Could these stocks be good buys today? Or are they still shares to sell?

HSBC

Having shunned banks since 2002, Woodford began buying HSBC in May 2013 when he was still at Invesco Perpetual. A year later, after leaving Invesco, he included HSBC in the portfolio of his new CF Woodford Equity Income Fund.

Woodford described HSBC as “a very different beast” to the UK’s other banks, being a “conservatively-managed, well-capitalised business with a good spread of international assets”. And he found the valuation attractive: “trading at around or even below its book value and its yield is also appealing”.

However, three months after the launch of his new fund, Woodford ditched his HSBC holding, saying that he was becoming concerned that fines “are increasingly being sized on a bank’s ability to pay, rather than on the extent of the transgression”. He felt that “fine inflation” was an unquantifiable risk that could potentially hamper HSBC’s ability to grow its dividend.

Today, while HSBC continues to trade at around book value with a juicy 5.4% yield, the risk of fine inflation has not gone away. Indeed, since Woodford sold, new issues and further potential penalties have emerged. So, it would seem that the bank is an even less appealing investment proposition now.

Reckitt Benckiser

Consumer goods group Reckitt Benckiser is a stock Woodford had held in his portfolios for more than a decade, the attraction being “a great business with a very strong management team and an excellent product line-up”.

In September last year, Woodford’s team told us: “Such a high quality business deserves a high market rating but the shares have recently become too expensive to continue to justify their position in the portfolio”.

During the month in which Woodford sold, Reckitt’s average share price was £52 and the price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio was 19.6. Today, the shares are trading at around £58.50 and the P/E is 22.1. It would appear that Reckitt has become an even stronger “sell” at the current valuation.

Smith & Nephew

Medical devices firm Smith & Nephew is another holding Woodford disposed of purely on valuation grounds. The shares soared on bid speculation last December, and reached a peak of around £12 in January when Woodford sold. The P/E, based on forecast earnings for the December year end, was 21 and the dividend yield was 1.7%.

Woodford’s team said: “Clearly, if a bid were to materialise, it could lift the share price higher still but we believe other opportunities now offer greater long-term income potential”.

Smith & Nephew’s shares are trading only a little lower today than at their January peak, and the forward P/E and yield are about the same. So, again, it would appear that at the current valuation this is a stock Woodford would be happy to sell in order to redeploy cash in more promising opportunities.

If Woodford is right, potential investors in these three companies should wait for improved clarity on external issues (in the case of HSBC) and a lower valuation entry point (in the case of Reckitt and Smith & Nephew).

The post Should You Buy Neil Woodford Rejects HSBC Holdings plc, Reckitt Benckiser Group Plc And Smith & Nephew plc? appeared first on The Motley Fool UK.

While many savers are hoping for a steep rise in interest rates over the next few years, the reality is that a loose monetary policy seems to be here to stay. After all, with inflation being zero, there appears to be little scope for the Bank of England to move rates higher. As such, higher yielding stocks could become even more popular – especially those that are expected to grow their dividends at a brisk pace.

One such company is SSE (LSE: SSE). It currently yields a whopping 5.9%, which makes the FTSE 100‘s yield of 3.5% seem rather paltry. And, with dividends expected to rise by 3.2% next year, SSE looks set to pay around 12% in dividends in the next two years alone. As such, it appears to be a superb income stock that could see investor sentiment increase over the medium term as dividends continue to play an important role in the finances of a wide range of savers and income investors.

Smith & Nephew

While Smith & Nephew (LSE: SN) (NYSE: SNN.US) may not be the most exciting of health care companies, with it being focused on wound care and replacement joints rather than the next big blockbuster drug, it has performed extremely well in recent years. For example, over the last five years, shares in the company have risen by 63%, which is far superior to the FTSE 100’s gain of 25% in the same time period.

Looking ahead, Smith & Nephew could benefit from favourable demographics, with demand for its products continuing to grow as older people make up an increasing proportion of populations across the developed world. And, looking a little shorter term, Smith & Nephew confirmed its guidance in today’s update, and is forecast to increase its bottom line by a very enticing 13% next year. This could catalyse investor sentiment and push the company’s share price even higher.

Burberry

Recent results from Burberry (LSE: BRBY) confirmed that the brand is making excellent progress in diversifying its product line and increasing its exposure to key markets across the developing and developed world. For example, sales increased by 9% in its most recent quarter, with double digit growth in the US providing a major boost to the company’s top and bottom line and, as you may expect, the company’s share price reacted favourably and is now up 18% in the last year.

Clearly, Burberry’s marketing campaign is currently very successful, with its focus on ‘Britishness’ proving particularly popular in the US, where the recent opening of a new store in Los Angeles shows that this is a company that is not merely a play on emerging market consumer trends. And, with Burberry set to increase its sales by a further 21% to £3bn by financial year 2017, it could see its share price move sharply upwards over the medium to long term.

The post 3 FTSE 100 Stocks Set To Soar: SSE PLC, Smith & Nephew plc And Burberry Group plc appeared first on The Motley Fool UK.

Track Records

This difference is evidenced by the bottom lines of pharmaceutical company, AstraZeneca (LSE: AZN) (NYSE: AZN.US), and healthcare equipment/devices provider, Smith & Nephew (LSE: SN) (NYSE: SNN.US). For example, during the last five years AstraZeneca has seen its earnings decline by an incredible 33%, as it has been unable to replace a number of key, blockbuster drugs that have lost their patent protection. Meanwhile, Smith & Nephew has delivered earnings growth in four of the last five years, with its net profit being 26% higher in 2014 than it was in 2009.

Looking Ahead

Of course, AstraZeneca is due to return to growth in 2017 and, as a result of an aggressive acquisition programme, has a pipeline that looks set to offer a purple patch over the medium term. However, in the next two years it is expected to post a fall in earnings of 6%, as further sales falls are anticipated. This contrasts markedly with Smith & Nephew, which is expected to see its bottom line flat line this year, before growing by an impressive 13% next year.

However, AstraZeneca’s near term potential seems to be much more appealing than pharmaceutical peer, Indivior (LSE: INDV). Sales for its main drug, suboxone, are falling due to a loss of patent protection and the company is expected to see its bottom line fall by 59% this year and by a further 21% next year. Certainly, it has the potential to deliver other drugs and has an impressive pipeline, but investor sentiment could shift downwards unless it makes progress in this regard during the next couple of years.

Valuation

The main downside of buying Smith & Nephew is its valuation. It currently trades on a price to earnings (P/E) ratio of 21 which, despite its greater stability and consistency, lacks appeal when you consider that AstraZeneca has a P/E ratio of 17.2. And, with Indivior’s P/E ratio set to rise to 16 next year, it may offer better value than AstraZeneca but has a less diverse pipeline and higher risk future.

Therefore, AstraZeneca seems to offer the best mix of risk and reward of the three companies, with it occupying a middle ground in terms of having long term growth potential via its upbeat pipeline, but also offering diversity so as to reduce the risk of further challenges moving forward.

The post AstraZeneca plc vs Smith & Nephew plc vs Indivior PLC: Which Healthcare Stock Should You Buy? appeared first on The Motley Fool UK.

In fact, while investors should be comfortable with the valuation of BT and ABF, I am not sure why anybody should be particularly upbeat about S&N and Admiral. Here’s why. 

BT: Short-Term Vs Long-Term Value 

The risk/reward profile of BT still points to value for at least a couple of quarters. I know that’s not much for value investors, but there are obvious risks, spanning the integration of mobile operator EE and BT’s pension deficit. 

The headline news last week was the launch of new 4G mobile data bundles for its existing broadband customers. BT claimed to have moved back into the mobile market after more than a decade “with the launch of great value deals with bundles of 4G data, minutes and texts for as little as £5 a month for people living in a BT Broadband home”.

Investors love BT’s current strategy, and are happy to pay up for incremental earnings generation, with the stock up 25% since November, when first M&A rumours emerges. At 482p, the average price target from brokers is only 25p above BT’s equity valuation, so the shares may receive a fillip from upbeat reviews from analysts in the next few quarters. 

I expect prolonged weakness in Vodafone, so BT remains my top pick in the sector. 

ABF: Appealing At This Level, It’s Not A Bargain

ABF’s interim 2015 results are due in less than four weeks, and this may be a great time to add the shares of the Primark owner to your diversified portfolio. Whitbread is also a valid alternative: it trades in line with ABF based on cash flow multiples, but commands a 20% discount based on its net earnings multiple. 

The average price target from brokers stands at 3,200p, about 10% above ABF’s stock price. What’s interesting, perhaps, is that the spread between the share price and consensus estimates is widening because of a declining stock price, so either investors are undervaluing the stock or analysts are plainly wrong about ABF’s potential. 

I think that ABF is a very solid investment that will reward patient investors who do not want to worry too much about the value of their holdings on a daily basis, although I appreciate that, at 32 times forward earnings, there may be better value elsewhere — but then I wouldn’t opt for S&N and Admiral, which are cheaper. 

Admiral Trades Above Fair Value, Dividend At Risk

Admiral trades above fair value based on the value of its net assets, in my view.

It has been boosted by a slew of upgrades from brokers: most recently, UBS and Goldman Sachs raised their price targets to 1,450p and 1,500p, respectively. The shares currently trade at 1,546p, and have risen more than 20% since the end of last year, but until then Admiral had struggled to deliver value for more than three years. 

Its stock is expensive at 17 times forward earnings, and its payout ratio may have to come down if core operating cash flow deteriorates further, which is a distinct possibility. This is not an investment for me, and I am not a big fan of the broader insurance sector at this point in the business cycle, either — although I do not dislike Aviva and Prudential. 

Smith & Nephew: I Am Not Interested At This Price

My advice is to avoid Smith & Nephew if you can. This is not a bad business, but its valuation is still too high and the shares will go nowhere for some time, in my opinion. 

S&N might be a buy at 900p a share, which implies it should trade 15%-25% lower in order to be added to my wish list. Its share price is roughly in line with the average price target from brokers, but unless a break-up is being carried out, I struggle to see any reasons why value investors would invest in it. 

In fact, its fundamentals and a low dividend yield do not justify a valuation in the region of 25 times forward earnings…

The post Is The Reward Worth The Risk With BT Group plc, Admiral Group PLC, Smith & Nephew plc And Associated British Foods plc? appeared first on The Motley Fool UK.

Selling Out Of The Takeover Target

The fund has now disposed of its entire position in Smith & Nephew (LSE: SN).  Mr Woodford acknowledged that a bid for the company may well lead to a considerable appreciation in the share price.  However, with the share price at an all-time high, he felt that there were better opportunities elsewhere.  It is true that the company trades on a fairly lofty forward multiple of around 19 times earnings and expects to yield less than 2%.  It is also possible that the deal was sealed when Stryker, the US healthcare company, announced a $2 billion share buyback last week, finally quashing hopes that a bid was about to be announced.

Topping Up On The Unloved

In contrast, Mr Woodford seems to have seen an opportunity following the share price weakness of both Centrica (LSE: CNA) and SSE (LSE: SSE).

Centrica was the largest detractor to the funds performance in February, after the company cut its dividend with its full-year results.  Mr Woodford didn’t feel that the dividend cut was necessary but this may have simply be down to the new chief executive, Ian Conn, taking the opportunity to get any bad news out of the way early in his tenure rather than risk a credit downgrade.  It is fair to say that a dividend cut was already largely reflected in the share price. Centrica was hit by a combination of factors recently:

• US and UK weather conditions;
• The oil price collapse;
• Political and regulatory pressure.

However, he felt that these issues will abate and its long-term valuation attractions will become much more apparent.  He topped up on both Centrica and SSE, which was weak in sympathy.

Whilst we will have to wait until May for SSE’s full-year results and its final dividend, it did release a third-quarter trading update on 26th January.  It stated that:

• SSE still expects to report an increase in the full-year dividend for 2014/15 that will at least be equal to RPI inflation;
• Confirms that SSE is targeting an increase in the full-year dividend for 2015/16 of at least RPI inflation, with annual increases thereafter of at least RPI inflation also being targeted.

Where Does That Leave Us Investors?

With no dividend cut, SSE still yields over 6% but with RPI currently at just over 1% I wouldn’t expect outsized increases, either.  Whilst Centrica has bitten the bullet by re-basing its dividend, this will assist in reducing its debt and maintain capital expenditure — in the long run, it may be seen as a smart move… as may Neil Woodford’s top-ups.

The post Why Neil Woodford Has Sold Smith & Nephew Plc But Bought More Centrica Plc And SSE Plc appeared first on The Motley Fool UK.

While Stryker may abandon its ambitious plan to buy the UK medical device maker, weakness in Smith & Nephew stock indicates that it may be a good time to add it to your wish list. But at what price should you actually buy into the stock? Here is my answer, and here’s why you should also pay attention to Shire‘s (LSE: SHP) rally, which looks rather convincing. 

Outlook

“I am not a fan of the concept ‘big is beautiful,'” Smith & Nephew chief executive Olivier Bohuon said at a conference on healthcare in January, when it was on the verge of receiving a takeover offer according to market rumours. To be fair, the company has been a takeover target for about a decade: its equity value has doubled over the period, but most of the gains in its stock value have come in the last 24 months. 

Of course, Smith & Nephew shareholders are concerned now — but Mr Bohuon may be right.

If so, the company will likely continue to deliver value to shareholders for a long time, and a 7.5% drop in its stock price should be perceived as positive news for value hunters. After all, Smith & Nephew is expected to deliver higher revenue growth in 2015 than in 2014, while a further improvement in trading profit margins seems likely. Positive contribution to net earnings is also expected to come from a marginally lower corporate tax rate. 

Furthermore, currency swings may have a minimal impact on 2015 revenues: its balance sheet is solid, and net leverage is manageable. Finally, core profitability may rise faster than expected on the back of ad-hoc cost-cutting measures, so there could be room for an increase in the payout ratio.

S&N is still expensive, however, so I am not saying it is time to buy. But this is one stock to watch, particularly if its valuation drops another 20% or so from here to around 900p. Incidentally, Johnson & Johnson and private equity firms could easily put forward opportunistic bids if S&N traded in the 800p-950p range.

Shire On A Roll

Shire, another company operating in the broader pharmaceutical world, is a different story. Its shares have drawn my attention for a few weeks now.

Shire shareholders were under pressure to sell when the merger with AbbVie was called off in mid-October, but since then weakness in their shares has turn out to be a great buying opportunity: the shares have recorded a 39% pre-tax return, excluding dividends.

Shire is drawing lots of attention from analysts, too — and rightly so. Goldman Sachs suggests a price target of 6,400p, which is way too bullish, but a 10% rise to 5,700p is very possible to the end of the year.  

Shire is a solid company that has proven to be able to allocate capital efficiently over time. It’s a tad more expensive than S&N — which is justified by a higher growth rate, higher profitability, lower net leverage and a decent pipeline of drugs — but there you go: high-quality stocks do not come cheap.

The post Keep An Eye On Smith & Nephew plc & Shire plc Now! appeared first on The Motley Fool UK.

Three different mistakes to avoid can be illustrated by the cases of Smith & Nephew (LSE: SN), BHP Billiton (LSE: BLT) and Tungsten (LSE: TUNG).

Smith & Nephew

Medical devices firm Smith & Nephew headlines its results with an “adjusted” earnings-per-share (EPS) number. This excludes “exceptional” or “one-off” items. Most companies do this (analyst forecasts are also made on the same basis), and it’s the adjusted EPS number that typically becomes the “E” in our P/E calculations.

Smith & Nephew reported adjusted EPS of 83.2¢ (about 53.7p) in its latest annual results, giving a P/E of 22 at a share price of 1,180p. However, if you look at those results, you’ll see that “restructuring & rationalisation costs” are one of the things the company excludes from its adjusted EPS. The trouble is that this “exceptional” item has appeared in Smith & Nephew’s results every year for the last 10 years bar one. It’s not really a one-off is it?

The $46m (5.2¢ per share) of costs the company reported this year is about average. If we treat these costs simply as a normal feature of the business, Smith & Nephew’s already high P/E of 22 (compared with 16.7 for the FTSE 100 as a whole) goes up even higher — to 23.5.

P/E pitfall: hidden recurring “one-offs” can lead your valuation astray.

BHP Billiton

If you look at BHP Billiton’s last annual results, you’ll find the company posted EPS of 252.7¢ (about 163p), giving a P/E of 9.8 at a share price of 1,600p. If you then go to the last annual results of Billiton’s big rival Rio Tinto, you’ll find Rio posted EPS of 503.4¢ (about 325p), giving a P/E of 9.7 at a share price of 3,150p.

Not much to choose between them, right? The trouble is Billiton has a 30 June financial year end, while Rio and all the other big Footsie miners have 31 December year ends. Rio’s P/E of 9.7 for the year ending 31 December 2014 is fine, but to compare Billiton on a meaningful basis, we need to take the latter’s EPS from the second half of its financial year ending 30 June 2014 and add it to the EPS for the first half of the year to 30 June 2015.

Doing the calculation produces EPS of 207.5¢ (about 134p), giving Billiton a P/E of 11.9. On a like-for-like basis, then, Billiton’s earnings rating is a good bit higher than Rio’s. You also need to go through a similar process of adjustment when calculating the two companies’ P/Es from analyst forecast earnings (although you may want to wait until the analysts have updated their forecasts after Billiton’s half-year results today.)

P/E pitfall: different company financial year ends can lead your comparative valuation astray.

Tungsten

Analyst earnings forecasts for the next two or three years are widely available on financial websites. Most of us look at forward P/Es — probably more so than trailing P/Es.

One often-overlooked point when using forward P/Es is illustrated by AIM-listed Tungsten. This company, which is a leading global B2B e-invoicing network, whose customers include Tesco, GlaxoSmithKline and Unilever, isn’t making a profit yet. However, the firm is forecast to deliver positive EPS in its financial year to 30 April 2017, giving a P/E of 12 at a share price of 170p.

But let’s remind ourselves of exactly what a P/E is. The number represents how many years it would take for EPS to total the share price we paid (if EPS stayed the same).

In Tungsten’s case, we have a P/E of 12, but if we invest today, it’s not 12 years (to 2027) for EPS to equal our share price. The company, remember, is not yet profitable, so the clock doesn’t start ticking until 2017. It would be 2029 for EPS to equal our share price — 14 years, and thus effectively putting Tungsten on a P/E of 14.

P/E pitfall: you could be paying a higher valuation than you may think when using forward earnings.

The post Don’t Make These Basic Mistakes With BHP Billiton plc, Smith & Nephew plc And Tungsten Corp PLC appeared first on The Motley Fool UK.

However, if you could only buy one of the two, which should it be?

A Challenging 2014

2014 was a tough year for AstraZeneca, with the pharmaceutical company reporting core earnings per share (EPS) that were 15% down on their 2013 level, after its fourth-quarter EPS fell by 38%. This was largely due to the investments it is making in accelerating its existing portfolio of drugs and was made worse by currency headwinds which, when removed, gave figures of minus 8% and minus 28% respectively for the two periods. Still, it remains a severe decline and shows that the company has some way to go regarding a return to bottom line growth, which is expects to take place in 2017.

As such, AstraZeneca has agreed to buy the rights to Actavis’ North American respiratory business for $600m plus single-digit royalties above a specific revenue threshold. This will further enhance AstraZeneca’s respiratory division and broaden its product offering. It will also immediately add on-market revenues and contribute to the company’s financial performance.

Meanwhile, Smith & Nephew reported a rise in underlying revenue growth of just 2% in 2014, with its Advanced Wound Management division seeing its top line fall by 1%, due mainly to disappointing performance in the US. However, as a result of improving margins (trading margins rose by 0.2% in the year), adjusted EPS increased by 8.2% and, looking ahead, the company expects 2015 to be a year of faster revenue growth and further improvements to its trading profit, as its exposure to emerging markets in particular is set to deliver better performance for the company.

Looking Ahead

Although Smith & Nephew is performing better than AstraZeneca at the present time, as shown in today’s updates, both companies have considerable potential to improve their performance. However, when it comes to their valuations, AstraZeneca appears to appeal significantly more than Smith & Nephew, even when the latter’s stronger growth prospects over the next two years are taken into account.

For example, AstraZeneca trades on a forward price to earnings (P/E) ratio of 17.7 using 2016’s forecast earnings numbers. While not exactly cheap on an absolute basis, it appears to offer better value than Smith & Nephew, which has a forward P/E ratio of 18.2 using 2016 forecast earnings.

Furthermore, AstraZeneca has thus far delivered better performance than expected by many investors since its current management team took the reins in late 2012. Therefore, with the company having considerable financial firepower, it could be argued that its bottom line may improve at a faster rate than is currently being priced in, since further acquisitions could make a real difference to its earnings numbers.

As such, and while both stocks are worth buying at the present time, AstraZeneca’s better value and potential for a positive surprise regarding its forecasts make it the more appealing of the two companies – especially for longer term investors.

The post AstraZeneca plc vs Smith & Nephew plc: Which Is The Better Buy? appeared first on The Motley Fool UK.

Performance/Premium

S&N shares have risen 7% since 23 December, when it was rumoured once again that S&N would be taken over by Stryker for about £13bn ($20bn). According to Bloomberg sources, S&N’s equity could be valued at almost 1,400p, for an implied 20% premium from its current level.

How realistic is such a price tag, though?

Firstly, S&N stock should trade below 900p to draw interest from investors, in my view.

Secondly, S&N is a prized asset but its shares had already gained 30% of value before Christmas Eve on the back of takeover rumours rather than meaningful operational improvements in 2014.

Value 

S&N’s share price rallied (+25%) to 1,100p in less than eight weeks to 10 June 2014. In those days, Zimmer had agreed to acquire Biomet for $13 billion, so investors decided to pay up for other takeover targets such as S&N in the sector. 

Based on S&N’s enterprise value (EV) divided by revenue, and EV/adjusted operating cash flow, the shares already trade in line with their mid-cycle multiples — and also trade at an implied 25% discount to peak-cycle multiples. In short, they are pretty expensive. 

While consolidation for medical device makers is on the cards, it’s unlikely that any buyer would be willing to offer a meaningful premium to S&N’s current valuation of 1,165p — although, admittedly, S&N could be broken up, while certain assets could be flipped to private-equity firms at a marked-up price. 

Another issue is that a tax-inversion deal isn’t likely to happen any time soon, although a smaller number of bigger players are competing in a sector where Medtronic and Johnson & Johnson may also decide to grow their asset base inorganically and, equally important, could deploy lots of cash held abroad.

S&N Is Not Cheap 

A full bid at 1,400p a share would value S&N at almost £13bn, for an implied forward adjusted operating cash flow multiple of about 11x — which seems a rich valuation for a business whose cost-cutting potential is more attractive than its organic growth prospects at this point in the business cycle. 

S&N stock is currently valued at a high multiple of 29x forward earnings, and trades 5% above the average price target from brokers, which are bullish, of course, about M&A prospects in a sector where rising costs point to more deal-making to preserve operating margins. Both S&N and larger players must also preserve market share as hospital consolidation in the US leads to lower budgets, which in turn puts pressure on suppliers’ profits. 

Yet do you recall what happened to the value of Shire when merger talks with AbbVie collapsed in October 2014? I would bet on a similar, painful outcome for S&N shareholders this year… 

The post Why Now Is A Great Opportunity To Take Profit On Takeover Target Smith & Nephew plc appeared first on The Motley Fool UK.

The London-based company is currently up around 8% at the time of writing, with shareholders cheering rumours that Smith & Nephew could be the latest healthcare specialist to be snapped up as M&A activity in the sector heats up. Here, I explain why the British company is attracting admiring gazes from across the Atlantic.

Imminent bid on the cards?

According to Bloomberg, surgical implant provider Stryker is readying a bid to acquire Smith & Nephew, a move that could be launched in the coming weeks. The US business commented in May that it was not about to launch a takeover offer for Smith & Nephew, preventing it from readying an attempt until late November at the earliest in line with stock market rules.

The report cited one source who explained that Smith & Nephew could command a premium of up to 30% of its share price. And unlike Pfizer’s attempted acquisition of AstraZeneca earlier this year, Stryker’s rumoured bid is apparently not being fuelled by controversial tax inversion, illustrating the underlying value of the British firm.

Earnings on course to ignite

Indeed, Europe’s largest manufacturer of artificial limbs has a stellar history of generating year-on-year earnings growth, and City analysts expect the business to punch growth to the tune of 4% in 2014, a figure which accelerates to 12% in 2015.

In response to escalating pressure from government and private health plans concerning the cost of its artificial body parts, this summer Smith & Nephew launched its Syncera initiative in the US, a strategy which could cut costs by half as part of a slimmed-down service. It is estimated that the scheme addresses between 5% and 10% of the market, and could drive Smith & Nephew’s current US market share — which currently stands at around 11% — through the roof.

On top of this, the business is also engaged in extensive work behind the scenes to bulk up the bottom line. From engaging in a vast $120m cost-stripping exercise, to rolling out IT systems which assist decision making by measuring profits according to product and country, Smith & Nephew is gearing up to build a much more intelligent earnings-generating machine.

The post Why Smith & Nephew plc Is Attracting Interest From Stryker Corporation appeared first on The Motley Fool UK.