P&G is bucking a flat day for the rest of the S&P 500 to start the week, up more than 1.5% in Monday's session.
Outperformance hasn't been a rare commodity at P&G in 2019. Instead, this stock has generated untypical returns year-to-date, charging almost 37% higher on a total-return basis. That's about 10 percentage points better than the S&P 500 itself over the same time frame.
And investors could see more where that came from.
As we head closer to year's end, Procter & Gamble still looks like a buy-the-dips stock. To figure out how to trade it from here, we're turning to the charts for a technical look.
At a glance, it's hard to miss the main message that P&G's price action has been spelling out this year. The shares have spent all of 2019 in one of the most clearly defined up trends among large-cap equities.
Since bottoming back in late December alongside the rest of the broad market, P&G has been a buy-the-dips stock. Every test of trend-line support along the way has provided a buying opportunity with an attractive risk/reward trade off.
Now, the Cincinnati company's stock is riding its trend-line support level in November, showing investors another low-risk-high-reward trade this fall. The setup is appealing here because you can play the up trend with minimal risk; this trend has favored upside all year long, but if it fails here (as all trends eventually do), then there's minimal downside to find out.
Put simply, if P&G violates prior lows around $118, then we've got the first indication that the trend is over and you don't want to own the shares anymore.
Meanwhile, the rally looks alive and well. Relative strength, the side-indicator down at the bottom of Procter's chart, is in an up trend of its own right now. This indicates that this big stock continues to systematically outperform the rest of the broad market, even now.
Today's bounce off support looks like as good an opportunity to be a buyer as any we've seen so far this year. Just be sure to keep a tight stop in place if you decide to take the trade.
This article is commentary by an independent contributor. At the time of publication, the author held no positions in the stocks mentioned.