Tosi hyvä ja mielenkiintoinen blogi kirjoitus. Tuli mieleen muutama asia.
Furthermore, it is a major mistake to assume the impact of disruption is confined merely to low multiple stocks (or even felt disproportionately by value). Kodak was a very highly rated, high quality company up until the late 1990s, as was Blockbuster video rentals. That didn’t stop them from being disrupted. Indeed, it is actually often the highest quality and highest rated companies that have the most to lose from disruption, as they have both high valuations with very long duration payoffs and very high profitability.
- Tulisiko meidän välttää laadukkaita yrityksiä siinä pelossa, että niillä on eniten menetettävää niinkuin Nokialle kävi 2000-luvulla?
A century of quantitative evidence from market history suggests investors tend to underprice stocks with the most apparently assuredly poor future prospects, and over price those believed to have the most assuredly promising prospects, and underestimate tail risk (both upside and downside), and there is nothing in the past decade’s market experience to suggest that has fundamentally changed.
- Miten fiksu sijoittaja huomioi tämän tehdessään omia sijoituspäätöksiä? Mitä tämä kertoo meille?
So if accelerating disruption is not the cause of value’s underperformance over the past decade, then what exactly is? The simple answer is because cheap stocks have got cheaper while expensive stocks have got more expensive - a trend which has radically accelerated over the past 24 months or so (barring the sharp reversal we have seen over the past few days).
- Mitä tämä käytännössä tarkoittaa?
There is some sort of new trend/theme that emerges which leads to a cohort of companies performing unexpectedly well operationally (robust profitability and rapid growth), and their stocks perform exceptionally well, as they benefit from a combination of a reasonable starting multiples, operational prosperity/growth, and then a significant lift in trading multiples as their success becomes more widely appreciated as it is promoted by brokers and the media, and investors start to extrapolate and price in continuing growth and prosperity forward into the distant future.
- Tämä on nähtävissä sähköauto ja vetyenergia-alalla? Kun tämmöinen trendi tunnistetaan, voiko olettaa että sijoittajan kannattaa ottaa nopea ilo irti?
There are market-leading companies I know in Africa that have grown at 15% a year for the past 5-10 years, with high returns on capital and growing dividends, and yet seen their their stocks fall cumulatively by 50% (from about 10-15x earnings to 2.5x earnings) simply because frontier markets have suffered outflows, and accordingly there are more sellers than buyers for the stock, and price declines trigger yet more sellers (redemptions), so stabilisation/equilibrium proves elusive. For often surprisingly long periods of time, it is liquidity which drives market prices, not fundamentals. Anyone that owned Amazon during 2000-03 where the stock fell 93% will also know this.
- Tässä oli vahva viesti eli nyt koronan aikaiset kurssinousut voidaan perustella elvytyspaketeilla? Rahaa virtaa osakkeisiin, mutta kun enää ei ole elvytyspaketteja? Mitä sitten? Kurssinousua ohjaa likvideetti ei fundamentti.
For instance, Zoom Communication’s peak market capitalisation was recently about US$200bn. Even to trade on a relatively high 20x earnings, it would need to earn US$10bn after tax. Are investors aware of how few companies there are in the world that actually make US$10bn? It’s about as much money as Coca-Cola and Visa make, for instance - two of the world’s finest enterprises. Very few companies make more than US$10bn, because that is a lot of money, and the world is not infinitely big . And yet I’m convinced most of the people buying Zoom at those prices actually expected to make very large and rapid returns, because, ya know, the company is growing really fast. This sort of foolishness was widespread in the dot.com bubble
- Sijoittajien tuotto-odotukset perustuvat nopeaan kurssihinnan kasvuun eikä siihen paljon yritys oikeasti tuottaa. Voidaanko vetyfirmat yhdistää uuteen it-kuplaan?
No ei vaan.