It’s a fascinating time to analyse stock market pundits. They fall into two distinct camps – those who warn the recent selloff is only the start; and those who believe while more pain is likely, it’s once again time to consider co-ownership of profitable high growth companies – especially the FAANGS (see excellent piece below from the FT’s Robert Armstrong).
Most of those in the “wait for capitulation – it hasn’t come yet” camp are basing their view on history. The opposition believes emergence of mega-stocks whose revenues continue to grow exponentially as they expand their share of a transforming economy, suggests the past is not a great pointer to the future.
A few weeks ago after I strayed into the realm of investment advisory, a good friend sent a sharp email warning against such folly. His well intended advice has been absorbed. Because for the vast majority of mankind – and especially those whose occupations deliver knowledge a mile wide and an inch deep – trying to read or time markets is irresponsible.
___STEADY_PAYWALL___What can be said with confidence, however, is successful equity investing requires must be a minimum five year time horizon. To whit, time will tell whether Friday’s sharp rebound on Nasdaq (with pre-market projecting a further 2% gain tonight) is the start of a turnaround or the storied ‘dead cat bounce’. Either way, best to focus on the horizon and see day-to-day noise in perspective.
More for you to read today:
- Investors Stay Put, Because They Can’t Think of Better Options. Crypto is imploding, cash is getting eaten away by inflation and even bond prices are tumbling.
- The Dollar Is Winning in a Messy Global Economy—and That Matters in the Fight Against Inflation. A stronger U.S. currency could help the Federal Reserve hold down the cost of imported goods.
- Finland Plans Next Step in NATO Bid as Ukraine Mounts Counteroffensive Near Key Eastern City. Russia, facing alliance’s expansion in response to Ukraine invasion, has warned Finland against joining; Sweden is also expected to apply.
- What to Know if You Want to Buy the Stock Market Dip. The Federal Reserve is giving the stock market a fright as it ramps up its efforts to control inflation. The volatility may last longer than investors have come to expect over the past few decades—but you can still prosper with discipline, patience and courage.
From the FT’s Unhedged column: A FAANGS value checkup – they will be back
But the upstart retail brokers may not.
By Robert Armstrong, chief US market commentator at The Financial Times
Despite all the gloom and doom talk — about how higher rates force long-duration assets down, a regime shift towards value stocks, and how big tech is reaching the end of its high-growth phase — the Faang stocks still matter a lot. Let’s have a look at how they have done this year:
Not well! Is a buying opportunity forming?
Two things to note at the outset. First, the Faangs are now technically the Faamgs. The streaming company may yet make a comeback, but its recent troubles have proven once and for all — to Unhedged, anyway — that Netflix is a media company, not a tech company, and does not belong with tech’s big dogs. Microsoft’s multiyear re-emergence as a cloud computing power, on the other hand, shows that it is perfectly at home among the four younger companies.
Second, Unhedged is still grouchily denying that Google now calls itself Alphabet and that Facebook goes by Meta. Google is still a search advertising company, Facebook is still a social network. We are not fooled by inane rebranding.
Why do the Faangs matter so much, and why should we be alert to a chance to buy them at a discount? To start with, they represent a fifth of the S&P 500, with a market capitalisation of $7tn. As they go, the market will (largely) go. Further, huge companies should be able to use their market position and abundant resources to defend their margins in tough periods such as the one we are sliding into now.
And despite all being tech companies broadly speaking, the Faangs are quite a diverse group of companies. Microsoft and half of Amazon (depending on how you slice it) are computing companies that cater to businesses. The other half of Amazon is a global (but quite domestically tilted) e-retailer. Google is a quite cyclical search advertising provider that caters to business. Apple and Facebook are thoroughly global consumer techcompanies, one built around a dominant hardware franchise, the other around advertising against a no-longer-dominant but still immense social network.
They are all, with the arguable exception of Amazon, immensely profitable. They produce more free cash than they know what to do with. This means the argument (a canard at the best of times) that tech stocks must go down as rates rise cannot possibly apply to the Faangs. They likely derive as much of their value from near term profits as the oil companies, consumer staples brands and banks that fill up value portfolios.
A look at the five groups’ recent drawdowns, valuations and growth rates:
To my eye, the two of the five that have fallen the most still look the most expensive.
The dramatic slowdown in growth at Amazon’s e-retail business may turn out to be temporary payback for its staggering growth early in the pandemic, but I do not fancy paying over 50 times earnings to find out. Facebook has a low price/earnings ratio and generates a lot of cash, making it look like a value stock, but does the market want to value it on cash flow? Or will the whippings continue until revenue growth (7 per cent in the first quarter) improves?
Of the other three, which would you want to own if we are heading for a recession next year? Google’s core business is quite cyclical. Apple’s is dependent on a fast-slowing China for a fifth of its sales. Microsoft’s strong position with business customers, by contrast, will be very appealing in a slowdown.
These are just generalities, of course. I think the overall point can be summed up by saying this: these are all remarkable companies, and while they are not cheap yet, they are a hell of a lot cheaper than they were, and the fact that the zeitgeist is now anti-tech should not discourage us from watching them closely as the current bear market plays out. There will be a moment to pounce.
Here is a useful contrast. The Faangs, in market cap terms, are numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 in the S&P 500. Here are numbers 8, 9, 11, 12 and 14, which will also enjoy all the advantages of being absolutely immense companies:
Here are a diversified healthcare company (in pharma, medical equipment, and consumer goods), the biggest health insurer, half of a payment duopoly, a vast value retailer, and a collection of strong consumer staples brands (Pampers, Tampax, Gillette, and so on). It’s a classic basket of defensives — yang to the Faangs’ yin. A neat acronym does not suggest itself, unfortunately (we’re open to suggestions).
The price/earnings valuations of the two groups are similar, and while the defensives’ recent growth has been weaker, outside of Visa, we could see a convergence in a recession. Also the lower volatility of the defensives is attractive (“beta” is a measure of volatility relative to the wider market, with “1” representing market volatility, 1.2 representing 1.2 times the market’s volatility, and so on). So far in this bear market, the defensives have outperformed, again with the exception of Visa (the S&P is off 16 per cent from its high).
(You may wonder what happened to numbers 5, 6, 10 and 13 in the S&P’s market cap ranking. They are Tesla, Berkshire Hathaway, Nvidia, and Exxon. They all have tricky features that made the comparison less tidy).
A challenge for readers. Over the next year, which basket will perform better, the Faangs or the defensives? The pessimist in me picks the defensives, but only over the next year or so. At some point, and it may be sooner than you think, it will be time to switch back to the big tech companies that have driven the market over the past 10 years.
NB FOR YOUR WALL STREET JOURNAL ACCESS…
As a Premium subscriber you are entitled to full membership of wsj.com (normal price $29 a month). Be sure to action your access through the Premium link on the BizNews website. Because of The Wall Street Journal’s credential requirements, be sure to create a password which has at least 8 characters and includes at least one letter and one number – NB it MAY NOT contain any special characters (ie #, !, @ etc). To maintain access to WSJ.com, you MUST enter our partner’s website via BizNews Premium at least once a month. A final PS, if you had previously signed up for WSJ you’ll need to clear the cookies from your device. Our help desk can assist – [email protected].
