Interesting comparison:
GTNR KING
Current P/E.............32.9............36.7
P/E a/o Dec 99..........26.0............27.7
P/E on next 12 mo E.....24.1............24.5
1 yr P/E growth.........37.8............24.7
5 yr P/E growth.........26.0............23.8
ROA.....................25.7.............5.9
ROE.....................38.0............30.3
Current Ratio............3.72............2.13
Debt/equity..............0.05............4.43
While I agree that GTNR was extended at 11 and I sold my shares at that price with the belief that I would be able to buy them back between 8 and 9, I don't see an advantage of KING over GTNR. If anything GTNR has more potential because the analysts have already discovered KING and if GTNR can continue to grow their earnings as they have, analysts will discover GTNR eventually as well.
It's hard to compare the sector P/E's because GTNR is in the same sector with companies like LU and QCOM so the sector P/E is extremely high whereas KING's sector has a negative average P/E. However, if you give each stock a P/E equal to its five year earnings growth (estimated going forward), in five years GTNR would be worth $24.70 (150% increase) and KING would be worth $91.39 (154% increase). Once again, the difference is negligible.
GTNR's financial position is far superior to KING's as I see it, with almost no debt at all.
Certainly KING looks good as long as they can continue to perform, as with any stock. However, I don't see any advantage that it has over GTNR based on any of the above. At 11 GTNR could be considered fully valued and again, I sold my shares based on that and the fact that it was extended but at 36, KING is at least as fully valued and probably is more fully valued at a higher P/E with less estimated forward looking earnings growth.
Besides, once GTNR bases for a while here and then passes $12.00, O'Neill and IBD can start recommending it as well. <g>
Carl |
