At the beginning of the week, stock markets werefalling around the world. Amidst this general malaise in equities, bargains are starting to appear. However, I believe you will have toselect carefully which companies you buy into.
But if chosen well,your portfolio ofshares could appreciate strongly once confidence returns to shares. The question is, what should you buy? Here, I put forward two blue-chip stalwarts from different sectors: Barclays (LSE: BARC) and GlaxoSmithKline (LSE: GSK). Its the bank vs the pharma company. Who will win?
Barclays
Although I respected him as a chief executive, I never really felt that Anthony Jenkins understood the Barclays investment bank. I suspect that was the reason he had to leave the company.
Whoever replaces him in the long term will understand that growing the investment bank is a crucial pillar ofBarclays future success. With this in mind, I ambullish about the banks prospects.
Most people would agree that the financial crisis is now over. The legacy of that time, of bad debts and draconian fines and penalties, will, I think, also soon draw to a close.
The consensus also agrees with this view. A 2015 P/E ratio of 11.76, falling to 10.11 in 2016, looks cheap. Throw in a dividend yield of 2.53%, rising to 2.87%, and Barclays looks like a tempting buy. I think it isan income play with growth prospects.
There have been many false dawns with this bank. ButI believe all the ingredients are in place for a strong recovery in Barclays profitability, which can only benefit its share price.
GlaxoSmithKline
GlaxoSmithKline is also no stranger to false dawns. After a series of patent expiries, there was much hope pinned on the firms strong drugs pipeline.
However, sales of new drugs have, so far, disappointed. In an increasingly crowded market, there are increasing numbers of me too drugs which add to profitability, but fail to match the blockbusters of yesteryear.
Take the example of Breo, GSKs new wonder drug in the field of asthma. It has so far made little impact, taking only 5% of the respiratory illness market in the US. Meanwhile, sales of Advair have been falling.
Thats why Glaxo aims not only to increase its drugs portfolio, but improve the way it sells its products, beyond North America and Europe, to emerging and frontier markets. China and India will become increasingly important to this business.
Whats more, the company is making promising progress in areas such as vaccines, which, with the worldsrising population, is a growing market. Sales of retroviral drugs are also increasing.
Taken in the round, I see a company which is unlikely to grow at any pace, but which has a healthy dividend yield.
A 2015 P/E ratio of 16.98, falling to 15.06 in 2016, looks fairly priced, but not cheap. However, the dividend yield of 6.12%, falling to 6.07%, appeals. I see this as an out-and-out dividend play.
Foolish bottom line
So do you go for the cheaper P/E ratio, or the higher dividend yield? Would you plump for Barclays strengthening recovery, or GlaxoSmithKlines global ambitions?
For me, it is the cheaper P/E ratio which swings it. I would buy Barclays over GlaxoSmithKline.
Both Barclays and GlaxoSmithKline are attractive dividend investments. Income investing is the at the heart of many small investors’ strategies, as it allows you to steadily accumulate and reinvest dividends year-by-year, gradually building your retirement pot.
If you want to learn more about this key money-making technique, simply click on this link to read “How to create dividends for life”, and it will be dispatched to you, free of charge and without obligation.
Prabhat Sakya has no position in any shares mentioned. The Motley Fool UK has recommended Barclays and GlaxoSmithKline. We Fools don’t all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors.