Showing posts with label Growth stock. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Growth stock. Show all posts

Friday, November 17, 2017

Einhorn: "None Of The Problems From The Financial Crisis Have Been Solved"

A month ago, a downbeat David Einhorn exclaimed "will this market cycle never turn?"



Despite solid Q3 performance, Einhorn admitted that "the market remains very challenging for value investing strategies, as growth stocks have continued to outperform value stocks. The persistence of this dynamic leads to questions regarding whether value investing is a viable strategy. The knee-jerk instinct is to respond that when a proven strategy is so exceedingly out of favor that its viability is questioned, the cycle must be about to turn around. Unfortunately, we lack such clarity. After years of running into the wind, we are left with no sense stronger than, "it will turn when it turns"."


Such an open-ended answer, however, is a problem for a fund which famously opened a basket of "internet shorts" several years prior, and which have continued to rip ever higher, detracting from Greenlight"s overall performance.


This, in turn, has prompted Einhorn to consider the unthinkable alternative: "Might the cycle never turn?" In other words, is the market now permanently broken.



While the Greenlight founder did not explicitly answer the question, in a speech yesterday at The Oxford Union in England, Einhorn made it extremely clear just how farcical he believes this market, and world, has become, pointing out that the problems that caused the global financial crisis a decade ago still haven’t been resolved.


“Have we learned our lesson? It depends what the lesson was,” Einhorn, the co-founder of New York-based Greenlight Capital, said at the Oxford Union in England on Wednesday.



Infamous for his value investing style and bet against Lehman Brothers that paid off in the crisis, Bloomberg reports that Einhorn said he identified several issues at the time of the crisis, including the fact that institutions that could have gone under were deemed too big to fail.


The scarcity of major credit-rating agencies was and remains a factor, Einhorn said, while problems in the derivatives market “could have been dealt with differently," and in the “so-called structured-credit market, risk was transferred, but not really being transferred, and not properly valued.”


“If you took all of the obvious problems from the financial crisis, we kind of solved none of them,” Einhorn said to a packed room at Oxford University’s 194-year-old debating society.


 


Instead, the world “went the bailout route.”


 


“We sweep as much under the rug as we can and move on as quickly as we can,” he said.



Einhorn didn’t avoid discussing his underperformance, citing several failed bets that companies’ stocks would decline. He didn’t name the stocks he was shorting, but insisted that none of the companies are “viable businesses.”


Value investing has worked over time, but “it’s not working at all right now,” and in fact “the opposite seems to be working,” he said.



Greenlight remains focused on developed markets, and has no plans to change that, he said.


Which reminds us of his exasperated conclusions from the latest Greenlight letter to investors:


Given the performance of certain stocks, we wonder if the market has adopted an alternative paradigm for calculating equity value. What if equity value has nothing to do with current or future profits and instead is derived from a company’s ability to be disruptive, to provide social change, or to advance new beneficial technologies, even when doing so results in current and future economic loss?


 


It’s clear that a number of companies provide products and services to customers that come with a subsidy from equity holders. And yet, on a mark-to-market basis, the equity holders are doing just fine.



Ah yes, the Fed-funded "deflation trade" which lowers prices for goods and services courtesy of ravenous investors who will throw money at any "growth" idea, without considerations for return or profit, because - well - more such investors will emerge tomorrow.  After all, in this day and age of ZIRP, what else will they do with their money.









Saturday, May 6, 2017

The Five Largest Stocks Account For 42% Of The Nasdaq, And Why Goldman Clients Are Concerned

With the Nasdaq 100 index making new record highs on practically every day of 2017, and returning 32% during the past 12 months vs. "only" 19% for the S&P 500, Goldman"s clients are starting to  get concerned. And, as Goldman"s David Kostin writes in his latest weekly letter, increasingly nervous investors are asking "whether NDX outperformance will continue."


Some facts: "100 of the largest stocks in the composite index, reached an all-time high [Friday] (5646), along with the S&P 500 (2399). Information Technology is the best performing sector YTD in both absolute and risk-adjusted terms and has led both indices. Technology accounts for 58% of NDX versus 23% of the S&P 500 and largely explains the 870 bp YTD outperformance (16% vs. 7%; see Exhibit 1)."



While Kostin provides some details about his outlook for the relative performance of the S&P and Nasdaq, what is most notable about the recent disconnect between the broader market and the tech heavy index, is just how concentrated the Nasdaq has become.


As Goldman shows in the chart below, the Nasdaq is so concentrated at the stock-level, the five largest stocks comprising 42% of the index compared with 13% of S&P 500.



Further demonstrating the skew, the top 25 stocks of the Nasdaq 100 account for 72% of the index weight.



Apple (AAPL) alone accounts for 12% of NDX versus 4% of the S&P 500. The index weight of AAPL and its stellar performance explains roughly 25% of the 79 pp excess return of NDX vs. S&P 500 since 2009 (229% vs. 150%). Alphabet (GOOGL), Microsoft (MSFT), Amazon (AMZN), and Facebook (FB) are the next four largest stocks in both indices (Exhibit 2). Each of the five stocks has beaten the S&P 500 YTD, by an average of 16 pp, and together have contributed 56% of NDX and 33% of S&P 500 returns YTD.


And yet despite what has been a clear outperformance for the Nasdaq, Goldman which has been increasingly bearish on the broader market, has a soft spot for the tech sector. This is how Kostin explains why the Nasdaq juggernaut may continue:


Current relative valuation may restrain upside, but superior sales and EPS growth prospects coupled with a larger weight in Technology suggests NDX total return of +2% vs. -1% for S&P 500 in the next 12 months. Excess return of 300 bp would rank in the 41st percentile since 2002."





The relative valuation of NDX vs. S&P 500 is in line with the 10-year average and will curb the magnitude of further outperformance. The valuation of NDX vs. S&P 500 using EV/Sales is most predictive of future relative returns. Current relative EV/Sales is 0.4 standard deviations below the 10-year average (Exhibit 3). A return to this average would suggest 3 pp of outperformance. In contrast, NDX vs. S&P 500 trades 0.8 standard deviations expensive on an EV/EBITDA basis and 0.1 standard deviations expensive using forward P/E. Taken together, the current relative valuation of NDX versus the S&P 500 appears consistent with the past 10 years.



The performance of NDX vs. S&P 500 is dependent on economic growth, but exhibits low sensitivity to other macro variables. NDX vs. S&P 500 returns show low correlation with changes in inflation, interest rates, USD, and oil. However, NDX is heavily concentrated in growth equities and NDX vs. S&P 500 relative returns are positively correlated with our growth factor (see Exhibit 4). Our US Economics team expects 2017 US GDP growth of 2.1%. Our US MAP score, a measure of economic data surprises, is in positive territory. Growth stocks typically outperform in this type of economic environment. Seven of the 25 largest NDX firms (GOOGL, AMZN, FB, ADBE, NFLX, PYPL, and CELG) meet our secular growth criteria (see Secular growth stocks for a secular stagnation economy, Jul 21, 2016). However, a reacceleration or collapse in economic growth would pose a risk to further NDX outperformance.




The micro landscape favors NDX versus S&P 500. Looking into 2018, consensus forecasts faster revenue and EPS growth for NDX versus S&P 500. Superior sales growth (8.4% vs. 5.3%) and earnings growth (13.5% vs. 9.7%) represent key drivers for further NDX outperformance. Since the start of the earnings season, revisions to consensus estimates have been more positive for NDX than for S&P 500. Long-term NDX earnings growth prospects are strong relative to S&P 500 (19% vs. 12%). However, while the 2018 estimates favor NDX, 2017 estimates are mixed. NDX sales in 2017 are forecast to grow by 8.3% vs. 7.5% for the overall S&P 500 (5.3% excluding Energy), the smallest gap since 2008. Similarly, NDX earnings are expected to rise by 9.0% in 2017, versus 10.7% for the S&P 500 (7.7% ex-Energy).



And, to be sure, Goldman"s prop trading desk is more than eager to sell (or short) to any client one or more of the Top 5 companies that comprise nearly half the Nasdaq and whose market cap has never been higher.





Our GS research analysts have strong fundamental forecasts for the five largest stocks in NDX. Despite a slowdown in China, our Hardware team remains optimistic about AAPL’s upcoming product cycle and growth in services revenues. Our Software analysts forecast strong advertising revenue growth and exposure to the best secular trends in technology (mobile search, enterprise cloud computing) will drive 19% sales growth for GOOGL in 2018. The team is also upbeat on MSFT on the back of expense discipline and potential upside to out-year EPS. Our Internet analysts view FB as well-positioned in one of the best secular growth markets and expects 2018 consensus top-line estimates will climb from the current 28% towards their 30% forecast. The team believes consensus underestimates the revenue benefit to AMZN from the ongoing shifts to cloud computing and online retailing. They forecast 22% sales growth in 2018. The average return of the five stocks to their GS equity analyst price targets equals 19% versus 9% to the consensus targets.



What goes unsaid is that if central banks, like the SNB, can continue to create money out of thin air and continue bidding up names like AAPL, and the rest of the Nasdaq top 5, this trade is always effectively without downside.