Анализ фундаментальных показателей компании Unilever PLC показывает смешанную картину. Несмотря на высокий уровень выручки и чистой прибыли, которые значительно превышают медианные значения отрасли, многие мультипликаторы, такие как P/S и P/FCF, указывают на возможную переоцененность акций. Долговая нагрузка компании очень низкая, что положительно сказывается на финансовой устойчивости. Однако показатели рентабельности, такие как ROE и ROA, находятся на нуле, что является серьезным негативным фактором. Дивидендная доходность также снизилась, что может насторожить инвесторов, ищущих стабильный доход. Уровень ликвидности ниже медианных значений, что также является риском. В то же время, компания демонстрирует рост выручки и чистой прибыли по годам, что может указывать на положительные перспективы в будущем. В целом, фундаментальные метрики компании требуют осторожного подхода к оценке и могут указывать на необходимость пересмотра целевой цены.

Unilever PLC

Key Points
Procter & Gamble’s high margins and cash-flow support its growing payout.
The company is well positioned to weather an industry-wide slowdown.
Procter & Gamble’s valuation is at multiyear lows.
Procter & Gamble (NYSE: PG) just announced its 70th consecutive annual dividend raise, boosting its quarterly payout from $1.0568 per share to $1.0885 per share, or $4.354 per year -- good for a forward yield of 3% based on the share price at the time of this writing.
The dividend increase makes P&G one of the longest-tenured Dividend Kings, which are companies that have increased their payouts for at least 50 consecutive years. There are 57 Dividend Kings -- but only five of them have increased their dividends for at least 70 consecutive years.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
Here's why P&G is a top dividend-paying value stock to buy now.
P&G is in a league of its own
Procter & Gamble is the largest household and personal products company in the world and the third-largest U.S. consumer staples company by market cap -- behind Walmart and Costco Wholesale, but ahead of Coca-Cola.
P&G has a portfolio of leading brands across everyday-use categories spanning:
Diapers (led by Pampers)
Paper towels (Bounty)
Toilet paper (Charmin)
Tissues (Puffs)
Feminine products (led by Always)
Grooming and hair care (Gillette, Old Spice, Pantene, and Head & Shoulders, among others)
Cleaning products (Dawn, Cascade, Febreze, etc.)
Laundry detergents (Tide, Gain, and others)
Oral and personal healthcare products (Crest, Oral-B, Vicks, etc.)
Skin and personal care (Olay, SK-II, etc.)
P&G's international brand recognition, elite supply chain and marketing, and sheer size across categories give it impeccable pricing power and negotiating leverage with retailers. These advantages allow P&G to consistently generate operating margins above 20% -- often ahead of its peers.
Despite its competitive advantages, P&G's growth slowed in recent years due to consumer spending challenges driven by higher living costs and inflationary pressures, including higher everyday expenses and now elevated oil prices. P&G is generally considered a recession-proof business because demand for its products remains consistent across economic cycles. But consumers can change their behavior when budgets are strained and may opt to buy a private-label brand like Costco's Kirkland Signature diapers, for example, instead of Pampers to stretch their dollars.
A measured dividend increase
Given the state of P&G's business and the slowdown in the broader household and personal products industry, it's unsurprising that P&G's latest dividend raise was just a 3% increase. Historically, it's far more common to see P&G raise its dividend by mid-to-high single digits. But it's not unheard of for P&G to announce a low-single-digit raise.
The most recent example was 2023, when P&G coincidentally also raised its dividend by just 3%. This made sense at the time, given that P&G was coming off years of price increases and inflationary pressures were on the rise post-pandemic.
Maintaining a 70-year streak of dividend increases means P&G has to consistently grow its earnings and avoid outsized raises during particularly good years, because the last thing P&G wants is for the dividend expense to get so large that it gobbles up all its free cash flow (FCF).
P&G's dividend expense is still at a healthy level. Its trailing-12-month earnings per share of $6.75 and $6.09 in FCF per share easily cover its dividend, even after the latest raise. And the payout ratio of 61.9% is rock solid for a consumer staples company.
P&G is a uniquely flexible conglomerate
Aside from high margins, earnings, and FCF, what makes P&G such an elite dividend stock is its ability to take what the market gives it by leaning into whatever product categories and geographic regions are doing well.
For example, in P&G's latest quarter, which was the second quarter of fiscal 2026, Latin America and Europe helped offset weak performance in North America. Hair care was P&G's best category, and skin and personal care, personal healthcare, home care, and oral care also helped pick up the slack from weak performances in grooming, fabric care, baby care, feminine care, and daily care.
P&G doesn't rely too heavily on any particular region or product category. And even within specific categories, it can retain a customer sale even during spending pullbacks. For example, a customer may pivot from Tide to a generally less expensive detergent brand like Gain to cut costs, or from Pampers to Luvs. But P&G still lands the sale because it owns both the premium-priced category option and a more budget-friendly choice.
A top stock to buy and hold
P&G is one of the most reliable dividend stocks for value investors to buy and hold. But P&G rarely trades at a discount to the S&P 500 (SNPINDEX: ^GSPC), given its quality.
Now is an incredible opportunity for investors to buy P&G on sale. The sell-off in the stock has pushed its yield to around a five-year high and the valuation down to a five-year low. P&G sports a price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of just 21.4 and a forward P/E of 20.8 compared to 20.3 for the S&P 500.
Add it all up, and P&G checks all the boxes of a dividend stock that can anchor a passive income portfolio.
Should you buy stock in Procter & Gamble right now?
Before you buy stock in Procter & Gamble, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Procter & Gamble wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $581,304!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,215,992!*
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 1,016% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 197% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
Daniel Foelber has positions in Estée Lauder Companies, Kenvue, Kimberly-Clark, and Procter & Gamble. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Colgate-Palmolive, Costco Wholesale, Kenvue, and Walmart. The Motley Fool recommends Unilever. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.

Meet the Dividend King That Just Raised Its Payout For the 70th Consecutive Year. Here's Why It's a No-Brainer Buy Before the End of April.

Legendary investor Warren Buffett advises to be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful. One way we can try to measure the level of fear in a given stock is through a technical analysis indicator called the Relative Strength Index, or RSI, which measures momentum on a scale of zero to 100. A stock is considered to be oversold if the RSI reading falls below 30.
In trading on Thursday, shares of Unilever plc (Symbol: UL) entered into oversold territory, hitting an RSI reading of 29.5, after changing hands as low as $57.18 per share. By comparison, the current RSI reading of the S&P 500 ETF (SPY) is 68.3. A bullish investor could look at UL's 29.5 RSI reading today as a sign that the recent heavy selling is in the process of exhausting itself, and begin to look for entry point opportunities on the buy side. The chart below shows the one year performance of UL shares:
Looking at the chart above, UL's low point in its 52 week range is $54.95 per share, with $74.975 as the 52 week high point — that compares with a last trade of $57.28.
Never miss the next high-yield opportunity: Preferred Stock Alerts sends timely, actionable picks on income-producing preferred stocks and baby bonds, straight to your inbox.
Also see:
Dividend Articles
SCVL Videos
Cheap Stocks Channel
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.

Oversold Conditions For Unilever (UL)

A $2 Trillion IPO and the Space Economy

The Procter & Gamble Company PG has been gaining by leveraging its solid market position and focusing on productivity and cost-efficiency. However, its current forward 12-month price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of 20.3X raises questions about whether the stock is fairly valued. This multiple is significantly higher than the Zacks Consumer Products – Staples industry average of 17.76X, making the stock appear relatively expensive.
The price-to-sales (P/S) ratio of Procter & Gamble, a distinguished name in the consumer staples sector, is 3.85X, above the industry’s multiple of 2.19X. This adds to investor unease, especially considering its Value Score of D, which suggests that it may not be a strong value proposition at current levels.
Image Source: Zacks Investment Research
PG’s Premium Valuation Surpasses Peers
At 20.3X P/E, Procter & Gamble is trading at a valuation much higher than its competitors. The company’s peers like The Clorox Company CLX, Unilever PLC UL and Albertsons Companies, Inc. ACI have experienced declines and are delivering solid growth and trade at more reasonable multiples. Clorox, Unilever and Albertsons Companies have forward 12-month P/E ratios of 16.07X, 15.85X and 0.12X — all significantly lower than that of PG. At such levels, Procter & Gamble’s valuation seems out of step with its growth trajectory.
The PG stock’s premium valuation suggests that investors have strong expectations for its growth. However, the stock currently seems somewhat overvalued. Procter & Gamble’s ability to meet or exceed these lofty expectations is crucial in justifying its premium pricing.
In the past three months, the company’s shares have risen 3.4%, against the broader industry’s decline of 0.4%. The company has outperformed the Zacks Consumer Staples sector and the S&P 500’s declines of 3.5% and 3%, respectively.
Procter & Gamble’s performance is better than that of its competitors, including Clorox’s 1.4% growth and Unilever’s 8.9% decline in the past three months. However, PG has underperformed Albertsons Companies, which rose 4.9% in the same period.
PG’s current share price of $146.66 trades 14.6% below its recent 52-week high mark of $171.65. The stock trades 6.6% above its 52-week low of $137.62.
Procter & Gamble trades below its 50 and 200-day moving averages, indicating bearish sentiment. The moving average is an important indicator for gauging market trends and momentum.
Procter & Gamble Trades Below 50 & 200-Day SMA
Image Source: Zacks Investment Research
PG’s Growth Drivers vs. Market Challenges
Procter & Gamble’s growth strategy is centered on innovation, brand superiority and geographic expansion, but near-term performance remains constrained by softer consumer demand and competitive pressures. Management highlighted that growth outside the United States remains encouraging, with most regions delivering organic sales gains and benefiting from targeted innovation and improved execution.
The company is leaning on consumer-insight-driven product launches, such as premium Baby Care and fabric enhancer innovations, alongside stronger brand communication and in-store execution to drive category growth and share gains. These initiatives, supported by productivity improvements and reinvestment in innovation, are expected to fuel stronger performance in the second half of fiscal 2026.
PG is also advancing a longer-term reinvention strategy built on superior data, AI-enabled innovation and deeper integration with retail partners. Management emphasized leveraging extensive consumer data, advanced R&D capabilities and supply-chain platforms to accelerate product development and enhance marketing effectiveness across channels. The company aims to strengthen brand engagement across fragmented media platforms while improving value propositions to drive household penetration and usage growth.
However, the growth outlook is tempered by persistent market challenges. Consumer spending remains pressured by inflation across essential categories, while media fragmentation and evolving retail dynamics complicate brand building. Usage growth has been slow, with volume trends largely flat in key markets, reflecting cautious consumer behavior and reliance on pricing-led growth in recent years.
Additionally, aggressive competition, geopolitical uncertainty and tariff-related cost headwinds are expected to weigh on margins and limit near-term acceleration. Despite these hurdles, PG expects innovation-led interventions and improved execution to gradually restore growth momentum.
PG’s Estimate Revision Trend
The Zacks Consensus Estimate for Procter & Gamble’s fiscal 2026 EPS has been unchanged in the past 30 days. Meanwhile, the consensus mark for EPS has moved down 0.3% in the past seven days. However, revenue and EPS estimates for fiscal 2026 and 2027 indicate year-over-year growth.
For fiscal 2026, the Zacks Consensus Estimate for PG’s revenues and EPS implies year-over-year growth of 2.9% and 2.1%, respectively. The consensus mark for fiscal 2027 revenues and EPS indicates 2.6% and 4.5% year-over-year rallies, respectively.
Image Source: Zacks Investment Research
Is Procter & Gamble a Lucrative Buy Now?
Procter & Gamble remains a high-quality consumer staples name, backed by strong brands, innovation and productivity initiatives. Its reinvention strategy and international growth opportunities support long-term prospects. However, soft demand, flat volume trends and competitive pressures continue to weigh on near-term performance.
The stock’s premium valuation, with elevated P/E and P/S multiples versus peers, suggests much of the optimism is already priced in. Earnings growth expectations remain modest, limiting upside potential. While PG remains a solid long-term compounder, near-term investors may stay cautious. Existing shareholders may consider retaining this Zacks Rank #3 (Hold) stock in their portfolios, while awaiting clearer signs of earnings reacceleration. You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here.
Zacks Names #1 Semiconductor Stock
This under-the-radar company specializes in semiconductor products that titans like NVIDIA don't build. It's uniquely positioned to take advantage of the next growth stage of this market. And it's just beginning to enter the spotlight, which is exactly where you want to be.
With strong earnings growth and an expanding customer base, it's positioned to feed the rampant demand for Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Internet of Things. Global semiconductor manufacturing is projected to explode from $452 billion in 2021 to $971 billion by 2028.
See This Stock Now for Free >>
Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.

Procter & Gamble's Premium Valuation: Buy Now or Stay on Sidelines?

In this episode of Motley Fool Money, Motley Fool contributors Tyler Crowe, Matt Frankel, and Lou Whiteman discuss:
Sysco’s $26 billion deal for Restaurant Depot.
McCormick’s $44 billion deal for Unilever’s food division.
The track record of major consumer brand mergers.
Eli Lilly acquiring Centessa Pharmaceuticals.
Listener question: Thoughts on Whirlpool?
To catch full episodes of all The Motley Fool's free podcasts, check out our podcast center. When you're ready to invest, check out this top 10 list of stocks to buy.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
A full transcript is below.
Where to invest $1,000 right now
When our analyst team has a stock tip, it can pay to listen. After all, Stock Advisor’s total average return is 928%* — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 186% for the S&P 500.
They just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy right now, available when you join Stock Advisor.
*Stock Advisor returns as of April 8, 2026.
This podcast was recorded on March 31, 2026.
Tyler Crowe: It is merger mania this week. Welcome to Motley Fool Money. I'm Tyler Crowe, and today I'm joined by longtime Fool contributors, Matt Frankel and Lou Whiteman, with three of us being part of the Hidden Gems team here at Motley Fool. As we said, there has been a lot of movement in the merger and acquisition field in the past couple of days, and we're going to try to break down as many of those deals as we can. Also, we're going to get to some listener questions. But to start, let's go with a lot of the deals that's going on in the food industry because we had two doozies. There must have been like, a lot of lawyers and investment bankers putting in extra hours this past weekend because first, we got news on Monday that Sysco, the food distributor, not the networking hardware company. Was acquiring private retailer Restaurant Depot for $26 billion. We'll get into the details in a second here. But I think that was going to be the headline deal we were going to talk about. Then this morning, we had even bigger deal where McCormick basically said, "Hold my beer" because they decided to merge with Unilever's food division in a $44 billion deal. What makes it kind of striking is that McCormick itself is a $14 billion company, and Sysco as doing a $26 billion deal was a $30 billion company. These are massive transformative changes in pretty sleepy consumer brand food distribution businesses. Now, personally, as I looked at the initial deals, I was a little dubious. But if forced to choose, I would probably say the Sysco Deal looks a little bit better. But I wanted to turn to you guys and see what you guys thought of both of these. I'm going to start with you, Matt. Are either of these deals making Sysco or McCormick more attractive?
Matt Frankel: I'd agree that the Sysco Deal is the more interesting of the two to me. If you're not familiar, so Sysco is the largest food service distributor in the United States. I had a short career in the restaurant industry many years ago, and I worked at a total of four restaurants across two states, and Sysco is the primary food supplier for all of them, and that's among the other 700,000 restaurants it serves worldwide. It is a massive distribution network. It gives it a major efficiency advantage over its competitors. On the other hand, Restaurant Depot, it's a network of in person wholesale restaurant supply warehouses. Think of it as like a Costco or a Sam's club, but specifically for restaurants. It's carved out a very nice niche among restaurant owners who value flexibility and pricing, over the convenience of the national distributor Sysco.
Lou Whiteman: Now, as Matt says, Restaurant Depot is a much different business, arguably a better business, better margins, decent cash flow. It better be because Sysco's paying a price that's higher than Sysco's multiple. They are hoping to see their business improve because of Restaurant Depot. Real question for me is, can they get this done? Last time Sysco tried something like this with US Foods, anti trust got in the way. It's a decade later, and as I said, they are different businesses, but we'll see if it plays out. Tyler, I do have to say, though. You said interesting. To me, back when I was in deal making world, there was nothing more interesting than a reverse Morris Trust. McCormick gets it just for interest, just for that because they are doing this. They're using this cool thing where they are merging with part of Unilever, and Unilever gets to spin it off tax free. I'm real curious about this because it used to be deals like this made sense. Self space mattered. Jamming more things into a truck that's heading to the store. That gives you scale. That gives you synergies. That was supposed to matter. Recent history, including Kraft Heinz, and some other deals we can get to, it's less settled science now whether that works. Maybe this is an opportunity to find out how much of what went wrong in other deals was the management execution compared to just the strategy. The strategy could make sense. McCormick and paper, I think, is better managed, so I am at least curious to see how this plays out.
Tyler Crowe: To lose point, thinking about, like, jamming stuff into trucks, it certainly there is some sort of logic to what's going on here, but I feel like M&A activity specifically in consumer brands has been like that joke from the TV show Arrested Development. It became like an Internet memo. It's like, "Well, did it work out for them?" Then they go, "No, they delude themselves into thinking, will work, destroys value." But it could work for us. Every single time, I've been running through, like, the mental rolodex of consumer goods deals over the past decade, where you can say it was definitively a win for its investors. We mentioned Kraft Heinz. That was a blunder. The Anheuser-Busch InBev buying SAB Miller to unite the Beer World. That was not so great. Keuring Dr. Pepper Merger hasn't turned out too well, either. I mean, the jury's still out on this recent one with Kimberly Clark and Kenvue but I can't think of a major consumer brands deal where we're like, yes, really good stuff. Now, consumer brands is historically a defensive sector. The goal for some investors maybe just collect a dividend and call it a day. It's fine. That's what a lot of investors want. But aside from this track record of value destruction at these major brands has to be a red flag going into these deals, don't you think?
Lou Whiteman: My theory here is it's not the deals. It's the companies. The value of brands have been diminished over the course of the last 20 years or so. I blame the Internet, better flow of information, but who knows? But consumer goods to me today is a barbell. Most consumers will pay up for certain specific items, whether it's on holding shoes at any given moment or one just splurge. But otherwise, consumers are happy to buy generic. That's a nightmare for these mid tier brands, and that's most of what we're talking about with Kimberly Clark, Ken view, Kraft and Heinz. If that's the case, this is a bad move for McCormick. Honestly, I believe enough that I personally try not to invest in brands in the middle. The bottom line is, I don't think people still find value in buying, say, Tylenol versus Kroger brand, Tylenol. That's a problem for anyone selling these why distribution, but a little bit extra because it's a brand name products.
Matt Frankel: There have been a few decent examples of deals like this that have worked. Performance Food Group, getting back to the Sysco situation is one that looks really interesting. Ticker symbol is PFGC and 2019-2023, it acquired three of its major competitors, including Cheney Brothers, which is a big Sysco competitor. A major reason was to add new consumer segments, which is one of the reasons Sysco's acquiring restaurant warehouse. The stock is up 160% since the start of 2019, so I'd call that a pretty solid example and a pretty close parallel, but I completely see your point, there is a lot that can go wrong with these types of acquisitions, especially when a company like Sysco is taking on $21 billion of new debt to make it happen.
Tyler Crowe: Just for keeping score, too, the deal between Unilever and McCormick is also going to be taking on a rather considerable portion of debt, as well. Whatever happens with these, the question for the next couple of years is, how quickly can we get these debt levels back down to pay off and make these things worth their while? We will be watching that. Then after the break, we're going to look at another M&A deal, but completely unrelated industry.
Speaker 1: In January of 1915, Ernest Shackleton's ship Endurance became encased in the ice in the Weddle Sea. Through determination, grit, and savvy, Shackleton would lead his men through a brutal winter, then over hundreds of miles of Antarctic ice, followed by 800 miles across some of the roughest waters in the world. It is one of the most extraordinary and inspirational journeys in the history of exploration. Find this story and many others at the Explorers Podcast available wherever you get your podcast or at explorerspodcast.com.
Tyler Crowe: We're going to shift gears in the industries we're talking about. We're going to stick with M&A. Yesterday, Eli Lilly announced it was acquiring Centessa Pharmaceuticals. As the case with most biotech deals, it is contingent on Centessa a meeting some milestones. But assuming a Centessa hits them, the deal is worth approximately $7.8 billion. Now, I'm going to leave it to you, Matt, to get into the details of what it does. But Centessa is a clinical stage development company that's looking to treat narcolepsy. But why is Eli Lilly willing to fork over $7 billion for a company that doesn't really even have a commercial treatment yet?
Matt Frankel: Yeah, that's a really good question. As you mentioned, they're a clinical stage pharmaceutical. They develop treatments for rare diseases. It's not just narcolepsy. They have some other things in the pipeline, but that's their most promising candidate. They have a product that's in later stage trials. It just passed Phase 2 trial that was very promising. The main product, it looks like it's going to become the first to market treatment and the most effective for several forms of narcolepsy, and this is estimated to be a $5 billion market. It has several other treatments, like I mentioned in earlier trials, but that drug is why Lily's buying it. The idea is that Lily's capabilities can help it accelerate its time to market. If it's successful in obtaining FDA approval, which those milestones you mentioned, in order to get that full 7.8 billion, it would have to get FDA approval for all these forms from narcolepsy. If that happens, the treatment could be worth several times what Lily's paying for it. It's a big if, but that's the goal.
Lou Whiteman: That's why Lily's paying up for a company that doesn't have a commercial product yet. This is just a big part of how R&D works in the industry. I mean, look, I've seen estimates it's almost $2 billion that Big Pharma spends to get just one drug into production through clearance. If you can do closer to a sure thing for 7 or 8 billion, suddenly, it doesn't look too bad. In Lily's case, too, this is a proactive move to make sure that this does not become a one hit wonder or one product company. Right now, about 60% of Lily's revenue comes from GOP ones. If anything, given all of the trials they have for different treatments, trying to get other GLP treatments on label, that's likely to only go up from here. The nature of Pharma is all good things come to an end. You're constantly racing to stay ahead of a patent expiration cliff, investing in a prominent therapy outside of GOP ones. That makes a lot of sense, assuming their scientists think that there is a there here, and I'm going to leave it to their scientists and not me to say whether or not what they're buying really makes sense. Apparently, they think so.
Tyler Crowe: To that point, too, I'm not going to claim to be somebody who can read clinical trial data very well and say whether it's good or bad and the direction they're going. But as somebody who has invested in the space from time to time, there are some hard numbers that investors should think about when looking at clinical stage, pharmaceutical companies, and it's something around, like 20-30% of drug candidates that start a Phase 2 clinical trial. End up actually getting all the way through trials and FDA approval. You want to think of it as almost like companies with lots of shots on goal in their development pipeline, because, there's no far growing conclusion that any of these in particular ones are going to make it through. As we mentioned, there are some contingencies built into the deal that says, "Hey, you have to meet these milestones for us to actually pay out the number that we're seeing." I want to shift gears a little bit, talking about healthcare in general, I want to get you guys' thoughts, but I don't want to drift too far here. One thing that's hard to shake when looking at the industry right now is FDA approvals. The rules and processes for getting approvals look pretty different in this current administration than prior ones. I think we mentioned it on a prior show earlier this year, Moderna's CEO Stephane Bancel, said that it is scaling back clinical trials for its MRNA vaccines because it would be as his quote said, difficult to see return on investment. That was specifically tied to MRNA vaccines, and we know that the current administration's position on vaccines is very different than what we've had in the past. I know that both of you have some ties to the healthcare industry, through your families and stuff like that. But as you look at this space as investors, have the recent changes in FDA approvals maybe changed the way you think about investing in clinical stage companies, at least in the time being?
Matt Frankel: I generally avoid the pharmaceutical industry for the reasons that you mentioned, because only 20-30% of the drugs that pass phase two trials actually come to market. For me, it hasn't really changed the way I invest, personally, but it's definitely something that healthcare investors should take into account.
Lou Whiteman: I am due to family. For most of my career, I've been restricted by conflict of interest. I can't that's an easy answer for me. But I will say this. These are long term projects. It takes upwards of a decade to get some drugs through clearance. I don't think these companies have to worry about any one regime because usually, things have changed over the course of it. I think it's something for investors to be aware of, but I wouldn't lean into political wins, changes coming from the agency with cycle to cycle. I think that if the science is good, there's a ways to get it done. You focus on trying to figure out the science.
Tyler Crowe: After the break, we're going to dip into the mailbag. Quick reminder, we want to make you part of the conversation. If you have a stock or investing question for Matt, Lou, myself, or anyone else on the Motley Fool Money Show, you can now email us at podcast@fool.com. We'd love to have your mailbag segments whenever possible, so send in your questions and just remember to keep them foolish. That email again is podcast@fool.com. I'm going to read this listener question that we got a little while ago. It comes from VJ Cont. I apologize if I mispronounce any names. It's a guarantee it's going to happen whenever you do these mailbag sections. His question was, I want to get your perspective on the long term investment thesis of Whirlpool. The ticker is WHR. I'm drawn to the generous dividend, but also question the sustainability of the dividend, given its high debt load on the balance sheet. I also want in your opinion on the long term narrative of the company, given the international competitive environment in the large appliance sector. Thanks for the comments. Cheers. Matt, I want to start with you. Whirlpool. What is your take?
Matt Frankel: I mean, my short answer is the market doesn't seem too convinced on the long term thesis for Whirlpool, either. The stock is down more than 50% from its high. It's still a profitable business. It has a 6.9% dividend yield as we're recording this that's well covered by its earnings, and it trades for about 9.3 times trailing 12 month earnings and less than nine times forward earnings. It has about $6.5 billion of debt. I don't view that as an unreasonable debt load, especially because it's steadily declined for the past three years. Now, management has made some questionable decisions recently. I will say that. They did a dilutive capital raise about a month ago. It caused the stock to drop 15%. That was a good portion of that decline I mentioned. It's a solid business, a nice dividend stock to own, but it's not one to buy and forget.
Lou Whiteman: I think I'm with the market on this one. The bull case is a recovering housing market plus continued tariffs. Boost sales. I think we're quite early in the recovery of housing, and I'm not sure what to think on tariffs. Dividend does look okay for now, but remember, they already cut it in half last year, so they are willing to make the hard decisions. They did just raise capital in February. That makes things look better, but that speaks to a business that is not firing all cylinders. There's probably a trade to be done here, guys, because Matt's right, the business isn't going away, and there is probably, a bottom to bounce off of, especially with activism involved. But for me, I don't see this as an attractive long term investment. Too many the deck is stacked against them.
Tyler Crowe: As a company that we can say is sensitive to the economic headwinds or tailwinds of the housing industry, whether that be new construction or refurbishment or anything like that, it's going to take a while for something like Whirlpool to really turn around. All you have to do is look at mortgage originations or refinancing originations to see that the housing market is in a very slow space. As long as that is crawling along, it's hard to see Whirlpool making a really strong recovery. I think we're all in consensus here. There's probably a long term narrative somewhere, but with the headwinds that the company's facing, maybe just sit on the sidelines for a while. As always, people on the program may have interest in the stocks they talk about and the Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against, so don't buy or sell stocks based solely on what you hear. All personal finance content follows Motley Fool editorial standards and is not approved by advertisers. Advertisements are sponsored content and provided for informational purposes only. To see our full advertising disclosure, please check out our shows. Thanks for producer Dan Boyd and the rest of the Motley Fool team. For Matt Lou and myself, thanks for listening, and we'll chat again soon.
Matt Frankel, CFP has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. Tyler Crowe has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Centessa Pharmaceuticals Plc, Costco Wholesale, Kenvue, McCormick, Moderna, Sysco, and Walmart. The Motley Fool recommends Kraft Heinz, Unilever, and Whirlpool. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.

Looks Like M&A Week in 3 Different Sectors

Key Points
McCormick is making a move to get even bigger in the center of the grocery store.
McCormick shareholders will own 35% of the new company.
Acquisitions are fraught with risks, but the strategic rationale here is clear.
Two of the most dominant companies at the center of your local supermarket are combining.
McCormick (NYSE: MKC), which is best known for its spices but also owns a wide range of condiments including Frank's RedHot and Cholula hot sauces, as well as French's mustard, is pairing up with Unilever's (NYSE: (NYSE: UL) foods division, which is driven by Hellmann's and Knorr, which makes seasoning, soups, and bouillon cubes.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
McCormick shareholders will own 35% of the new company, while Unilever shareholders will own 35%, and Unilever, the company, will get 9%. Unilever Foods is being valued at an enterprise value of $44.8 billion, or 13.8 times 2025 adjusted EBITDA. That same multiple gave McCormick an enterprise value of $21 billion.
Investors balked at the news as the stock tumbled shortly after it broke, and McCormick closed Tuesday's session down 6.1%. However, there is a clear strategic rationale to the deal. Let's take a closer look at the pros and cons.
Why the merger makes sense
Merging with Unilever Foods will only make McCormick more dominant in spices, seasonings, and condiments, strengthening its economies of scale, cross-selling opportunities, and allowing for cost cuts. Unilever will also contribute to McCormick's flavor solutions division, which develops custom seasonings and flavors for restaurants and sells directly to them as well.
McCormick argued that Unilever Foods' assets were "a highly complementary fit" for its brand portfolio. The move will also eliminate Unilever as a key competitor.
In the announcement, McCormick said the combined company expected to target a growth rate of 3%-5% in year 3, and cut about $600 million in annual costs. For year 3, it's targeting an operating margin of 23%-25%, up from 21% currently for the new company.
That all sounds bullish for the merger.
Why it might not create value
However, strategic rationale isn't enough for a merger to work on its own. The price also has to be right. With McCormick shareholders owning about one-third of the new company, that means Unilever Foods is being valued at twice as much, and that doesn't include the $15.7 billion in cash McCormick is paying.
Mergers are also fraught with culture clashes, integration challenges, and other such issues. Cutting $600 million in costs sounds good, but it might not be so easy to do without hurting parts of the business.
Large mergers also tend to be more unwieldy than smaller ones, and this is the largest such deal in the food industry in recent years.
The deal is expected to close by mid-2027. Expect McCormick to continue to make the case for the deal in the meantime.
Should you buy stock in McCormick right now?
Before you buy stock in McCormick, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and McCormick wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $518,530!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,069,165!*
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 915% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 183% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
*Stock Advisor returns as of April 1, 2026.
Jeremy Bowman has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends McCormick. The Motley Fool recommends Unilever. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.

McCormick Is Acquiring Unilever's Food Business for $45 Billion. Will This Send the Spice Giant's Stock Soaring?

Key Points
McCormick is combining with Unilever's food business.
The massive deal will enhance its scale, diversification, margins, and growth rates.
It also brings meaningful risks.
McCormick (NYSE: MKC) is spicing up its flavor profile. The global spice giant has agreed to combine with Unilever's (NYSE: UL) food business in a nearly $45 billion deal. It's a huge bite for the much smaller McCormick.
Here's a closer look at the merger and whether it's a smart move for the spice giant or if it could cause indigestion.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
Creating a global flavor-focused company
Global consumer products giant Unilever is separating its food business, which will then combine with McCormick in a cash-and-stock deal. Unilever and its shareholders will receive shares of McCormick equal to 65% of the combined company's value ($29.1 billion). Additionally, Unilever will receive $15.7 billion in cash. The companies expect the deal to close by the middle of next year. It values Unilever's food business at $44.8 billion, more than double McCormick's implied value ($21 billion).
The transaction will create a global flavor-focused company. It will combine McCormick's global flavor portfolio (McCormick-branded spices, French's mustard, Frank's RedHot sauces, and others) with Unilever's food brands, including Hellmann's and Knorr. The combined company will have over $20 billion in annual sales.
A lot to digest
The transformative transaction will accelerate McCormick's strategy of becoming a flavor-focused company. It has made several acquisitions over the years to grow its spice portfolio, expand internationally, and move into adjacent categories such as condiments and sauces. The combination with Unilever's food business will significantly increase its scale, diversify its business, accelerate its growth rate, and enhance its profitability.
McCormick expects to deliver $600 million in cost savings by combining with Unilever Foods within three years of closing the deal. The company also expects to accelerate its sales growth rate to 3%-5% annually by year three (up from 2% last year), while delivering faster earnings growth as its margins expand. That should enable McCormick to continue increasing its dividend. The spice maker extended its streak to 40 consecutive years in late 2025.
However, the deal isn't without risk. McCormick is acquiring a company more than twice its size, which adds meaningful integration and execution risk. Additionally, the combined company will initially have a rather high leverage ratio of 4.0 times, which could limit its financial flexibility. It aims to rapidly deleverage the balance sheet, targeting a ratio of around 3.0 times within two years and below that level over the long term.
A smart move
McCormick's proposed transaction to combine with Unilever's food business appears to be a wise strategic move. It will immediately increase its scale, diversification, profitability, and growth rates. While the massive deal adds integration, execution, and balance-sheet risks, they appear worthwhile given the potential long-term benefits of this combination.
Should you buy stock in McCormick right now?
Before you buy stock in McCormick, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and McCormick wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $501,381!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,012,581!*
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 880% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 178% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
*Stock Advisor returns as of March 31, 2026.
Matt DiLallo has positions in McCormick. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends McCormick. The Motley Fool recommends Unilever. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.

In a $45 Billion Deal, McCormick Is Buying Unilever's Food Business. Is This a Good Strategic Move for the Spice Giant?

(RTTNews) - Spice maker McCormick & Co. Inc. (MKC) announced Tuesday its agreement to combine with consumer goods major Unilever Plc.'s (UL, ULVR.L) Foods business excluding India and other excluded businesses. In the transaction, Unilever will receive $15.7 billion in cash, and the company and its shareholders will receive shares equating to 65% of the combined company equivalent to $29.1 billion.
The transaction implies an enterprise value for Unilever Foods of approximately $44.8 billion, and an enterprise value for McCormick of around $21.0 billion.
In the pre-market activity, McCormick shares were gaining 1.5 percent, at $54.50, and Unilever shares were gaining around 0.8 percent, at $60.42.
Under the deal terms, and upon closing of the transaction, Unilever and its shareholders will receive the equity as well as cash, subject to certain closing adjustments.
Following the deal closure, Unilever shareholders are expected to own 55.1% combined-company equity, while McCormick shareholders will own 35.0% and Unilever would own 9.9% stake.
The transaction is expected to close by mid 2027, subject to McCormick shareholders' approval, receipt of required regulatory approvals and other conditions.
The separation of Unilever's Foods business from the Unilever Group is expected to be structured as a Reverse Morris Trust transaction that is not expected to give rise to U.S. federal income tax for Unilever or its shareholders.
The combination is expected to be accretive to McCormick's net sales growth rate, operating margin and adjusted earnings per share in first full year.
The combined company is expected to benefit from expanded global reach, enhanced scale across retail and foodservice channels.
Together, the combined foodservice platform will have around $6 billion in fiscal year 2025 combined company sales.
The combined company expects to realize approximately $600 million in run-rate annual cost synergies, net of growth reinvestments.
On a combined basis, McCormick and Unilever Foods had combined company 2025 adjusted EBITDA of $4.7 billion and an operating income margin of approximately 21%.
Upon closing of the transaction, Brendan Foley would remain Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of McCormick, and Marcos Gabriel is expected to remain Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.

McCormick To Merge With Unilever's Select Foods Business In $15.7 Bln Cash, $29.1 Bln Equity Deal

(RTTNews) - Unilever (UL, ULVR.L, UN, UNA.AS, UNVB.DE) is in advanced discussions to combine its food business with spice-maker McCormick & Company (MKC), according to a report from The Wall Street Journal. The potential transaction would create a new food giant valued at roughly $60 billion, including debt.
MKC closed Monday's regular trading at $53.72, up $0.65 or 1.22%. In overnight trading, the stock further gained $2.24 or 4.17%.
A cash-and-stock deal could be announced as early as Tuesday, coinciding with McCormick's quarterly earnings release. However, sources cautioned that the timeline could still shift.
The move represents a major strategic shift for Unilever, continuing the trend of consumer conglomerates streamlining their portfolios. If completed, the deal would leave U.K.-based Unilever focused on beauty, personal-care, and home products.
As part of the agreement, Unilever shareholders are expected to own about two-thirds of the new food business. The deal also includes a cash component of approximately $16 billion.
Last week, Unilever confirmed it had received an inbound offer for its Foods division and was in discussions with McCormick. McCormick separately confirmed that talks are underway regarding a potential strategic transaction involving Unilever's food business.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.

Unilever In Advanced Talks To Merge Food Business With McCormick : Report

Key Points
A shortage of fertilizer caused by the Strait of Hormuz closure will lead to higher food prices.
About 85% of polyethylene exports from the Middle East travel through the Strait of Hormuz.
Food and home product manufacturers could be hit hard if the closure is extended.
Unfortunately, a prolonged closure or slowing of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has ripple effects far beyond oil and gas prices. One corner of the market that deserves increased attention is consumer goods. The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway that connects the Persian Gulf to the global economy, could have deep, severe, and often overlooked repercussions if closed for even a short period of time.
Here are seven reasons why a Strait of Hormuz closure could hammer consumer goods stocks and what long-term investors should expect.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
No fertilizer, no inexpensive groceries
One-third of the world's fertilizer trade travels through the Strait of Hormuz. As we head into the growing season, this lack of available fertilizer will raise costs for farmers and, in turn, increase the prices of the foods they grow.
Higher food costs impact consumers directly, but for consumer staple stocks such as The Campbell's Company (NASDAQ: CPB) or General Mills (NYSE: GIS), higher ingredient costs could erode margins and profitability. These companies will have little choice but to pass costs on to consumers who are already feeling the crunch.
Plastics and polymers stopped in their tracks
For a moment, think about all the plastic packaging we are surrounded by. Plastic packaging is so ubiquitous that we forget that polyethylene, the world's most common thermoplastic used for packaging and containers, is often imported from the Middle East. In fact, 85% of the polyethylene exports from that region travel through the Strait of Hormuz.
A shortage of polyethylene will impact everything that comes in a plastic container. Consumer goods stocks such as Procter & Gamble (NYSE: PG) and Unilever (NYSE: UL) will feel the most pain from this potential shortage.
Shipping costs skyrocket while margins disappear
Ships that need to be rerouted due to the Strait of Hormuz closure will take weeks longer to arrive at their intended destinations. The cost of shipping is then dramatically increased by fuel, insurance, freight rates, and lost time.
For consumer goods companies already operating with thin margins, this delay means immense pressure on the balance sheet. Companies can choose to pass that pressure onto consumers and risk hurting demand, or absorb the blow, which hurts margins. Either way, the results during the quarterly reports could hurt stocks.
Supply chain disruptions lead to shortages
Consumer goods companies often maintain lean inventory levels that are highly dependent upon smooth logistics. As global shipping times increase, that model doesn't work nearly as well, leading to empty shelves at stores.
Beyond the impact shortages have on real people, out-of-stock items mean lost revenue and lower quarterly earnings for businesses. Shareholders will want to buckle up for a bumpy ride the longer the closure continues.
Consumers stay home
As gas prices rise, consumers are forced to adjust their budgets, leading to a decrease in discretionary spending. As discretionary purchases decline, consumer goods companies selling non-essentials historically suffer the most.
A long closure of Hormuz, and businesses selling snacks, home goods, and apparel could certainly be hit hard.
Inflation returns with a vengeance
Increasing fuel costs drive up prices across the supply chain. This, in turn, results in an inflationary ripple effect across the broader economy. If inflation spikes, it wouldn't be surprising to see the Federal Reserve increase rates again. If borrowing costs rise, this is bad news for consumer goods companies, consumers, and stock valuations altogether.
Institutional investors rotate away
As retail investors play wait-and-see with geopolitical happenings, institutional investors are more likely to take decisive action. Large investors may rotate into other sectors and industries and away from consumer goods if the Strait of Hormuz is closed for any extended period of time. The selling of consumer goods stocks by institutional investors would send these stocks down sharply.
What should investors expect?
The longer the Strait is closed, the more consumer goods stocks could be negatively impacted. Consumer staples will likely hold up better than consumer discretionary in a prolonged closing, but it's hard to imagine either type would go unscathed.
Global shipping routes are critically important to the stability of our economy and markets. When the safe passage of those ships is disrupted for any amount of time, there are direct and indirect impacts on our money and the goods and services we purchase.
Investors should regularly review their asset allocation and ensure their portfolio aligns with their long-term goals before making any moves.
Should you buy stock in Campbell's right now?
Before you buy stock in Campbell's, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Campbell's wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $490,325!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,074,070!*
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 900% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 184% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
*Stock Advisor returns as of March 25, 2026.
Catie Hogan has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends Campbell's and Unilever. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.