Carlisle Companies Incorporated (CSL): A Bull Case Theory
We came across a bullish thesis on Carlisle Companies Incorporated (CSL) on Substack by Max Dividends. In this article, we will summarize the bulls' thesis on CSL. Carlisle Companies Incorporated (CSL)'s share was trading at $379.48 as of April 30th. CSL's trailing and forward P/E were 21.41 and 16.98 respectively according to Yahoo Finance.
Lennar Corporation (LEN): Jim Cramer Spots Opportunity – Will Falling Rates Boost Lennar?
A construction crew installing roof tiles on a newly built row home.
Carlisle Companies (CSL) plays a critical role in the real estate and construction industries, producing essential materials for commercial buildings, with a focus on waterproofing and construction solutions. The company has seen steady growth driven by the increasing demand for commercial construction across the U.S., and with the average commercial property in America now over 53 years old, the need for modernization and efficiency upgrades is expected to drive further growth. Established in 1917 as Carlisle Tire and Rubber Company, the company has weathered economic challenges, including the Great Depression, and has grown through strategic acquisitions and diversification. Over the decades, Carlisle has expanded into various industries such as brake systems, fluid technologies, and, more recently, construction materials, establishing itself as a global player.
Carlisle's current focus on sustainable growth and operational efficiency, underpinned by initiatives like the Carlisle Operating System and Vision 2030, positions it well for future success. Despite recent concerns about a potential economic slowdown that could temporarily impact the commercial construction market, Carlisle's long-term growth prospects remain strong. The company has demonstrated resilience through multiple economic cycles, which is reflected in its 48 consecutive years of dividend increases, a testament to its stability and commitment to shareholder returns.
Financially, analysts predict Carlisle's earnings will grow at an average rate of 15% annually over the next three to five years, with management targeting a doubling of earnings per share from $20 in 2024 to over $40 by 2030. Given its strong market position and attractive growth outlook, Carlisle's stock, trading at just 15 times estimated 2025 earnings, offers a compelling opportunity for long-term investors. Despite some near-term economic challenges, Carlisle remains a proven dividend performer with solid fundamentals and significant upside potential.
Carlisle Companies Incorporated (CSL) is not on our list of the 30 Most Popular Stocks Among Hedge Funds. As per our database, 42 hedge fund portfolios held CSL at the end of the fourth quarter which was 40 in the previous quarter. While we acknowledge the risk and potential of CSL as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns, and doing so within a shorter timeframe. If you are looking for an AI stock that is more promising than CSL but that trades at less than 5 times its earnings, check out our report about the cheapest AI stock.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Effort to strip Fed of interest paying power seen likely to bring upheaval to markets
By Michael S. Derby NEW YORK (Reuters) -A Republican senator's plan to take away the Federal Reserve's power to pay banks interest on cash they park on central bank books could cause chaos for monetary policy implementation if it were implemented, market participants said. In recent days, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas has been speaking about this power and his desire to see it ended as part of what he views as an effort to save money by the federal government. Stripping the Fed of the longstanding power would save the government $1 trillion, Cruz said in a CNBC interview last week. The senator said then that he did not know if it was likely his effort would work but that it was certainly possible. On Wednesday, Bloomberg reported that Cruz had also lobbied President Donald Trump, who has long been at odds with the Fed, as well as Republican colleagues, about his idea. 'We're agonizing trying to find a $50 billion cut here and there. This is over a trillion dollars, big dollars in savings,' Cruz told Bloomberg, saying of the payments, 'half of it is going to foreign banks, which makes no sense.' Cruz's office did not respond to a request for comment. The Fed declined to comment. Cruz's effort is being treated cautiously by Senator Tim Scott, the Republican from South Carolina who chairs the Senate Finance Committee. "While the desire to return to pre-crisis monetary policy operating procedures is understandable," the matter must be considered under normal Senate procedures, Scott said in a statement. Any move on this must start with a hearing, Scott said, adding, "this is not a decision to be rushed – it must be carefully considered and openly debated." The Fed's power to pay banks interest, granted by Congress, took effect in 2008 as the financial crisis dawned. It quickly gained prominence as part of a large-scale overhaul of the monetary policy architecture, as the Fed confronted the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression. As it now stands, the Fed pays deposit-taking banks 4.4% for reserves. It uses another tool called the reverse repo facility to take in cash from money market funds and others, paying them 4.25%. Together, the two rates are designed to keep the federal funds rate, the central bank's main tool for influencing the economy, within the desired range. Paying financial firms for de facto loans of cash is essential for interest rate control due to the very large amount of liquidity created by bond buying stimulus efforts. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Fed more than doubled the size of its balance sheet to a peak of $9 trillion, with asset purchases providing support to the economy beyond what the then near-zero short-term rates could deliver. If the Fed did not have the power to pay interest on deposits, the still substantial amount of liquidity sloshing around in markets would prevent it from controlling short-term rates. That said, concerns have long existed, even among some former central bankers, that paying banks money to deposit cash at the Fed is effectively a subsidy to banks. The other issue with paying interest on reserves is that it has led the Fed into an unprecedented period of loss-making. The Fed has been operating in the red because the interest rate it now has in place outstrips the income it earns off bonds it owns. Most analysts expect the loss-making to occur for some time to come. Fed losses mean that it is not handing over profits back to the Treasury, as it is required to do when it is in the green. Sums handed back to the Treasury over recent years contributed modestly to lowering deficits. Experts believe Cruz's plan would completely fail to achieve its goals and would instead cause huge upheaval in money markets. Barclays Capital economists said on Tuesday that ending the power would simply push the cash into the reverse repo facility, which means the central bank would still be paying lots of interest to financial firms, thus negating any deficit savings. J.P. Morgan strategists said in a note last week that under Cruz's plan, 'the Fed's ability to control money market rates may be compromised, complicating its efforts to guide broader financial conditions via the fed funds rate and other money market rates.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Effort to strip Fed of interest paying power seen likely to bring upheaval to markets
By Michael S. Derby NEW YORK (Reuters) -A Republican senator's plan to take away the Federal Reserve's power to pay banks interest on cash they park on central bank books could cause chaos for monetary policy implementation if it were implemented, market participants said. In recent days, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas has been speaking about this power and his desire to see it ended as part of what he views as an effort to save money by the federal government. Stripping the Fed of the longstanding power would save the government $1 trillion, Cruz said in a CNBC interview last week. The senator said then that he did not know if it was likely his effort would work but that it was certainly possible. On Wednesday, Bloomberg reported that Cruz had also lobbied President Donald Trump, who has long been at odds with the Fed, as well as Republican colleagues, about his idea. 'We're agonizing trying to find a $50 billion cut here and there. This is over a trillion dollars, big dollars in savings,' Cruz told Bloomberg, saying of the payments, 'half of it is going to foreign banks, which makes no sense.' Cruz's office did not respond to a request for comment. The Fed declined to comment. Cruz's effort is being treated cautiously by Senator Tim Scott, the Republican from South Carolina who chairs the Senate Finance Committee. "While the desire to return to pre-crisis monetary policy operating procedures is understandable," the matter must be considered under normal Senate procedures, Scott said in a statement. Any move on this must start with a hearing, Scott said, adding, "this is not a decision to be rushed – it must be carefully considered and openly debated." The Fed's power to pay banks interest, granted by Congress, took effect in 2008 as the financial crisis dawned. It quickly gained prominence as part of a large-scale overhaul of the monetary policy architecture, as the Fed confronted the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression. As it now stands, the Fed pays deposit-taking banks 4.4% for reserves. It uses another tool called the reverse repo facility to take in cash from money market funds and others, paying them 4.25%. Together, the two rates are designed to keep the federal funds rate, the central bank's main tool for influencing the economy, within the desired range. Paying financial firms for de facto loans of cash is essential for interest rate control due to the very large amount of liquidity created by bond buying stimulus efforts. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Fed more than doubled the size of its balance sheet to a peak of $9 trillion, with asset purchases providing support to the economy beyond what the then near-zero short-term rates could deliver. If the Fed did not have the power to pay interest on deposits, the still substantial amount of liquidity sloshing around in markets would prevent it from controlling short-term rates. That said, concerns have long existed, even among some former central bankers, that paying banks money to deposit cash at the Fed is effectively a subsidy to banks. The other issue with paying interest on reserves is that it has led the Fed into an unprecedented period of loss-making. The Fed has been operating in the red because the interest rate it now has in place outstrips the income it earns off bonds it owns. Most analysts expect the loss-making to occur for some time to come. Fed losses mean that it is not handing over profits back to the Treasury, as it is required to do when it is in the green. Sums handed back to the Treasury over recent years contributed modestly to lowering deficits. Experts believe Cruz's plan would completely fail to achieve its goals and would instead cause huge upheaval in money markets. Barclays Capital economists said on Tuesday that ending the power would simply push the cash into the reverse repo facility, which means the central bank would still be paying lots of interest to financial firms, thus negating any deficit savings. J.P. Morgan strategists said in a note last week that under Cruz's plan, 'the Fed's ability to control money market rates may be compromised, complicating its efforts to guide broader financial conditions via the fed funds rate and other money market rates.'
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Effort to strip Fed of interest paying power seen likely to bring upheaval to markets
By Michael S. Derby NEW YORK (Reuters) -A Republican senator's plan to take away the Federal Reserve's power to pay banks interest on cash they park on central bank books could cause chaos for monetary policy implementation if it were implemented, market participants said. In recent days, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas has been speaking about this power and his desire to see it ended as part of what he views as an effort to save money by the federal government. Stripping the Fed of the longstanding power would save the government $1 trillion, Cruz said in a CNBC interview last week. The senator said then that he did not know if it was likely his effort would work but that it was certainly possible. On Wednesday, Bloomberg reported that Cruz had also lobbied President Donald Trump, who has long been at odds with the Fed, as well as Republican colleagues, about his idea. 'We're agonizing trying to find a $50 billion cut here and there. This is over a trillion dollars, big dollars in savings,' Cruz told Bloomberg, saying of the payments, 'half of it is going to foreign banks, which makes no sense.' Cruz's office did not respond to a request for comment. The Fed declined to comment. Cruz's effort is being treated cautiously by Senator Tim Scott, the Republican from South Carolina who chairs the Senate Finance Committee. "While the desire to return to pre-crisis monetary policy operating procedures is understandable," the matter must be considered under normal Senate procedures, Scott said in a statement. Any move on this must start with a hearing, Scott said, adding, "this is not a decision to be rushed – it must be carefully considered and openly debated." The Fed's power to pay banks interest, granted by Congress, took effect in 2008 as the financial crisis dawned. It quickly gained prominence as part of a large-scale overhaul of the monetary policy architecture, as the Fed confronted the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression. As it now stands, the Fed pays deposit-taking banks 4.4% for reserves. It uses another tool called the reverse repo facility to take in cash from money market funds and others, paying them 4.25%. Together, the two rates are designed to keep the federal funds rate, the central bank's main tool for influencing the economy, within the desired range. Paying financial firms for de facto loans of cash is essential for interest rate control due to the very large amount of liquidity created by bond buying stimulus efforts. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Fed more than doubled the size of its balance sheet to a peak of $9 trillion, with asset purchases providing support to the economy beyond what the then near-zero short-term rates could deliver. If the Fed did not have the power to pay interest on deposits, the still substantial amount of liquidity sloshing around in markets would prevent it from controlling short-term rates. That said, concerns have long existed, even among some former central bankers, that paying banks money to deposit cash at the Fed is effectively a subsidy to banks. The other issue with paying interest on reserves is that it has led the Fed into an unprecedented period of loss-making. The Fed has been operating in the red because the interest rate it now has in place outstrips the income it earns off bonds it owns. Most analysts expect the loss-making to occur for some time to come. Fed losses mean that it is not handing over profits back to the Treasury, as it is required to do when it is in the green. Sums handed back to the Treasury over recent years contributed modestly to lowering deficits. Experts believe Cruz's plan would completely fail to achieve its goals and would instead cause huge upheaval in money markets. Barclays Capital economists said on Tuesday that ending the power would simply push the cash into the reverse repo facility, which means the central bank would still be paying lots of interest to financial firms, thus negating any deficit savings. J.P. Morgan strategists said in a note last week that under Cruz's plan, 'the Fed's ability to control money market rates may be compromised, complicating its efforts to guide broader financial conditions via the fed funds rate and other money market rates.'
