After falling 17% in a month, Tesco shares yield 4.3% with a P/E of just over 11!
Tesco (LSE: TSCO) shares have taken quite a tumble, falling 17% in the last month alone. That's big for a company many think of as one of the safer picks on the FTSE 100, but we all know the reason.
In this volatile new world sparked by Donald Trump's latest round of tariffs, even reliable, cash-generating businesses like Tesco are feeling the squeeze. Over the past year, the shares are now up just 6%, and that gain is fast evaporating.
For bargain hunters, this could be the opportunity they've been waiting for. Tesco's price-to-earnings ratio has dropped to just 11.3. Just a few weeks ago it was trading closer to 15 or 16 times earnings.
Meanwhile, the dividend yield has crept back up to 4.28%. Tempting as that may sound, nothing's without risk in these mad times.
We got an early signal from Kantar on 1 April when it reported that annual sales growth at UK supermarkets had slowed to their weakest pace in 10 months.
There were promotions aplenty as retailers fought for shoppers' wallets. Despite that, Tesco managed to increase its market share to 27.9% with sales of £9.68bn over the period. By contrast, Asda saw its sales fall 5.6%, so the competitive pressures are real and biting hard.
Tesco's own update on 10 April was a mixed bag. While 2024 profits rose 10.6% to £3.13bn the board warned things might not be so rosy amid rising 'competitive intensity' and the added cost of employer's National Insurance hikes, Minimum Wage increases, packaging taxes, and more.
Commentators were split. Garry White at Charles Stanley was concerned by warnings that management expects profit will fall in the current year. 'Tesco's guidance could prove to be conservative, but it will be a while before we know', he said.
Aarin Chiekrie at Hargreaves Lansdown highlighted Tesco's strong position and loyal customer base, suggesting that despite a 'slight pullback in its share price of late, the underlying story looks good as revenue and profits motor higher'.
Even if the price war intensifies, customers should stay loyal 'helped by the Aldi price match and Clubcard prices keeping customers loyal', Chiekrie added.
The 13 brokers offering one-year share price targets have a median estimate of just under 395p. If that plays out, it would mark a healthy gain of more than 22% from current levels.
Of the 16 analysts offering ratings, 10 say Strong Buy, three say Buy, and three Hold. Nobody's calling it a Sell.
Broker predictions can never be relied upon, of course, and most will have been made before Trump lit the tariff fuse. The next year or two could be volatile for just about every stock, and Tesco won't be exempt. If a recession takes hold, shoppers will feel the pinch and so will Tesco.
Still, with a lower valuation, decent dividend and market leadership, Tesco shares are worth considering today. As ever, investors should aim to hold for a minimal of five years, while hoping the outlook is a little brighter by then.
The post After falling 17% in a month, Tesco shares yield 4.3% with a P/E of just over 11! appeared first on The Motley Fool UK.
More reading
5 Stocks For Trying To Build Wealth After 50
One Top Growth Stock from the Motley Fool
Harvey Jones has no position in any of the shares mentioned. The Motley Fool UK has recommended Tesco Plc. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors.
Motley Fool UK 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
26 minutes ago
- Fox News
NEWT GINGRICH: Pay less, know more — Trump is slashing red tape and lowering your healthcare costs
One of the boldest and most consistent themes in President Donald J. Trump's healthcare agenda is his determination to reduce the role and power of middlemen. From insurance companies to pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) – and even hospitals –these intermediaries profit from the inefficiencies of our bloated health system. The result is higher costs for American families. As I explain in my new book, "Trump's Triumph: America's Greatest Comeback," the U.S. healthcare system isn't expensive just because care is costly. It's expensive because the system is complex – by design. The third-party payment structure, whether public or private, adds layers of bureaucracy. This opens the door for middlemen to offer supposed solutions that serve their own bottom lines – not patients. It's a vicious cycle: more rules lead to more middlemen, which lead to even more rules, red tape, and rising costs. President Trump understood this – and he took action. In his first term, he issued a groundbreaking executive order on price transparency. For the first time, hospitals were required to disclose the real cost of procedures, enabling patients to compare prices before receiving care. While the Biden administration weakened enforcement, Trump doubled down in his second term with an even stronger push for what he called "radical transparency." Radical transparency is the antidote to healthcare's worst inefficiencies. When patients and employers can see wide price differences for the same procedures – even within the same hospital system – the games played behind the scenes get exposed. These inflated prices often have little to do with quality and everything to do with how well insurers negotiate – or how many middlemen take a cut. The same is true for prescription drugs. PBMs – giant corporations that control which drugs are covered and at what cost – use their market power to inflate prices. Three PBMs control 80 percent of the market. They're often subsidiaries of major insurers, forming vertically integrated monopolies. New data from the Pacific Research Institute shows that most PBMs skim more money off high-cost prescriptions than European countries charge. It's no wonder Americans are paying more. Hospitals play a role as well. Many exploit a well-intentioned federal program known as 340B, which allows them to purchase drugs at steep discounts. Instead of passing the savings to patients, they bill insurers full price and pocket the difference. The program was meant to expand care for low-income patients, but there's little oversight to ensure this happens. President Trump's recent executive order on drug pricing targets this broken system. By creating a pathway for manufacturers to sell directly to patients, health plans, pharmacies, and clinics – without the markup – he's offering a way to bypass the middlemen. This isn't theory – it's already working. When insulin makers launched direct-to-consumer programs, they sold the same drug at one-fourth the price patients were paying through insurance – while still making a profit. That's the power of real market competition – without a single government price control. This stands in sharp contrast to the Left's top-down vision. Whether it's price controls, centralized purchasing, or government-run insurance, the left's answer is always more bureaucracy. But more bureaucracy means more complexity – and more room for middlemen to thrive. Perhaps the most visionary part of President Trump's health care agenda is his call to Make America Healthy Again. For decades, we've operated a "sick care" system focused on treating illness after it strikes. Trump's approach is different. It emphasizes prevention, lifestyle, and personal responsibility – turning Americans from passive recipients into active participants in their own health. In this model, the government's role isn't to run the system but to create an environment in which patients and doctors can lead – with access to better tools, more transparency, and useful information. That means clearer labeling for ultra-processed foods, ensuring gold standard scientific data free of conflicts of interest, and addressing environmental factors that contribute to chronic disease. These kinds of structural reforms empower people to make informed choices and live healthier lives – without mandates or micromanagement. It's a model that eliminates the ultimate middleman: the system itself. President Trump's leadership has laid the groundwork for a transparent, patient-centered, free-market healthcare system. But the job isn't done. Congress should join him in continuing this fight – not just to lower costs, but to restore power to the American people. America deserves a healthcare system that benefits Americans – not industry middlemen.
Fast Company
35 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Trump's big bill will add $2.4 trillion to deficit and leave 10.9 million more uninsured, CBO warns
President Donald Trump's big bill making its way through Congress will cut taxes by $3.75 trillion but also increase deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next decade, according to an analysis released Wednesday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The CBO also estimates an increase of 10.9 million people without health insurance under the bill by 2034, including 1.4 million who are in the United States without legal status in state-funded programs. The package would reduce federal outlays, or spending, by nearly $1.3 trillion over that period, the budget office said. 'In the words of Elon Musk, this bill is a 'disgusting abomination,'' said Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, reviving the billionaire former Trump aide's criticism of the package. House Speaker Mike Johnson said he called Musk late Tuesday to discuss the criticism but had not heard back. 'I hope he comes around,' Johnson told reporters. Trump pushing Congress to act The analysis comes at a crucial moment in the legislative process as Trump is pushing Congress to have the final product on his desk to sign into law by the Fourth of July. The work of the CBO, which for decades has served as the official scorekeeper of legislation in Congress, will be weighed by lawmakers and others seeking to understand the budgetary impacts of the sprawling 1,000-page-plus package. Ahead of the CBO's release, the White House and Republican leaders criticized the budget office in a preemptive campaign designed to sow doubt in its findings. Republicans criticize the CBO White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the CBO has been 'historically wrong,' and Senate Majority Leader John Thune said the CBO was 'flat wrong' because it underestimated the potential revenue growth from Trump's first round of tax breaks in 2017. The CBO last year said receipts were $1.5 trillion, or 5.6% greater than predicted, in large part because of the 'burst of high inflation' during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021. White House Budget Director Russ Vought said when you adjust for 'current policy' — which means not counting some $4.5 trillion in existing tax breaks that are simply being extended for the next decade — the overall package actually doesn't pile onto the deficit. He argued the spending cuts alone in fact help reduce deficits by $1.4 trillion over the decade. Democrats and even some Republicans call that 'current policy' accounting move a gimmick, but it's the approach Senate Republicans intend to use during their consideration of the package to try to show it does not add to the nation's deficits. Vought argued that the CBO is the one using a 'gimmick' by tallying the costs of continuing those tax breaks that would otherwise expire. Leavitt also suggested that the CBO's employees are biased, even though certain budget office workers face strict ethical rules — including restrictions on campaign donations and political activity — to ensure objectivity and impartiality. 'When it comes time to make prognostications on economic growth, they've always been wrong,' House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said at a press conference. Asked if it's time to get rid of the CBO, Scalise did not dismiss the idea, saying it's valid to raise concerns. Alongside the costs of the bill, the CBO had previously estimated that nearly 4 million fewer people would have food stamps each month due to the legislation's proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP. What's in the bill The bill, called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act after the president's own catch phrase, is grinding its way through Congress, as the top priority of Republicans, who control both the House and the Senate — and face stiff opposition from Democrats, who call it Trump's 'big, ugly bill.' All told, the package seeks to extend the individual income tax breaks that had been approved in 2017 but that will expire in December if Congress fails to act, while adding new ones, including no taxes on tips. It also includes a massive buildup of $350 billion for border security, deportations and national security. To help cover the lost revenue, Republicans want to slash some federal spending. They propose phasing out green energy tax breaks put in place during Democrat Joe Biden's presidency. New work requirements for some adults up to age 65 on Medicaid and SNAP would begin in December 2026 and are expected to result in less spending on those programs. Republicans argue their proposals are intended to make Medicaid and other programs stronger by rooting out waste, fraud and abuse. They want the federal funding to go those who most need health care and other services, often citing women and children. But Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said those claims are bogus and are simply part of long-running GOP efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, as most states have expanded Medicaid to serve more people under the program. 'They just want to strangle health care,' Schumer said. The package also would provide a $4 trillion increase to the nation's debt limit, which is now $36 trillion, to allow more borrowing. The Treasury Department projects the debt limit will need to be raised this summer to pay the nation's already accrued bills. CBO aims for impartiality Now in its 50th year, the CBO was established by law after Congress sought to assert its control, as outlined in the Constitution, over the budget process, in part by setting up the new office as an alternative to the White House's Office of Management and Budget. Staffed by some 275 economists, analysts and other employees, the CBO says it seeks to provide Congress with objective, impartial information about budgetary and economic issues. Its current director, Phillip Swagel, a former Treasury official in Republican President George W. Bush's administration, was reappointed to a four-year term in 2023.
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
4 Major Questions Are Lingering About Tariff-Related Inflation
Tariffs' effects haven't shown up in official inflation measures yet, but retailers have said they are raising their prices in response to the increased import taxes. There are lingering questions about how those price increases will work their way through the economy. How much of the tariffs companies will cover, which items will see price increases, the extent to which price increases persist, and whether workers think they need a pay raise will be crucial in determining the path of tough to forecast the economy these days, but one thing is sure: prices on some goods are going up. Tariffs haven't yet pushed up official measures of inflation, but economists say that's certain to change soon as Walmart, Macy's, and smaller businesses raise prices on imported goods. Even so, airfares, hotels, and gasoline prices are dropping, and there are signs that rents are peaking after years of hikes. Wall Street analysts and D.C. policymakers are debating how noticeable the tariff-related sticker shock will be and what items will be most affected. With tariff headlines changing by the day, the inflation outlook is 'unusually uncertain,' Barclays economist Marc Giannoni wrote in a recent note to clients. The answer to how high inflation is headed may vary on any given day. But below are four questions that are driving the debate. President Donald Trump has said companies should 'eat' the tariffs, taking a hit on their profits rather than passing costs onto customers and driving up inflation. But if a megaretailer like Walmart felt forced to raise prices, smaller ones with thinner margins and less negotiating leverage may feel more pressure, said Richard Moody, chief economist at the Alabama-based bank Regions Financial. It may take time for that to happen, since retailers are still selling their existing inventories—and some bulked up ahead of tariff uncertainty. But economists expect consumers to feel a bigger hit nonetheless. 'The jury is still out if retailers and wholesalers will pick up much of the tab, but we remain comfortable for now with our working assumption that something like 80% to 90% of the tariff costs ultimately will be passed on to consumers,' Samuel Tombs, chief U.S. economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, wrote in a note to clients. While some imported goods may get pricier, consumers tend to spend more on services such as restaurants or travel. Services make up roughly two-thirds of consumer spending, noted Regions' Moody, who foresees more deceleration in service prices ahead. 'That's going to mitigate some of the impact from rising goods price inflation,' Moody said, though he noted that may be of little comfort to lower-income households that spend less on travel. Another possible mitigator is housing costs. Those make up a large chunk of inflation gauges, and while housing remains expensive following a post-COVID boom, rents have started to fall in some markets. Overall, service prices should 'remain relatively subdued,' Oliver Allen, an economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, wrote in a note to clients. But he doubted they'll prevent an overall increase in inflation. Inflation may lead to a one-time hit to Americans' pocketbooks, but the effects are more painful if higher prices feed off each other and become persistent. Goldman Sachs Economist David Mericle wrote he's skeptical about the latter scenario, expecting a one-time jump that pushes inflation gauges above 3.5% before coming back down. While the post-COVID bout of prolonged inflation is fresh in consumers' minds, this year's inflation rebound will be 'less threatening than the 2021-2022 episode,' he wrote. At the time, supply chain snarls led to a spike in prices, all while consumers had elevated spending power from stimulus assistance, he noted. But the economy looks different today, with GDP expected to grow at a measly pace of 1% this year and the unemployment rate potentially drifting higher. Economists say wages are critical to determining whether inflation will be one-time or prove stickier. When consumers expect inflation to rise, they tend to seek higher pay from their employers. Those companies then may pass on some of their higher labor costs to consumers, raising prices on the goods and services they buy. If that dynamic stays in check, inflation can rise without causing massive problems. However, one fear is a wage-price spiral, which the U.S. experienced in the 1970s. This spiral only ended after the Fed hiked rates aggressively and brought about a recession. 'A pickup in wage growth would be a crucial intermediate step for high inflation to become persistent, but so far as the trade war has gotten underway, anxiety about the outlook appears to be outweighing any boost from higher inflation expectations,' Goldman Sachs' Mericle wrote. Read the original article on Investopedia
