022</td></tr><tr><td>Meta Platforms</td><td>$265.75</td><td>$214.35</td><td>19.6%</td><td>Potentially Reasonable Buy</td><td>17.19</td><td>1.49</td></tr><tr><td>Alphabet</td><td>$3,161.89</td><td>$2,771.92</td><td>12.3%</td><td>Potentially Good Buy</td><td>23.51</td><td>1.67</td></tr></tbody></table>(Source: DK Research Terminal, FactSet)FB is trading at a slightly lower valuation and a higher margin of safety, though not quite high enough for me to consider it a good buy.<ul><li>20% discount is needed to make FB a potentially good buy given its lower quality and risk profile</li></ul>If we back out cash we see that FB is once more the more undervalued company.<ul><li>FB EV/EBITDA: 9.5</li><li>GOOG EV/EBITDA: 14.5</li></ul>However, both companies are trading at highly attractive valuations.<table><colgroup></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Company</td><td>12-Month Consensus Total Return Potential</td><td>12-Month Fundamentally Justified Upside Total Return Potential</td></tr><tr><td>Meta Platforms</td><td>48.47%</td><td>23.98%</td></tr><tr><td>Alphabet</td><td>25.77%</td><td>14.11%</td></tr></tbody></table>(Source: DK Research Terminal, FactSet)This is why analysts expect both to deliver very strong returns, though FB potentially much more than GOOG.Of course, what happens in the next year doesn&#39;t matter as much as the kind of returns both companies can deliver over the long-term.<h2>Long-Term Total Return Potential: Winner, Alphabet</h2><table><colgroup></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Company</td><td>Yield</td><td>FactSet Long-Term Consensus Growth Rate</td><td>LT Consensus Total Return Potential</td><td>Risk-Adjusted Expected Return</td></tr><tr><td>Meta Platforms</td><td>0.00%</td><td>11.5%</td><td>11.5%</td><td>8.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Alphabet</td><td>0.00%</td><td>14.1%</td><td>14.1%</td><td>9.9%</td></tr></tbody></table>(Source: DK Research Terminal, FactSet)GOOG is expected to grow significantly faster than FB over time, resulting in far better long-term returns.<table><colgroup></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Investment Strategy</td><td>Yield</td><td>LT Consensus Growth</td><td>LT Consensus Total Return Potential</td><td>Long-Term Risk-Adjusted Expected Return</td><td>Long-Term Inflation And Risk-Adjusted Expected Returns</td><td>Years To Double Your Inflation &amp; Risk-Adjusted Wealth</td><td>10 Year Inflation And Risk-Adjusted Return</td></tr><tr><td>Europe</td><td>2.6%</td><td>12.8%</td><td>15.4%</td><td>10.7%</td><td>8.6%</td><td>8.4</td><td>2.27</td></tr><tr><td>Value</td><td>2.1%</td><td>12.1%</td><td>14.1%</td><td>9.9%</td><td>7.7%</td><td>9.3</td><td>2.10</td></tr><tr><td>Alphabet</td><td>0.0%</td><td>14.1%</td><td>14.1%</td><td>9.9%</td><td>7.7%</td><td>9.4</td><td>2.10</td></tr><tr><td>High-Yield</td><td>2.8%</td><td>11.3%</td><td>14.1%</td><td>9.9%</td><td>7.7%</td><td>9.4</td><td>2.10</td></tr><tr><td>High-Yield + Growth</td><td>1.7%</td><td>11.0%</td><td>12.7%</td><td>8.9%</td><td>6.7%</td><td>10.8</td><td>1.91</td></tr><tr><td>Safe Midstream + Growth</td><td>3.3%</td><td>8.5%</td><td>11.8%</td><td>8.3%</td><td>6.1%</td><td>11.8</td><td>1.80</td></tr><tr><td>Meta</td><td>0.0%</td><td>11.50%</td><td>11.5%</td><td>8.1%</td><td>5.9%</td><td>12.3</td><td>1.77</td></tr><tr><td>Nasdaq (Growth)</td><td>0.8%</td><td>10.7%</td><td>11.5%</td><td>8.1%</td><td>5.9%</td><td>12.3</td><td>1.77</td></tr><tr><td>Safe Midstream</td><td>5.5%</td><td>6.0%</td><td>11.5%</td><td>8.1%</td><td>5.9%</td><td>12.3</td><td>1.77</td></tr><tr><td>Dividend Aristocrats</td><td>2.2%</td><td>8.9%</td><td>11.1%</td><td>7.8%</td><td>5.6%</td><td>12.9</td><td>1.72</td></tr><tr><td>REITs + Growth</td><td>1.8%</td><td>8.9%</td><td>10.6%</td><td>7.4%</td><td>5.2%</td><td>13.7</td><td>1.67</td></tr><tr><td>S&amp;P 500</td><td>1.4%</td><td>8.5%</td><td>9.9%</td><td>7.0%</td><td>4.8%</td><td>15.1</td><td>1.59</td></tr><tr><td>Realty Income</td><td>4.6%</td><td>5.2%</td><td>9.8%</td><td>6.9%</td><td>4.7%</td><td>15.4</td><td>1.58</td></tr><tr><td>Dividend Growth</td><td>1.6%</td><td>8.0%</td><td>9.6%</td><td>6.7%</td><td>4.5%</td><td>15.9</td><td>1.56</td></tr><tr><td>REITs</td><td>2.9%</td><td>6.5%</td><td>9.4%</td><td>6.6%</td><td>4.4%</td><td>16.4</td><td>1.54</td></tr><tr><td>60/40 Retirement Portfolio</td><td>2.1%</td><td>5.1%</td><td>7.2%</td><td>5.1%</td><td>2.9%</td><td>24.9</td><td>1.33</td></tr><tr><td>10-Year US Treasury</td><td>2.3%</td><td>0.0%</td><td>2.3%</td><td>1.6%</td><td>-0.5%</td><td>-131.1</td><td>0.95</td></tr></tbody></table>(Source: Morningstar, FactSet, Ycharts)Both companies are expected to beat the S&amp;P 500 over time, though FB merely to match the Nasdaq while GOOG is expected to run circles around big tech.What kind of difference does 2.6% per year in potential extra returns actually mean for your life?<h4>Inflation-Adjusted Consensus Return Forecast: $1,000 Initial Investment</h4><table><colgroup></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Time Frame (Years)</td><td>7.7% CAGR Inflation-Adjusted S&amp;P Consensus</td><td>11.9% Inflation-Adjusted GOOG Consensus</td><td>9.3% CAGR Inflation-Adjusted FB Consensus</td><td>Difference Between Inflation Adjusted GOOG and FB Consensus Returns</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>$1,449.03</td><td>$1,756.06</td><td>$1,561.34</td><td>$194.71</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>$2,099.70</td><td>$3,083.73</td><td>$2,437.79</td><td>$645.95</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>$3,042.53</td><td>$5,415.21</td><td>$3,806.22</td><td>$1,608.99</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>$4,408.74</td><td>$9,509.42</td><td>$5,942.82</td><td>$3,566.60</td></tr><tr><td>25</td><td>$6,388.41</td><td>$16,699.08</td><td>$9,278.77</td><td>$7,420.31</td></tr><tr><td>30</td><td>$9,257.02</td><td>$29,324.53</td><td>$14,487.34</td><td>$14,837.19</td></tr></tbody></table>(Source: Morningstar, FactSet, Ycharts)Both FB and GOOG are likely to generate good returns but GOOG could turn a modest investment today into a potentially small fortune in the coming decades.<table><colgroup></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Time Frame (Years)</td><td>Ratio Inflation-Adjusted GOOG and FB Consensus</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>1.12</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>1.26</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>1.42</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>1.60</td></tr><tr><td>25</td><td>1.80</td></tr><tr><td>30</td><td>2.02</td></tr></tbody></table>(Source: DK Research Terminal, FactSet)In fact, GOOG could potentially double FB&#39;s 30-year returns if both companies grow as analysts currently expect.<h2>Short &amp; Medium-Term Total Return Potential: Tie</h2>Meta 2024 Consensus Return Potential <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5f903c32f63dbb4cfa5efa19492b8a0f\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"322\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/>FAST Graphs, FactSet ResearchFB growing at 11.5% is worth about 20.5X earnings based on the company&#39;s historical PEG ratio.<ul><li>analyst 12-month consensus forecast is for 21.9 PE</li></ul>This means that if FB grows as expected through 2024 it could deliver about 18% annular returns, far more than the 17% overvalued S&amp;P 500 is likely to generate.What about the next five years?<h4>S&amp;P 500 2027 Consensus Return Potential</h4><table><colgroup></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Year</td><td>Upside Potential By End of That Year</td><td>Consensus CAGR Return Potential By End of That Year</td><td>Probability-Weighted Return (Annualized)</td><td>Inflation And Risk-Adjusted Expected Returns</td></tr><tr><td>2027</td><td>34.75%</td><td>6.15%</td><td>4.61%</td><td>1.27%</td></tr></tbody></table>(Source: DK S&amp;P 500 Valuation And Total Return Tool)For context, analysts expect 35% returns from the S&amp;P 500, which adjusted for inflation and risk is 1% compared to the market&#39;s historical 6% to 7% real return.<h4>Meta 2027 Consensus Return Potential</h4><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/66d31fef78452199e2961d8d89d65454\" tg-width=\"275\" tg-height=\"365\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/>FAST Graphs, FactSet ResearchFB could more than double your money if it grows as analysts expect over the next five years.<ul><li>3.2X the S&amp;P 500 consensus</li></ul><h2>GOOG 2024 Consensus Return Potential </h2><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/bc664bb22e0ba08e06de0e9bbed286c3\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"271\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/>FAST Graphs, FactSet ResearchGOOG could deliver 13% annual returns through 2024 if it grows as expected.In the past GOOG has grown as slowly as 11% and billions of investors still paid 25.7X earnings, meaning that its historical market-fair value multiple of 25 to 26X earnings should still be valid.<h4>GOOG 2027 Consensus Return Potential</h4><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e36d07a6169cb075678d6646bca01679\" tg-width=\"399\" tg-height=\"511\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/>FAST Graphs, FactSet ResearchThanks to GOOG&#39;s faster growth rate analysts expect both companies to potentially deliver identical returns.<ul><li>about 14% annually over the next five years</li><li>also 3.2X better than the S&amp;P 500</li></ul><h2>Bottom Line: Both Are Great Companies But In The Battle Of Meta And Alphabet There Is One Clear Winner</h2><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5dea4bc19b8951f30e1b2bea40e989b9\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"314\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/>Dividend Kings Automated Investment Decision Tool<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/507426f09d401e866c66a1f1dd597e4f\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"309\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/>Dividend Kings Automated Investment Decision ToolBoth Alphabet and Meta are wonderful companies, and as close to perfect growth blue-chip opportunities as you can find on Wall Street right now.<ul><li>far superior valuation</li><li>superior quality</li><li>superior long-term return potential to the S&amp;P 500</li></ul>However, when we examine both companies in their entirety one fact is clear.<ul><li>GOOG is a higher quality company</li><li>GOOG is a faster-growing company (with potentially 2X better long-term return potential than FB)</li><li>GOOG has far better long-term risk management (to deal with the disruption the digital advertising industry is currently facing)</li><li>GOOG has superior return on capital and a more stable moat</li></ul>While FB offers superior valuation and potentially double the short-term return potential, it&#39;s a speculative blue-chip currently going through the largest business pivot in the company&#39;s history.In contrast, GOOG is a faster-growing Ultra SWAN that is expected to buy back almost $400 billion worth of stock in the next five years, double that of FB.Simply put, if you can only buy one of these growth legends today, I recommend Alphabet, and that&#39;s why I have it as a core growth position in my correction plan.Not just for the next few weeks, but all of 2022 and beyond.Because at the end of the day, when you focus on safety and quality first, and prudent valuation and sound risk-management always, you never have to pray for luck on Wall Street, you make your own.<blockquote>Luck is what happens when preparation meets, opportunity.&#34; - Roman philosopher Seneca the younger</blockquote></body></html>","source":"seekingalpha","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Alphabet Vs. Meta: One Is The Much Better Buy</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nAlphabet Vs. Meta: One Is The Much Better Buy\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2022-03-27 09:12 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://seekingalpha.com/article/4497464-alphabet-vs-meta-one-is-better-buy>seekingalpha</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\nFotoMaximum/iStock via Getty ImagesAlphabet (NASDAQ:GOOG) (NASDAQ:GOOGL) and Meta (NASDAQ:FB) are famous for enriching millions of investors over the last eight years. Alphabet And Meta Returns Since ...\n\n<a href=\"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4497464-alphabet-vs-meta-one-is-better-buy\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BK4579":"人工智能","BK4077":"互动媒体与服务","BK4527":"明星科技股","BK4581":"高盛持仓","BK4550":"红杉资本持仓","BK4533":"AQR资本管理(全球第二大对冲基金)","BK4534":"瑞士信贷持仓","BK4525":"远程办公概念","BK4566":"资本集团","BK4503":"景林资产持仓","BK4554":"元宇宙及AR概念","BK4524":"宅经济概念","BK4553":"喜马拉雅资本持仓","BK4548":"巴美列捷福持仓","BK4551":"寇图资本持仓","BK4573":"虚拟现实","BK4508":"社交媒体","BK4507":"流媒体概念"},"source_url":"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4497464-alphabet-vs-meta-one-is-better-buy","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5a36db9d73b4222bc376d24ccc48c8a4","article_id":"2221071429","content_text":"FotoMaximum/iStock via Getty ImagesAlphabet (NASDAQ:GOOG) (NASDAQ:GOOGL) and Meta (NASDAQ:FB) are famous for enriching millions of investors over the last eight years. Alphabet And Meta Returns Since 2013Portfolio Visualizer PremiumIn fact, both have crushed even the red hot Nasdaq during one of the hottest tech bull runs in US history, delivering Buffett-like 25% returns that resulted in an 8X return.YchartsWhile the market is currently in a correction, and growth stocks have been especially hard hit, Meta has been crushed, falling into a 50% bear market.I've bought both growth legends in this correction, but one is a core growth name in my correction plan, and the other is a non-core holding.So let me explain why both Meta and Alphabet are great companies, worth owning, and even buying more of right now.However, a careful examination of both of their fundamentals makes it clear that Alphabet is the global king of digital marketing, and this is likely to remain the case for the foreseeable future.The Challenge Facing Digital Marketers Right NoweMarketerGOOG, FB, and Amazon (AMZN) have a triopoly on US digital marketing, commanding an estimated 65% of the market.Both GOOG and FB are losing market share to AMZN because Amazon's ads are 3X as effective at converting to actual sales.That's because Amazon has spent decades gathering customer sales data and knows what its customers want better than anyone on earth.Apple's (AAPL) recent privacy shift in iOS, makes it much easier to opt out of data tracking, and 62% of iPhone users have indeed opted out.This has proven a hammer blow to FB, which management says could cost it $10 billion in 2022 alone.GOOG is less at risk since it still has the search data it can use to optimize for targeted ads.AMZN is the least at risk since it relies far less on cookie tracking than its rivals.This kind of business model disruption is part of FB and GOOG's risk profile, which brings us to our first point of comparison.Long-Term Risk Management: Winner AlphabetHow do we quantify, monitor, and track such a complex risk profile? By doing what big institutions do.Material Financial ESG Risk Analysis: How Large Institutions Measure Total Risk4 Things You Need To Know To Profit From ESG InvestingWhat Investors Need To Know About Company Long-Term Risk Management (Video)Here is a special report that outlines the most important aspects of understanding long-term ESG financial risks for your investments.ESG is NOT \"political or personal ethics based investing\"it's total long-term risk management analysisESG is just normal risk by another name.\" Simon MacMahon, head of ESG and corporate governance research, Sustainalytics\" - MorningstarESG factors are taken into consideration, alongside all other credit factors, when we consider they are relevant to and have or may have a material influence on creditworthiness.\" - S&PESG is a measure of risk, not of ethics, political correctness, or personal opinion.S&P, Fitch, Moody's, DBRS (Canadian rating agency), AMBest (insurance rating agency), R&I Credit Rating (Japanese rating agency), and the Japan Credit Rating Agency have been using ESG models in their credit ratings for decades.every credit rating for the last 30 years has included these risk models, you just weren't aware of it credit and risk management ratings make up 41% of the DK safety and quality modeldividend/balance sheet/risk ratings make up 82% of the DK safety and quality modelEvery major financial institution also tracks long-term risk management and considers it essential to sound long-term investing including,BlackRockMSCIJPMorganWells FargoBank of AmericaDeutsche Bankvirtually every major financial institution in the worldWe use six rating agencies to get a consensus risk management percentile, comparing how well a company manages its risk relative to its peers.For context:master list average: 62nd percentiledividend kings: 63rd percentiledividend aristocrats: 67th percentileUltra SWANs: 71st percentileThe better a company's risk management consensus the more likely it will be able to adapt to challenges to its business model, as we're seeing now with GOOG and FB.Meta Long-Term Risk-Management ConsensusRating AgencyIndustry PercentileRating Agency ClassificationMSCI 37 Metric Model26.0%B Industry Laggard, Negative TrendMorningstar/Sustainalytics 20 Metric Model0.7%32.4/100 High-RiskReuters'/Refinitiv 500+ Metric Model88.9%GoodS&P 1,000+ Metric Model18.0%Very Poor- Stable TrendJust Capital 19 Metric Model50.0%AverageFactSet30.0%Below-Average Stable TrendMorningstar Global Percentile30.6%Below-AverageJust Capital Global Percentile25.4%PoorConsensus33.7%Below-Average (verging on poor) - medium risk(Sources: MSCI, Morningstar, Reuters', Just Capital, S&P, FactSet Research)The rating agency consensus is that FB is below-average at managing its risk, verging on poor.Now contrast that with GOOG.Alphabet Long-Term Risk-Management ConsensusRating AgencyIndustry PercentileRating Agency ClassificationMSCI 37 Metric Model53.0%BBB Average, Negative TrendMorningstar/Sustainalytics 20 Metric Model39.7%24.3/100 Medium-RiskReuters'/Refinitiv 500+ Metric Model85.88%GoodS&P 1,000+ Metric Model47.0%Average- Positive TrendJust Capital 19 Metric Model100.00%#1 Industry LeaderFactSet30.0%Below-Average Stable TrendMorningstar Global Percentile60.88Above-AverageJust Capital Global Percentile100%#1 Industry Leader, #1 Company In AmericaConsensus64.6%Above-Average - low risk (Sources: MSCI, Morningstar, Reuters', Just Capital, S&P, FactSet Research)GOOG doesn't just manage its long-term risk better than FB, it's beating FB by 31%.far more likely to successfully deal with privacy policy shifts, regulators, and every other major risk to its business modelAnd risk-management isn't the only factor in which GOOG outshines FB by a wide margin.Overall Quality: Winner, AlphabetThe Dividend King's overall quality scores are based on a 241 point model that includes:dividend safetybalance sheet strengthcredit ratingscredit default swap medium-term bankruptcy risk datashort and long-term bankruptcy riskaccounting and corporate fraud riskprofitability and business modelgrowth consensus estimatesmanagement growth guidancehistorical earnings growth rateshistorical cash flow growth rateshistorical dividend growth rateshistorical sales growth ratescost of capitallong-term risk-management scores from MSCI, Morningstar, FactSet, S&P, Reuters'/Refinitiv, and Just Capitalmanagement qualitydividend friendly corporate culture/income dependabilitylong-term total returns (a Ben Graham sign of quality)analyst consensus long-term return potentialIt actually includes over 1,000 metrics if you count everything factored in by 12 rating agencies we use to assess fundamental risk.credit and risk management ratings make up 41% of the DK safety and quality modeldividend/balance sheet/risk ratings make up 82% of the DK safety and quality modelHow do we know that our safety and quality model works well?During the two worst recessions in 75 years, our safety model predicted 87% of blue-chip dividend cuts during the ultimate baptism by fire for any dividend safety model.That's because we don't miss anything important about a company's fundamental safety and quality.So how do GOOG and FB stack up on one of the world's most comprehensive and accurate safety and quality models?Meta: A Speculative 11/19 Quality Blue-ChipMeta Balance Sheet SafetyRatingDividend Kings Safety Score (151 Point Safety Model)Approximate Dividend Cut Risk (Average Recession)Approximate Dividend Cut Risk In Pandemic Level Recession1 - unsafe0% to 20%over 4%16+%2- below average21% to 40%over 2%8% to 16%3 - average41% to 60%2%4% to 8%4 - safe61% to 80%1%2% to 4%5- very safe81% to 100%0.5%1% to 2%FB100%NANARisk RatingMedium Risk (34th industry percentile risk-management consensus)Effective AAA stable outlook credit rating 0.07% 30-year bankruptcy risk2.5% OR LESS Max Risk Cap Recommendation - speculative, turnaround stockLong-Term DependabilityCompanyDK Long-Term Dependability ScoreInterpretationPointsNon-Dependable Companies21% or belowPoor Dependability1Low Dependability Companies22% to 60%Below-Average Dependability2S&P 500/Industry Average61% (58% to 70% range)Average Dependability3Above-Average71% to 80%Very Dependable4Very Good81% or higherExceptional Dependability5FB67%Average Dependability3Overall QualityFBFinal ScoreRatingSafety100%5/5 very safeBusiness Model100%3/3 wide moatDependability67%3/5 average dependabilityTotal84%11/13 Speculative Blue-ChipRisk Rating2/3 Medium Risk2.5% OR LESS Max Risk Cap Rec - speculative, turnaround stock20% Margin of Safety For A Potentially Good BuyAnd here's GOOG.Alphabet: A 13/13 Quality Ultra SWANAlphabet Balance Sheet SafetyRatingDividend Kings Safety Score (151 Point Safety Model)Approximate Dividend Cut Risk (Average Recession)Approximate Dividend Cut Risk In Pandemic Level Recession1 - unsafe0% to 20%over 4%16+%2- below average21% to 40%over 2%8% to 16%3 - average41% to 60%2%4% to 8%4 - safe61% to 80%1%2% to 4%5- very safe81% to 100%0.5%1% to 2%GOOG100%NANARisk RatingLow Risk (65th industry percentile risk-management consensus)AA+ stable outlook credit rating 0.29% 30-year bankruptcy risk20% OR LESS Max Risk Cap RecommendationLong-Term DependabilityCompanyDK Long-Term Dependability ScoreInterpretationPointsNon-Dependable Companies21% or belowPoor Dependability1Low Dependability Companies22% to 60%Below-Average Dependability2S&P 500/Industry Average61% (58% to 70% range)Average Dependability3Above-Average71% to 80%Very Dependable4Very Good81% or higherExceptional Dependability5GOOG89%Exceptional Dependability5Overall QualityGOOGFinal ScoreRatingSafety100%5/5 very safeBusiness Model100%3/3 wide moatDependability89%5/5 exceptionalTotal95%13/13 Ultra SWANRisk Rating3/3 Low Risk20% OR LESS Max Risk Cap Rec5% Margin of Safety For A Potentially Good BuyMeta: 114th highest quality company on the Masterlist: 78th percentileAlphabet: 39th highest quality: 92nd percentileBoth companies are exceptionally high quality given that our company database is one of the best in the world.The DK 500 Master List includes the world's highest quality companies including:All dividend championsAll dividend aristocratsAll dividend kingsAll global aristocrats (such as BTI, ENB, and NVS)All 13/13 Ultra Swans (as close to perfect quality as exists on Wall Street)48 of the world's best growth stocks (on its way to 100)But when it comes to overall quality, factoring in over 1,000 fundamental metrics, the winner is clearly once more Alphabet.Why is GOOG the hands-down winner in this quality fight with FB?CompanyQuality Rating (out Of 13)Quality Score (Out Of 100)Dividend/Balance Sheet Safety Rating (out of 5)Safety Score (Out Of 100)Dependability Rating (Out Of 5)Dependability Score (out Of 100)Meta Platforms11 Speculative Blue-Chip84%5 Very Safe100%3 average67%Alphabet13 Ultra SWAN95%5 Very Safe100%5 exceptional89%(Source: DK Research Terminal)Both FB and Meta have exceptionally strong balance sheets, making the risk of bankruptcy as close to zero as you can find on Wall Street.Alphabet's Balance Sheet: AA+ Rated By S&PGuruFocus PremiumGOOG has $140 billion in cash and just $13 billion in debt.Its advanced accounting metrics (F, Z, and M-score) are exceptional.F-score is a measure of short-term bankruptcy risk4+ is safe, 7+ very safe and GOOG's is 8M-score is 84% to 92% accurate at forecasting long-term bankruptcies1.81+ is safe, 3+ is very safe and GOOG's is 13.04M-score is 76% accurate at catching accounting fraud, and 82.5% accurate at finding companies with honest accounting-1.78 or lower is safe and GOOG's is -2.48Meta's Balance Sheet: Effectively AAAGuruFocus PremiumThe only \"debt\" Meta has is receivables, it actually carries no long-term debt.That is why it's the largest company on earth that doesn't pay the $500K per year for a credit rating.However, given its current and historical advanced credit metrics, as well as its exceptionally strong solvency ratios (current ratio, quick ratio, and cash ratios), I'm highly confident that it would be AAA-rated.because it's literally not possible for FB to default on debt it doesn't haveCredit Rating30-Year Bankruptcy ProbabilityAAA (Meta)0.07%AA+ (Alphabet)0.29%AA0.51%AA-0.55%A+0.60%A0.66%A-2.5%BBB+5%BBB7.5%BBB-11%BB+14%BB17%BB-21%B+25%B37%B-45%CCC+52%CCC59%CCC-65%CC70%C80%D100%(Sources: S&P, University of St. Petersberg)This means the fundamental risk of losing all your money over the next 30 years buying FB or GOOG today is approximately1 in 1,429 for FB1 in 345 for GOOGAnd both companies' balance sheets are expected to keep getting stronger over time.Alphabet: Consensus $441 Billion In Net Cash By 2027 FactSet Research TerminalMeta: Consensus $71 Billion In Net Cash By 2027FactSet Research TerminalNow let's consider profitability, Wall Street's favorite quality proxy.Profitability: Winner, Meta By A Small AmountMeta Profitability Vs PeersGurufocus PremiumAlphabet Profitability Vs PeersGurufocus PremiumBoth companies are profit-minting machines.YchartsThese are two of the most profitable companies on earth, and their industry-leading profitability has been stable or improving for over a decade, confirming a wide and stable moat.FactSet Research TerminalFB's free cash flow is expected to keep growing and reach $77 billion in 2027.This is expected to result in impressive buybacks in the coming years.$219 billion in consensus buybacks through 202738% of shares at current valuationsFactSet Research TerminalGOOG's annual free cash flow is expected to grow to $139 billion in 2027, allowing it to undertake even more impressive buybacks.$380 billion in consensus buybacks through 202721% of shares at current valuationsNow let's consider one important profitability metric in particular.Return on capital or ROC is Joel Greenblatt's gold standard proxy for quality and moatiness.ROC = pre-tax profit/operating capital (the money it takes to run the business).S&P 500's average in 2021 was 14.6% (average investment pays for itself in 7 years)CompanyROC (Greenblatt)ROC Industry Percentile13-Year Median ROC5-Year ROC Trend (OTC:CAGR)Meta Platforms74%65%95%-16%Alphabet87%67%74%-7%(Source: DK Research Terminal, FactSet)In the past year, GOOG's return on capital was higher than FB's and it's also above its 13-year median indicating a more stable moat.In other words, when it comes to profitability, FB edges out GOOG by a small amount, except in terms of return on capital, where it's once more the winner.Valuation: Winner, MetaCompanyAverage Fair ValueCurrent PriceDiscount To Fair ValueDK RatingPE 2022PEG 2022Meta Platforms$265.75$214.3519.6%Potentially Reasonable Buy17.191.49Alphabet$3,161.89$2,771.9212.3%Potentially Good Buy23.511.67(Source: DK Research Terminal, FactSet)FB is trading at a slightly lower valuation and a higher margin of safety, though not quite high enough for me to consider it a good buy.20% discount is needed to make FB a potentially good buy given its lower quality and risk profileIf we back out cash we see that FB is once more the more undervalued company.FB EV/EBITDA: 9.5GOOG EV/EBITDA: 14.5However, both companies are trading at highly attractive valuations.Company12-Month Consensus Total Return Potential12-Month Fundamentally Justified Upside Total Return PotentialMeta Platforms48.47%23.98%Alphabet25.77%14.11%(Source: DK Research Terminal, FactSet)This is why analysts expect both to deliver very strong returns, though FB potentially much more than GOOG.Of course, what happens in the next year doesn't matter as much as the kind of returns both companies can deliver over the long-term.Long-Term Total Return Potential: Winner, AlphabetCompanyYieldFactSet Long-Term Consensus Growth RateLT Consensus Total Return PotentialRisk-Adjusted Expected ReturnMeta Platforms0.00%11.5%11.5%8.1%Alphabet0.00%14.1%14.1%9.9%(Source: DK Research Terminal, FactSet)GOOG is expected to grow significantly faster than FB over time, resulting in far better long-term returns.Investment StrategyYieldLT Consensus GrowthLT Consensus Total Return PotentialLong-Term Risk-Adjusted Expected ReturnLong-Term Inflation And Risk-Adjusted Expected ReturnsYears To Double Your Inflation & Risk-Adjusted Wealth10 Year Inflation And Risk-Adjusted ReturnEurope2.6%12.8%15.4%10.7%8.6%8.42.27Value2.1%12.1%14.1%9.9%7.7%9.32.10Alphabet0.0%14.1%14.1%9.9%7.7%9.42.10High-Yield2.8%11.3%14.1%9.9%7.7%9.42.10High-Yield + Growth1.7%11.0%12.7%8.9%6.7%10.81.91Safe Midstream + Growth3.3%8.5%11.8%8.3%6.1%11.81.80Meta0.0%11.50%11.5%8.1%5.9%12.31.77Nasdaq (Growth)0.8%10.7%11.5%8.1%5.9%12.31.77Safe Midstream5.5%6.0%11.5%8.1%5.9%12.31.77Dividend Aristocrats2.2%8.9%11.1%7.8%5.6%12.91.72REITs + Growth1.8%8.9%10.6%7.4%5.2%13.71.67S&P 5001.4%8.5%9.9%7.0%4.8%15.11.59Realty Income4.6%5.2%9.8%6.9%4.7%15.41.58Dividend Growth1.6%8.0%9.6%6.7%4.5%15.91.56REITs2.9%6.5%9.4%6.6%4.4%16.41.5460/40 Retirement Portfolio2.1%5.1%7.2%5.1%2.9%24.91.3310-Year US Treasury2.3%0.0%2.3%1.6%-0.5%-131.10.95(Source: Morningstar, FactSet, Ycharts)Both companies are expected to beat the S&P 500 over time, though FB merely to match the Nasdaq while GOOG is expected to run circles around big tech.What kind of difference does 2.6% per year in potential extra returns actually mean for your life?Inflation-Adjusted Consensus Return Forecast: $1,000 Initial InvestmentTime Frame (Years)7.7% CAGR Inflation-Adjusted S&P Consensus11.9% Inflation-Adjusted GOOG Consensus9.3% CAGR Inflation-Adjusted FB ConsensusDifference Between Inflation Adjusted GOOG and FB Consensus Returns5$1,449.03$1,756.06$1,561.34$194.7110$2,099.70$3,083.73$2,437.79$645.9515$3,042.53$5,415.21$3,806.22$1,608.9920$4,408.74$9,509.42$5,942.82$3,566.6025$6,388.41$16,699.08$9,278.77$7,420.3130$9,257.02$29,324.53$14,487.34$14,837.19(Source: Morningstar, FactSet, Ycharts)Both FB and GOOG are likely to generate good returns but GOOG could turn a modest investment today into a potentially small fortune in the coming decades.Time Frame (Years)Ratio Inflation-Adjusted GOOG and FB Consensus51.12101.26151.42201.60251.80302.02(Source: DK Research Terminal, FactSet)In fact, GOOG could potentially double FB's 30-year returns if both companies grow as analysts currently expect.Short & Medium-Term Total Return Potential: TieMeta 2024 Consensus Return Potential FAST Graphs, FactSet ResearchFB growing at 11.5% is worth about 20.5X earnings based on the company's historical PEG ratio.analyst 12-month consensus forecast is for 21.9 PEThis means that if FB grows as expected through 2024 it could deliver about 18% annular returns, far more than the 17% overvalued S&P 500 is likely to generate.What about the next five years?S&P 500 2027 Consensus Return PotentialYearUpside Potential By End of That YearConsensus CAGR Return Potential By End of That YearProbability-Weighted Return (Annualized)Inflation And Risk-Adjusted Expected Returns202734.75%6.15%4.61%1.27%(Source: DK S&P 500 Valuation And Total Return Tool)For context, analysts expect 35% returns from the S&P 500, which adjusted for inflation and risk is 1% compared to the market's historical 6% to 7% real return.Meta 2027 Consensus Return PotentialFAST Graphs, FactSet ResearchFB could more than double your money if it grows as analysts expect over the next five years.3.2X the S&P 500 consensusGOOG 2024 Consensus Return Potential FAST Graphs, FactSet ResearchGOOG could deliver 13% annual returns through 2024 if it grows as expected.In the past GOOG has grown as slowly as 11% and billions of investors still paid 25.7X earnings, meaning that its historical market-fair value multiple of 25 to 26X earnings should still be valid.GOOG 2027 Consensus Return PotentialFAST Graphs, FactSet ResearchThanks to GOOG's faster growth rate analysts expect both companies to potentially deliver identical returns.about 14% annually over the next five yearsalso 3.2X better than the S&P 500Bottom Line: Both Are Great Companies But In The Battle Of Meta And Alphabet There Is One Clear WinnerDividend Kings Automated Investment Decision ToolDividend Kings Automated Investment Decision ToolBoth Alphabet and Meta are wonderful companies, and as close to perfect growth blue-chip opportunities as you can find on Wall Street right now.far superior valuationsuperior qualitysuperior long-term return potential to the S&P 500However, when we examine both companies in their entirety one fact is clear.GOOG is a higher quality companyGOOG is a faster-growing company (with potentially 2X better long-term return potential than FB)GOOG has far better long-term risk management (to deal with the disruption the digital advertising industry is currently facing)GOOG has superior return on capital and a more stable moatWhile FB offers superior valuation and potentially double the short-term return potential, it's a speculative blue-chip currently going through the largest business pivot in the company's history.In contrast, GOOG is a faster-growing Ultra SWAN that is expected to buy back almost $400 billion worth of stock in the next five years, double that of FB.Simply put, if you can only buy one of these growth legends today, I recommend Alphabet, and that's why I have it as a core growth position in my correction plan.Not just for the next few weeks, but all of 2022 and beyond.Because at the end of the day, when you focus on safety and quality first, and prudent valuation and sound risk-management always, you never have to pray for luck on Wall Street, you make your own.Luck is what happens when preparation meets, opportunity.\" - Roman philosopher Seneca the younger","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":623,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"EN","currentLanguage":"EN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":7,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[{"id":100975593,"commentId":"100975593","gmtCreate":1648374877699,"gmtModify":1663245807862,"authorId":3579724486389386,"author":{"id":3579724486389386,"idStr":"3579724486389386","authorId":3579724486389386,"name":"DannyPhan","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8241cecd85e391f36a47705d16eb854d","vip":1,"crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":1,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":9010676686,"objectIdStr":"9010676686","type":1,"supId":0,"supIdStr":"0","prevId":0,"prevIdStr":"0","content":"Ya, both","text":"Ya, both","html":"Ya, both","likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"subComments":[],"verified":10,"allocateAmount":0,"commentType":"invalid","coins":0,"score":0}],"hasMoreComment":true,"orderType":2}