Weak market being obscured by megacap gains
This article by Martin Pelletier may be of interest. Here is a section:
It's understandable to assign higher revenue multiples to smaller and highly disruptive companies with exponential growth potential. However, the combined market capitalization of these seven companies now exceeds US$10 trillion, so how can they deliver such growth while defying the laws of diminishing returns, especially when they were unable to do so when they were smaller, more innovative and capital was next to free with interest rates hovering around zero per cent? Over the past decade, Nvidia's revenue has grown sixfold and yet the market is now giving it a 38 times multiple. Microsoft has grown revenue by 2.7 times with a current 12 times multiple, and Apple's revenue has grown 2.2 times and yet it has a seven times multiple.
It isn't as if this hasn't happened before. Take Sun Microsystems Inc., which traded at more than 10 times its revenue prior to the bursting of the 2000 tech bubble. In 2002, chief executive Scott McNealy responded to the aftermath with a thought-provoking quote.
"At 10 times revenues, to provide a 10-year payback, I would have to distribute 100 per cent of our revenues to shareholders for 10 consecutive years in the form of dividends. This assumption assumes that I can achieve such an arrangement with our shareholders, that we have no cost of goods sold (which is highly unlikely for a computer company), that we have zero expenses (difficult with 39,000 employees), that we pay no taxes (also challenging), and that you, as shareholders, pay no taxes on the dividends received (which is illegal)," he said.
"Additionally, this assumption presumes that, with no investment in research and development for the next 10 years, we can maintain the current revenue rate. Considering these unrealistic assumptions, would any of you be interested in purchasing our stock at US$64? Can you fathom the absurdity of these basic assumptions? We don't need any transparency or footnotes to recognize their implausibility. What were you thinking?" In a seemingly repetitive cycle, we wonder if we will eventually be questioning ourselves again with a "what were you thinking?" moment. If you are tempted to say "this time it's different," we checked with ChatGPT and will leave you with its answer.
…"It's prudent to exercise caution, diversify portfolios and focus on fundamental principles rather than getting carried away by the idea that the current situation is entirely unprecedented."
