Procter & Gamble (PG) Stock Hits Two‑Year Low as CFO Sounds Alarm on U.S. Consumer

Procter & Gamble, one of the world’s most defensive blue‑chip stocks, is suddenly trading like a cyclical name. As of December 9, 2025, shares of The Procter & Gamble Company (NYSE: PG) have slid to around $138 in intraday trading, roughly 23% below their 52‑week high near $180 and hovering just above a fresh 52‑week low. ^[1]

That slump comes despite solid earnings, an upgraded long‑term cash‑return plan, and a dividend track record that would make most CFOs weep with envy. The pressure is coming from somewhere else: a visibly nervous U.S. consumer, tariff headwinds, and growing questions about how much investors should pay for “slow but steady” growth.

This article walks through the latest news, forecasts, and analyses on PG stock as of December 9, 2025, and unpacks what’s driving sentiment into early 2026.

PG Stock Today: Defensive Giant at a Rare Discount

Real‑time market data shows PG recently trading around $138 per share, down sharply from its 2025 highs and close to its new 52‑week low near $139 set on December 8 after an analyst downgrade. ^[2]

Key snapshot:

Price: ≈$138 (Dec 9, 2025)
52‑week range: roughly $139–$180 ^[3]
Dividend: $4.23 per share annually, implying a yield of about 3.0% at current prices ^[4]
Valuation: trailing P/E ~20; forward P/E ~19–21, modestly above the consumer‑staples peer group ^[5]

According to StockAnalysis, PG generated about $84.3 billion in revenue and $15.7 billion in earnings over the last year, with earnings up about 7.5% despite nearly flat sales. ^[6] That’s classic P&G: slow top‑line growth, improving margins, and a lot of cash.

Yet despite that stability, the stock is underperforming broader indices in 2025 and has now broken to levels last seen roughly two years ago, signaling a meaningful re‑rating by investors. ^[7]

What Triggered the Latest Sell‑Off? CFO’s Warning on a “More Volatile” U.S. Backdrop

The immediate catalyst for the recent leg down was CFO Andre Schulten’s commentary at the Morgan Stanley Global Consumer & Retail Conference in early December.

Schulten described the U.S. backdrop as “more volatile…probably the most volatile we’ve seen in a long time”, noting that: ^[8]

P&G saw a “nervous and cautious” consumer in recent months.
Its categories in the U.S. were down “significantly” in both volume and value in October, with November expected to look similar.
Comparisons were tough because last year’s port strikes led to consumer stockpiling, pulling demand forward.
Additional pressure came from the U.S. government shutdown and delayed SNAP (food‑assistance) benefits, which hit lower‑income households hardest.

Investopedia and The Fly both reported that these comments helped push PG to its lowest level in about two years, with shares briefly down around 3% intraday on the day of the conference. ^[9]

In other words: P&G just told the market that everyday American spending on detergent, diapers, and toothpaste is wobbling more than usual. For a stock prized as a barometer of consumer resilience, that understandably rattled investors.

Earnings Check: Solid Q4 FY2025 and Q1 FY2026, But Growth Is Sluggish

Under the surface, the fundamentals actually look fairly strong, just not fast‑growing.

Q4 FY2025: Beat and a Leadership Change

For the April–June 2025 quarter, P&G:

Posted core EPS of $1.48, beating estimates around $1.43.
Delivered 2% year‑over‑year revenue growth to $20.9 billion.
Saw low‑single‑digit sales growth in four of its five major segments (Grooming; Fabric & Home Care; Baby, Feminine & Family Care; Health Care), with Beauty flat. ^[10]

At the same time, P&G announced a leadership transition:

COO Shailesh Jejurikar will become CEO at the start of calendar 2026, while current CEO Jon Moeller will move to the role of executive chairman. ^[11]

That continuity‑plus‑change setup is generally viewed as low risk: Jejurikar is a long‑time insider, but the board is clearly nudging the company into a new phase focused on productivity, portfolio discipline, and supply‑chain redesign.

Restructuring and 7,000 Job Cuts

Earlier in June 2025, P&G laid out a two‑year restructuring program: ^[12]

Up to 7,000 non‑manufacturing roles (about 15% of that workforce) will be eliminated.
The program aims to simplify the portfolio, redesign the supply chain, and potentially exit certain brand categories.
Management estimated restructuring costs of $1.0–$1.6 billion.
Tariffs could weigh on earnings by 3–4 cents per share in the near term and up to $600 million pre‑tax if fully in effect across fiscal 2026.

That restructuring is now being layered on top of the softer U.S. demand picture that emerged later in the year.

Q1 FY2026: Low‑Single‑Digit Growth and Tariff Headwinds

In its latest reported quarter (fiscal Q1 2026, the July–September 2025 period), P&G’s numbers were steady rather than spectacular: ^[13]

Net sales: $22.4 billion, up 3% year over year.
Organic sales: up 2%, driven by a 1% boost from pricing and 1% from mix; overall volume was flat.
Core EPS:$1.99, up 3% and slightly above consensus.
Net margin: still close to 20%, with strong returns on equity north of 30%. ^[14]

However, margins are now facing some specific cost pressures:

P&G expects about $100 million after‑tax in commodity cost headwinds and around $400 million after‑tax from tariffs during fiscal 2026.
Including higher interest expense and a higher tax rate, management estimates these factors will amount to roughly $0.19 per share of EPS headwind this year, partially offset by a tailwind from favorable foreign exchange. ^[15]

So the core story is: modest sales growth, slightly rising earnings, but more macro and cost friction than usual.

2026 Guidance and Longer‑Term Forecasts

Despite the noise, P&G has reaffirmed its full‑year guidance for fiscal 2026: ^[16]

All‑in sales growth:+1% to +5% versus FY2025.
Organic sales growth:flat to +4%.
Diluted EPS growth:+3% to +9% vs. FY2025’s $6.51.
Core EPS: expected to be flat to up 4%, implying a range of $6.83 to $7.09 (mid‑point ~$6.96).

This is very much a “steady as she goes” outlook — no boom, but no bust either.

Third‑party forecasting platforms lean in the same direction:

Benzinga’s deep‑dive on PG’s outlook notes that CoinCodex projects little net price movement through 2025, a modest dip in 2026, and only modest upside by 2030, reflecting low sales growth and valuation pressure from cheaper store‑brand competitors. ^[17]
Simply Wall St’s DCF‑based model, cited in a Webull article, pegs fair value around $169 per share, roughly 14% above recent prices, assuming revenue climbs to $92.8 billion and earnings to $17.8 billion by 2028 (about 3.3% annual revenue growth). ^[18]

Those models basically say: P&G doesn’t need explosive growth to work as an investment, but its valuation can’t stay too rich if sales crawl forward at low single digits.

Dividend, Buybacks and Cash Flow: The Heart of the Bull Case

Where PG still absolutely shines is cash generation and shareholder returns.

P&G has increased its dividend for 69 consecutive years and has paid a dividend for 135 straight years, placing it firmly in the ultra‑elite “Dividend King” club. ^[19]
The current annual payout of $4.23 per share implies a yield of roughly 3.0% at recent prices, higher than the S&P 500’s average and above P&G’s own recent history. ^[20]
In fiscal 2025, P&G generated $17.8 billion of operating cash flow and returned more than $16 billion to shareholders via $9.9 billion in dividends and $6.5 billion in buybacks. ^[21]
For fiscal 2026, management expects to pay about $10 billion in dividends and repurchase roughly $5 billion of stock, for a total planned cash return of around $15 billion. ^[22]

From an income‑investor perspective, the message is clear: despite the macro wobble, P&G is leaning into its role as a cash‑return machine.

Analyst Ratings and Price Targets: Buy the Dip or Just a Hold?

Wall Street is split between cautious respect and mild enthusiasm.

Street Targets Cluster in the High‑160s to Mid‑170s

Several aggregators give a good snapshot of current sentiment:

StockAnalysis: 14 analysts, average rating “Buy” and a 12‑month price target of $174.43, implying ~26% upside from recent levels. ^[23]
MarketBeat: average price target around $171–172, with a “Moderate Buy” consensus and roughly two‑thirds of analysts rating PG as Buy vs Hold. ^[24]
Benzinga’s forecast piece: notes a broader analyst set with an average target near $176–177, high around $209, low around $153, and a consensus rating of Hold from about 26 analysts, reflecting respect for the franchise but concern about valuation and growth. ^[25]

On December 8, Deutsche Bank cut its price target from $176 to $171 while maintaining a “buy” rating, arguing that the recent sell‑off has made the risk‑reward more attractive despite macro volatility. ^[26]

Valuation vs Growth: Zacks and Others Stay Cautious

Zacks currently assigns PG a Rank #3 (Hold): ^[27]

The forward P/E of about 20.7 is above the industry average near 19.4.
PG’s PEG ratio (P/E divided by growth) sits around 4.4, versus about 2.9 for the broader consumer‑staples peer group, implying investors are paying a higher multiple for relatively modest growth.
Zacks projects FY EPS of $7.01 and revenue of about $87 billion, translating to low‑single‑digit growth in both.

Benzinga’s long‑form analysis similarly frames PG as fundamentally strong but perhaps slightly overvalued compared to peers, given slow sales growth and intense price competition from private‑label brands. ^[28]

On the qualitative side, the commentary universe is polarized:

Several Seeking Alpha and Motley Fool articles in late November and early December argue that PG is a defensive bargain after four years of sideways trading, especially for long‑term dividend investors. ^[29]
At least one high‑profile Seeking Alpha piece, “A Cash Cow That Is Still A Sell,” takes the opposite stance: great margins and brands, but growth too modest to justify even the post‑sell‑off multiple. ^[30]
TV personality Jim Cramer has gone on record recently suggesting that P&G and peer Kimberly‑Clark may have “bottomed”, highlighting their defensive appeal after the pullback. ^[31]

Net result: PG is widely seen as a high‑quality, low‑growth compounder that may now be moving from “expensive safety trade” toward “fairly‑priced safety trade,” but not everyone agrees that the valuation has fully reset.

ESG, Packaging and Litigation: Non‑Financial Drivers That Still Matter

For many institutional investors, P&G’s environmental and social profile is part of the investment thesis.

Packaging and Plastic Footprint

According to Packaging Dive and P&G’s own sustainability disclosures: ^[32]

P&G has increased the share of its consumer packaging that is recyclable or reusable from 55% in 2020 to about 80% as of fiscal 2024, aiming for 100% by 2030.
The company is targeting a 50% reduction in virgin plastic per unit of production vs 2017; progress sits around 21% so far.
About 17% of its roughly 691,000 metric tons of resin use is currently recycled material.
Shareholders recently voted down an As You Sow proposal that sought additional reporting and risk assessment on flexible plastic packaging, with roughly 13.9% support among votes cast.

P&G’s “Ambition 2030” framework, overseen by Chief Sustainability Officer Virginie Helias, focuses on climate, waste, water, and nature, and is regularly highlighted in its ESG investor portal. ^[33]

From an equity perspective, these initiatives help P&G stay eligible for ESG mandates and may support long‑term brand strength, even if they also entail near‑term capex and margin trade‑offs.

Kids’ Crest Lawsuit and Regulatory Scrutiny

Not all the news has been positive on the ESG/consumer‑protection front:

In November, a U.S. federal judge ruled that P&G must face a lawsuit alleging that its Kid’s Crest toothpaste packaging misleads parents about safe fluoride doses by showing a full strip of paste on the brush despite labeling that recommends only a smear or dab. ^[34]
The case is one of several suits filed against toothpaste and rinse makers over allegedly “candy‑like” marketing and fluoride safety.
Separately, the Texas attorney general has probed P&G and Colgate over potential overexposure of children to fluoride via packaging and marketing, with Colgate already agreeing to adjust its packaging; P&G’s probe remains open. ^[35]

So far, the financial impact looks de minimis, but it underscores that brand equity and trust carry legal and reputational risk, particularly for products used by children.

Key Risks: Tariffs, Weak Volumes and Private‑Label Competition

Current analyses converge on a set of recurring risk themes:

Tariffs and trade policy
- Tariffs are expected to shave $0.19 off FY2026 EPS when combined with commodities and financing headwinds, even after FX tailwinds. ^[36]
- Longer‑term tariff regimes could force P&G either to absorb higher costs (hurting margins) or push through higher prices (risking further volume declines).
U.S. volume pressure and consumer bifurcation
- Schulten has emphasized that middle‑ and lower‑income consumers are trading down to cheaper store brands, while higher‑income households still trade up to P&G’s premium lines. ^[37]
- Category volumes in the U.S. have recently been down in both volume and value, suggesting the trade‑down dynamic is more than anecdotal. ^[38]
Slow underlying growth
- Q4 FY2025 and Q1 FY2026 both showed low‑single‑digit organic sales growth, with volume often flat or slightly negative in key segments. ^[39]
- Benzinga and others point out that PG’s P/E is higher than most consumer‑packaged‑goods peers, even though its top‑line growth is no faster and private‑label pressure is intensifying. ^[40]
Execution risk in restructuring
- The 7,000‑job restructuring and potential brand exits should help margins and focus, but there is always a risk that cost‑cutting disrupts innovation, marketing, or supply‑chain reliability if not well executed. ^[41]
Legal and regulatory overhang
- The Kid’s Crest lawsuit and broader scrutiny of packaging, fluoride safety, and plastics could increase compliance and reformulation costs or expose P&G to damages or settlements. ^[42]

How Different Investors May Read PG’s Current Setup

To be clear: none of this is personalized financial advice. But based on current data and public commentary, here’s how the setup is generally being framed:

Income‑focused investors
See PG as a high‑quality, relatively low‑volatility dividend engine that has become more attractive as the yield drifts toward 3%. The combination of a long dividend streak, strong free cash flow, and significant buybacks keeps P&G on many “core holdings” lists, even when growth is unspectacular. ^[43]
Value and quality‑at‑a‑reasonable‑price (QARP) investors
Tend to focus on the fact that PG now trades materially below its 52‑week high, with several fair‑value models clustering in the $165–$175 range and suggesting moderate upside if the macro picture stabilizes. ^[44]
The debate is whether that upside is attractive enough relative to tariff risk, slow growth, and a still‑premium multiple.
Growth‑oriented investors
Are more likely to side with the bearish narratives: high P/E, low organic growth, structural trade‑down pressure, and limited room for multiple expansion. For that crowd, PG is often seen as defensive ballast rather than a primary growth engine. ^[45]

In practical terms, PG is evolving into a case study in what investors are willing to pay for safety at a time when benchmarks, tech, and cyclicals have delivered much higher returns.

Bottom Line: A Defensive King Under Pressure, Not in Crisis

As of December 9, 2025, The Procter & Gamble Company is:

Operationally solid, with rising earnings, robust margins, and world‑class cash generation.
Macroeconomically challenged, particularly in the U.S., where consumer caution, SNAP delays, and tariff uncertainty are weighing on volumes.
Valuation‑questioned, as investors rebalance away from richly valued defensives toward cheaper or faster‑growing sectors.
Still a cornerstone dividend name, with a commitment to return about $15 billion to shareholders this year. ^[46]

Whether the current two‑year low proves to be a buying opportunity or a value trap will depend on a few big variables: the path of tariffs and inflation, how quickly U.S. volumes stabilize, and how well the new CEO and restructuring program can translate productivity and ESG progress into sustained earnings growth.

For now, the consensus of forecasts and analyses is nuanced rather than dramatic: P&G looks more reasonably priced, not screamingly cheap; more challenged on growth, not broken; more valuable as a durable dividend compounder than as a high‑octane total‑return play.

References

Procter & Gamble (PG) Stock Hits Two‑Year Low as CFO Sounds Alarm on U.S. Consumer – What It Means for Investors Now