All articles

How the Distribution of Outcomes Affect Portfolio Construction

Company-specific risk can be decreased by building a portfolio of diversified companies. Here’s the math behind it.

Positive returns in stocks are never a guarantee. Stay far, far away from anyone who tells you otherwise.

Company-specific risks, such as competition or regulatory risk, plus market-wide systemic risks, such as interest rates hikes and global recessions, pose risks to a stock’s long-term return. These risks result in what I call a wide distribution of outcome probabilities

And yet, in today’s stock market, it seems that more and more investors are starting to ignore these risks and go big or even all-in on just a single stock. Some argue that the large spread in returns between winners and laggards makes a concentrated portfolio more appealing.

But before diving headfirst into building a super-concentrated portfolio, consider the following risk.

What is the distribution of outcomes?

Let’s start with the basics.

When I talk about the distribution of outcomes, I am referring to the probability-distribution of the long-term returns of a stock. For example, a company can have a 20% chance to go to zero, a 60% chance to double up and another 20% chance to triple in value over five years (note that the probability percentages add up to 100%).

As such, there is a distribution of outcome possibilities, each with its own probability of occurring.

In the example above, over a five year period, investors in the company have a 20% chance to lose all their money, a 60% chance to double their money, and a 20% chance to triple their money.

Every stock has a different distribution of outcomes. The probabilities of returns and the range of returns will also differ drastically from stock to stock.

You found a great investment… now what?

Most stocks have a curve of different outcomes but for simplicity’s sake, let’s give the example of a stock that has just two possible outcomes.

This particular stock, let’s call it Company A, has a 30% chance to go bankrupt and a 70% chance to triple in value in five years. Simple mathematics will tell you that this is an amazing bargain. A gambler will take these odds any day.

We can calculate the average expected return we get from this stock by multiplying the probabilities with the outcomes. In this scenario, the expected return is 110%* (calculation below) in five years. Annualised, that translates to an excellent 15.9% return per year, which easily outpaces the returns of the S&P 500 over its entire history.

As such, any investor should happily take this bet. But don’t get too carried away. Even though this stock is a great investment, there is still a 30% possibility that we lose our entire investment in this stock. Would you be willing to take that risk?

Diversification reduces the risk

This is where diversification comes into play.

Instead of making a single bet on Company A, we can add another company into the portfolio.

Let’s say we find another company, Company B, that has slightly lower expected returns than Company A. Company B has a 35% chance of going broke and a 65% chance to triple in value, giving it an expected return of 95%**(calculation below).

The table below shows the probabilities of investing solely in Company A or Company B or investing half into each company.

Company A OnlyCompany B OnlyHalf Each
Expected Annual Return15.9%14.3%15.2%
Chance to Lose it All30%35%10.5%
Source: My computation

From the table above, we can see that the odds of losing your entire portfolio drops to 10.5% after splitting it between the two companies.

This seems counter-intuitive. Even though you are adding Company B into the portfolio, a stock that has a higher chance of going bust than Company A, the combined portfolio still ends up with a lower chance of going to zero.

The reason is that in order for the combined portfolio to go to zero, both companies need to go broke for you to lose your entire portfolio. The probability of both companies going bankrupt is much smaller than either of Company A or Company B going broke on its own. This is true if the two companies have businesses and risks that are not co-related.

What this shows is that we can lower our risk of suffering portfolio losses by adding more stocks into the portfolio.

Even though investors sacrifice some profits by adding stocks with lower expected returns, the lower risks make the portfolio more robust.

The sweet spot

This leads us to the next question, what is the sweet spot of portfolio diversification? Ultimately, this depends on the individual’s risk appetite and one’s own computation of an investment’s probability of outcomes. 

For instance, venture capital firms bet on startups that have a high chance of failing. It is, hence, not uncommon for venture capital funds to lose their entire investment in a company. But at the same time, the fund can still post excellent overall results.

For instance, venture investments in any single company may have a 95% chance of going to zero but have a small chance of becoming 100-plus-baggers in the future. A single winning bet can easily cover the losses of many failed bets. Given this, venture capital funds tend to diversify widely, sometimes betting on hundreds of companies at a time. This is to reduce the odds of losing all their money while increasing the odds of having at least some money on a spectacularly winning horse.

Similarly, in public markets, the same principle applies. Some early-stage companies that go public early have significant upside potential but have relatively high risks. If you are investing in these stocks, then wide diversification is key. 

Key takeaway

Many young investors today see the stock market as a place to get rich quick. This view is exacerbated by the raging bull of 2020 in some corners of the stock market across the world. 

They are, hence, tempted by the allure of making huge wins by concentrating their portfolio into just one or two companies. (You likely have heard stories of many Tesla shareholders becoming millionaires by placing their whole portfolio on just Tesla shares)

Although expected returns may be high, a concentrated portfolio poses substantial risks to one’s portfolio. 

I can’t speak for every investor, but I much rather sleep comfortably at night, knowing that I’ve built a sufficiently diversified portfolio to lower my risk of losing everything I’ve worked for

Nevertheless, if you insist on building a concentrated portfolio, it is important to learn the risks of such a strategy and make sure that you are financially and emotionally prepared with the very real possibility of losses.

*(0x0.3+300%x0.7-100%)=110%

**(0x0.35+300%x0.65-100%)=95%

DisclaimerThe Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life. I currently do not have any vested interest in the shares of any companies mentioned in this article. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

What We’re Reading (Week Ending 27 December 2020)

The best articles we’ve read in recent times on a wide range of topics, including investing, business, and the world in general.

We’ve constantly been sharing a list of our recent reads in our weekly emails for The Good Investors.

Do subscribe for our weekly updates through the orange box in the blog (it’s on the side if you’re using a computer, and all the way at the bottom if you’re using mobile) – it’s free!

But since our readership-audience for The Good Investors is wider than our subscriber base, we think sharing the reading list regularly on the blog itself can benefit even more people. The articles we share touch on a wide range of topics, including investing, business, and the world in general.

Here are the articles for the week ending 27 December 2020:

1. The Airbnbs – Paul Graham

What was special about the Airbnbs was how earnest they were. They did nothing half-way, and we could sense this even in the interview. Sometimes after we interviewed a startup we’d be uncertain what to do, and have to talk it over. Other times we’d just look at one another and smile. The Airbnbs’ interview was that kind. We didn’t even like the idea that much. Nor did users, at that stage; they had no growth. But the founders seemed so full of energy that it was impossible not to like them.

That first impression was not misleading. During the batch our nickname for Brian Chesky was The Tasmanian Devil, because like the cartoon character he seemed a tornado of energy. All three of them were like that. No one ever worked harder during YC than the Airbnbs did. When you talked to the Airbnbs, they took notes. If you suggested an idea to them in office hours, the next time you talked to them they’d not only have implemented it, but also implemented two new ideas they had in the process. “They probably have the best attitude of any startup we’ve funded” I wrote to Mike Arrington during the batch…

…What we didn’t realize when we first met Brian and Joe and Nate was that Airbnb was on its last legs. After working on the company for a year and getting no growth, they’d agreed to give it one last shot. They’d try this Y Combinator thing, and if the company still didn’t take off, they’d give up.

Any normal person would have given up already. They’d been funding the company with credit cards. They had a binder full of credit cards they’d maxed out. Investors didn’t think much of the idea. One investor they met in a cafe walked out in the middle of meeting with them. They thought he was going to the bathroom, but he never came back. “He didn’t even finish his smoothie,” Brian said. And now, in late 2008, it was the worst recession in decades. The stock market was in free fall and wouldn’t hit bottom for another four months.

Why hadn’t they given up? This is a useful question to ask. People, like matter, reveal their nature under extreme conditions. One thing that’s clear is that they weren’t doing this just for the money. As a money-making scheme, this was pretty lousy: a year’s work and all they had to show for it was a binder full of maxed-out credit cards. So why were they still working on this startup? Because of the experience they’d had as the first hosts.

When they first tried renting out airbeds on their floor during a design convention, all they were hoping for was to make enough money to pay their rent that month. But something surprising happened: they enjoyed having those first three guests staying with them. And the guests enjoyed it too. Both they and the guests had done it because they were in a sense forced to, and yet they’d all had a great experience. Clearly there was something new here: for hosts, a new way to make money that had literally been right under their noses, and for guests, a new way to travel that was in many ways better than hotels.

That experience was why the Airbnbs didn’t give up. They knew they’d discovered something. They’d seen a glimpse of the future, and they couldn’t let it go.

2. How Pfizer Delivered a Covid Vaccine in Record Time: Crazy Deadlines, a Pushy CEO – Jared S. Hopkins

Even for jaded pharmaceutical scientists, what happened next was little short of miraculous. U.S. health regulators Friday night authorized the Covid-19 vaccine developed by Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech SE. The shot is already in U.K. use and will be the first given in the U.S., capping the fastest vaccine development ever in the West.

How the drugmakers pulled off the feat, cutting the typical time from more than 10 years to under one, partly stems from their bet on the gene-based technology.

As the inside story shows, it was also the product of demanding leadership, which bordered on the unreasonable. From urging vaccine researchers to move fast to pressing the manufacturing staff to ramp up, Mr. Bourla pushed employees to go beyond even their own ambitious goals to meet Covid-19’s challenge…

…BioNTech wanted to make vaccines out of messenger RNA, or mRNA, the molecules that carry genetic instructions telling cells what proteins to make.

The German company’s researchers thought they could use the genetic sequence of the coronavirus, which had recently been published, to synthesize mRNA that would instruct cells to make a harmless version of the spike protein that protrudes from the surface of the virus.

The defanged spike proteins would prompt a person’s immune system to produce antibodies that could fight off the real virus.

Unlike the months it takes to cultivate a vaccine in test tubes, designing an mRNA vaccine would be quick. BioNTech simply plugged the genetic code for the spike protein into its software. On Jan. 25, BioNTech Chief Executive Ugur Sahin designed 10 candidates himself.

The company’s researchers would create 10 more different potential coronavirus vaccines for a total of 20, each slightly different in the event one design worked better and more safely than the others.

But BioNTech, founded in 2008 and with just 1,000 employees when the pandemic hit, needed a big partner to manufacture the vaccines for human trials and potentially for people around the world.

During a March 1 phone call, Dr. Sahin proposed a coronavirus vaccine collaboration with Kathrin Jansen, Pfizer’s vaccine-research chief.

Many in pharma were skeptical of mRNA, which had been long in the making but never the basis for an approved product. Dr. Jansen, known in the industry for helping develop Merck & Co’s cervical-cancer shot Gardasil, saw promise, in large part because mRNA vaccines appeared to produce stronger immune responses than older shots.

“This is a disaster, and it’s getting worse,” Dr. Jansen told Dr. Sahin. “Happy to work with you.”

Mr. Bourla gave his go-ahead a week later, at one of Pfizer’s first leadership meetings on the program. When vaccine researchers at a follow-up meeting in mid-March forecast a coronavirus vaccine in the middle of 2021, Mr. Bourla spoke up.

“Sorry, this will not work,” he said. “People are dying.”

3. What If You Only Invested at Market Peaks? – Ben Carlson

In 2014 I wrote a piece called What If You Only Invested at Market Peaks?

It’s hard to believe it now, but many investors assumed after a massive 30%+ run-up in the S&P 500 in 2013 that a peak was imminent.

So I decided to simply run the numbers as a thought exercise on the results of an investor who only invested their money at market peaks, just before a market crash.

I was more curious than anything and unsure about what the results would show. They were surprisingly better than expected.

I didn’t put much thought into this piece but it has become by far the most widely read piece of content I’ve ever written. It’s been read nearly a million times.

It still gets tens of thousands of page views a year.

I used this example in my book A Wealth of Common Sense but have always thought this story would be even better with visuals.

So with the help of our producer, Duncan Hill, I found an illustrator1 who could turn my story about the world’s worst market timer into a cartoon.

I updated some of the numbers, did some voiceover work, got the illustration just how we wanted it and had Duncan put it all together…

…There were some lean times in there, especially in the aftermath of the Great Depression. But by and large, the long-term returns even from the height of market peaks look pretty decent.

I’m not suggesting investors are owed anything over the long-run. The stock market is and always has been a risky proposition, especially in the short-to-intermediate-term.

But if you have a long enough time horizon and are willing to be patient, the long-run remains a good place to be when investing in the stock market.

4. Barry Ritholtz and Josh Brown Won’t Predict The Market, But They’ll Talk About Anything Else. – Leslie P. Norton

Barron’s: You’re bloggers and money managers. How does that work?

Barry Ritholtz: The blogging was an attempt to correct broader errors from Wall Street and the press—that people understood what was actually going on in the world, and that their process wasn’t completely damaged by their own cognitive errors and behavioral biases. That led to optimist bias, where people think, “Hey, I could pick stocks, I can market-time.” I also recognized the academic research that [showed] it’s much, much harder to be a successful stockpicker, a market timer, or trader than it appears, and you’re better off owning the globe and trying not to get in your own way.

As the world gets more complicated, you have to be really selective with how you use technology. Sometimes, it’s a boon to investors, and other times, the gamification of trading, apps like Robinhood, are encouraging not the greatest behavior.

Josh Brown: Barry doesn’t get enough credit. We all wanted to start blogs like Barry’s. He was first to write about behavioral investing in a popular format. I worked as a retail broker at a succession of firms; I had a front-row seat for 10 years of everything not to do. I saw every horrendous mistake and swindle, and as a 20-something, I’d say, “I’m not going to do that—or that, either.”

It didn’t feel fortunate at the time, because my career was going nowhere. I was 30 years old, with a negative bank account, a mortgage, a 2-year-old daughter, and a pregnant wife. When I met Barry, I said, “Whatever you’re doing, I want to be part of it.” He said, “I don’t deal with clients. That will be your role.” In my blog, I share what I’m learning in real time. There’s always a new topic—cryptocurrency, tariffs, interest rates, the intersection of elections with markets. I try to share my own process…

Has the pandemic altered the way you think about investing?

Brown: The thing is how outrageous the response in asset prices has been. There’s an argument to be made that the stock market is higher because of the pandemic than if 2020 had been a more routine year. It’s an affirmation of why we’re rules-based investors.

Ritholtz: Not only did you have to predict that a pandemic would occur, but you would have had to take it to the second level, which is that the Federal Reserve’s going to take rates to zero, and that Congress, which cannot agree on renaming a library, would panic and pass a $3 trillion stimulus. That’s how you get to a positive year, despite all the terrible news. We never try to guess what’s going to happen. If we’re not making forecasts, we’re not marrying forecasts.

Josh, you published a book that included 25 people’s portfolios. What was the most useful advice?

Brown: We gave people a blank sheet of paper and were very surprised that none of the chapters read like anyone else’s. Bob Seawright wrote something very poignant about an investment in a summer cottage for the family. It was a terrible investment financially, but it was one of the best investments of all time because of the memories it created. It was important for me to hear, because I work 18 to 20 hour days, and I work on Saturdays and Sundays, and I’m reading, and I’m blogging, and I’m doing podcasts. I don’t really smell the roses that much.

5. It’s the index, stupid! Our New Not-So-Neutral Financial Market Arbiters – Johannes Petry, Jan Fichtner and Eelke Heemskerk

Historically, index providers were primarily providers of information. Indices were ‘news items’, helpful for investment decisions — but arguably not essential. Actively managed funds merely used them as baselines to compare their performance, they were not expected to direct financial markets. As previously noted, the hallmark of active investors was to be different from the index — rather than being reliable, the index was there to be beaten. Hence, index providers’ decisions over the composition of their indices had relatively limited impact on financial flows — deviation from the index was a worthy risk metric. But their exact composition was not yet crucial to investors, listed companies or countries.

This changed fundamentally with the global financial crisis, which triggered two reinforcing trends: concentration, and the rise of passive investment. Together, these transformed index providers from merely supplying information to exerting power over asset allocation in capital markets.

First, the index industry concentrated — not least because banks sold non-core businesses to raise cash, as they tried to stay afloat during the financial meltdown that engulfed their industry. By 2017, the three indices S&P DJI, MSCI and FTSE Russell accounted for 27%, 26% and 25% of global revenues in the index industry, respectively.

This market concentration led to a growing power position of the few index providers that had historically positioned themselves and their brands in financial markets. With profit margins averaging between 60-70%, they operate in a quasi-oligopolistic market structure. This is because their indices are not easily substitutable, due to unique brand recognition and network externalities, e.g. through liquid futures markets based on their indices. The S&P 500, for instance, represents US blue chips like no other index. It is also the most widely tracked index globally, and S&P 500 index futures are the most traded futures contract in the world.

Second, and more importantly, the money mass-migration towards passive investments significantly increased the authority of index providers. They came to influence asset allocation in unprecedented ways, as more and more funds directly tracked the indices they own, construct and maintain. ETFs indexed to FTSE Russell indices more than doubled from US$315 billion in 2013 to US$765 billion in 2019. Meanwhile passive funds tracking MSCI indices even increased more than sevenfold between 2008 and 2020, from $132 billion to more than $1 trillion. ETFs and index mutual funds that follow S&P DJI indices increased from $1.7 trillion in 2011 to staggering $6.3 trillion in 2019. Whereas in the past indices only loosely anchored fund holdings around a baseline, now they have an instant, ‘mechanic’ effect on the holdings of passive funds.

As passive funds simply replicate an index, index providers’ decisions to change index compositions lead to quasi-automatic asset reallocations. Index providers now effectively ‘steer’ financial flows.

6. Managers at Major Index Provider, Sushi Restaurant Charged With Insider Trading Alicia McElhaney

A senior index manager at S&P Dow Jones Indices has been charged the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department for insider trading.

According to complaints filed Monday by both entities, Yinghang “James” Yang allegedly used information that he learned on the job to help his friend Yuanbiao Chen, a manager at a sushi restaurant, trade options on companies before they were added to or removed from S&P indices…

…The scheme allegedly began in April 2019, when Yang wrote a check for $3,000 to his co-conspirator, who then deposited it in his personal bank account. Roughly a month later, the co-conspirator opened a brokerage account, the Justice Department’s complaint shows. (Chen was not named in the Justice Department complaint.)

Between June and October, Yang and Chen allegedly used the account to buy call or put options on publicly-traded companies, according to the SEC complaint. On the days of the trades, S&P would announce after hours that the same companies would be added to or removed from its indices, according to the Justice Department. The positions would then be liquidated, the Justice Department said.

Yang and Chen started small: Each of the early transactions was worth roughly $2,000 or so. For instance, on July 9, they bought T-Mobile call options at 1:25 p.m, according to the SEC complaint. At 5:15 p.m., just after markets closed, S&P announced that T-Mobile would be added to one of its indices. The next morning, Chen and Yang reportedly sold the call options, making $1,096, the SEC said…

…But in the middle of September, the trades ramped up. Just before 2 p.m. on September 26, for example, Chen bought call options for Las Vegas Sands, the SEC said. At 5:15, S&P announced the addition of the company to its indices. The reported profit? $325,956.

During that period, Chen and Yang made these types of trades on 14 occasions, the SEC said.

Then came the payout. On October 4, Chen allegedly wrote Yang three checks totaling $100,000 from the brokerage account, the complaint said. The Justice Department said Yang used this money to make credit card payments, pay off student loans, and fund his own trading activity.

In total, the duo made $912,082 on the options trading, returning 136 percent on their investments, according to the complaints.

7. The Down Under Scammer You’ve Probably Never Heard of – David Wilson

As such, it’s worth revisiting Australia’s singularly tragic version of both men: the bipolar insider trader Rene Rivkin, who after being sentenced to just nine months of weekend detention stints, sparking national gloating, killed himself in 2005. 

“Cell, cell, cell,” the lead story in The Sydney Morning Herald crowed.

If he had lived, however, Rivkin might have served more time. For one thing, he was also a suspect in a seamy murder case and the recipient of a lavish insurance payout under suspicious circumstances. And he allegedly offloaded stocks that his newsletter, the Rivkin Report, tipped. Last, despite having untold wealth hidden in the Swiss banking system, Rivkin owed the taxman millions.

His memory still casts a tailored shadow across the Australian investment landscape, because the “guru of greed” was such an epic character: a high-octane, cigar-smoking, Prozac-popping Sydney-sider dubbed “Australia’s most aggressive broker.” Some even labeled him messianic based on his grandiose claims of persecution, going so far as to compare his criminal conviction to the crucifixion of Jesus…

…Later that year the Australian investments commission charged Rivkin with insider trading for buying 50,000 Qantas Airways shares after chatting to the head of the aptly named, now-defunct Impulse Airlines. In 2003 Impulse founder Gerry McGowan testified to having told Rivkin that Australia’s flying flag carrier planned to buy his company.

In one of many plot twists, Rivkin’s mischief yielded a piddling profit. Nonetheless, Justice Anthony Whealy denied clemency….

…What drove Rivkin, Wood’s troubled boss? Jan Marshall, a scam victim advocate and educator and the chief executive of Life After Scams, says: “People start off with small risks, and as they pay off, they begin to think they are invincible. They are driven by their greed to take bigger and bigger risks.”

Almost certainly, Marshall adds, Rivkin had a sociopathic streak. That means no conscience and no concern for how others might be affected by his acts, she explains.

Hong Kong–based Dr. Anthony Dickinson, an expert on workplace psychopaths, also believes Rivkin to have been a sociopath. Unlike full-blown psychopaths, sociopaths have some empathy, he notes.

“But their sense of right and wrong is based upon the norms and expectations of their subculture,” says the neuroscience-trained psychologist.

As to why Rivkin risked all on Impulse Airlines, Dickinson suggests: “Classic case of the gambler’s fallacy” — the myth that winning streaks are inevitable. Or, more likely, Rivkin was just “upscaling” business-as-usual practices, assuming he would never be caught or could buy his way out if he was.


Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life. We currently have no vested interest in the shares of any companies mentioned. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

Shopify, Amazon, Costco or Alibaba? A Price-to-sales Analysis

When choosing a company to invest in, the first thing we may filter for is a low valuation multiple. But that may be too simplistic…

Investors often use the price-to-sales multiple to value a company. This makes sense as sales is a proxy for how much cash the company can generate for its shareholders (there’s no way to generate cash without sales). It is also more useful than price-to-earnings when a company is not yet profitable.

However, in the stock market, there is a disparity between the price-to-sales ratios that various companies have.

Take a look at the table below. It shows the price-to-sales multiples of some prominent “retail” companies around the world.

CompanyCurrent price-to-sales multiple
Shopify Inc (NYSE: SHOP)51.7
Alibaba Group Holdings Ltd (HKG: 9988)8.9
Amazon.com Inc (NASDAQ: AMZN)4.6
Costco Wholesale Corporation (NASDAQ: COST)0.96
Source: Compilation from Ycharts based on data as of 14 December 2020

As you can see, these four companies trade at remarkably different sales multiples. Costco trades at the lowest price-to-sales multiple of less than 1. This means that if you buy Costco’s shares now, you are paying less than a $1 for every dollar of sales that the company earns.

On the other end of the spectrum is Shopify, which trades at a price-to-sales multiple of 51.7. For every dollar of revenue that Shopify generates, investors need to pay $51.70.

Just looking at this table, you will likely assume that the shares of Costco are much cheaper than Shopify’s. 

But the truth is that the price-to-sales multiple is just one part of the analysis. There are often good reasons why paying a premium multiple may make sense. In this article, I describe some of the main considerations and why you should never look at the price-to-sales multiple at face value without considering these other factors.

Growth

Perhaps the most obvious reason to pay a premium price-to-sales multiple is for growth. A company that is growing revenue quickly should command a higher multiple. 

For instance, take two companies that are generating $1 in sales per share. One company is growing at 50% over the next five years, while the other is growing at 10%. The table below shows their revenues over five years.


Fast Grower Revenue per share

Slow Grower Revenue per share

Year 0

$1

$1

Year 1

$1.50

$1.10

Year 2

$2.25

$1.21

Year 3

$3.37

$1.33

Year 4

$5.06

$1.46

Year 5

$7.59

$1.61
Source: Author’s calculations

In this scenario, even if you paid a price to sales multiple of 20 for the fast grower and a price-to-sales multiple of 10 for the slow grower, the fast-grower still ends up as the company with the better value for money. The table below illustrates this.


Fast Grower Revenue per share

Price paid

Price-to-sales multiple

Slow Grower Revenue per share

Price Paid

Price-to-sales multiple

Year 0

$1

$20

20

$1

$10

10

Year 5

$7.59

$20

2.6

$1.61

$10

6.2
Author’s Calculations

By the fifth year, the price-to-sales multiple based on your share price at cost is actually lower for the fast-grower than the slow grower, even though it started off much higher.

Let’s relate this back to the four companies mentioned earlier.

The table below shows their revenue growth in the last reported quarter.

CompanyCurrent price-to-sales multipleYear-on-year revenue growth rate for the last reported quarter
Shopify51.996%
Alibaba8.930%
Amazon4.637%
Costco0.9617%
Source: Author’s compilation from various quarterly reports

Based on the figures above, we can see that Shopify has the highest growth rate, while Costco has the slowest.

Margins

The next factor to consider is margins. Of every dollar in sales per share that a company earns, how much free cash flow per share can it generate?

The larger the margins, the higher the price-to-sales multiple you should be willing to pay.

As some companies are not yet profitable, we can use gross margins as an indicator of the company’s eventual free cash flow margin.

Here are the gross margins of the same four companies in the first table above.


Company

Current price-to-sales multiple

Gross Profit Margin

Shopify

51.7

53%

Alibaba

8.9

43%

Amazon

4.6

25%

Costco

0.96

13%
Source: Compilation from Ycharts as of 14th December 2020

There is a clear trend here.

Based on current share prices, the market is willing to pay a higher multiple for a high margin business.

This makes absolute sense as the value of every dollar of revenue generated is more valuable to the shareholder for a high margin business.

Shopify is a software business that charges its merchants a subscription fee. It also provides other merchant services such as transactions and logistics services. As a software and services business, it has extremely high margins.

On the other end of the spectrum, Costco is a typical retailer that has its own inventory and sells it to consumers. It competes in a highly competitive retail environment and sells its products at thin margins to win market share. Due to the razor-thin margins, it makes sense for market participants to price Costco’s shares at a lower price-to-sales multiple.

Predictability of the business

Lastly, we need to look at other factors that impact the predictability of the business. Needless to say, a company with a more steady revenue stream that recurs every year should command a premium valuation.

There are many factors that can impact this. This includes the business model that the company operates, the company’s brand value, the presence of competition, the behaviour of customers, or any other moats that the company may have.

A highly predictable revenue stream will be valued more highly in the stock market.

Shopify is an example of a company that has a predictable revenue stream. The e-commerce enabler charges merchants a monthly subscription fee to use its platform. It provides the software to build and run an e-commerce shop. As such, it is mission-critical for merchants that built their websites using Shopify. Given this, it’s likely that many merchants will keep paying Shopify’s subscription fees month-after-month without fail. Investors are therefore willing to pay a premium for the reassurance of the predictability of Shopify’s existing revenue stream.

Final thoughts

There is no exact formula for the right multiple to pay for a company. As shown above, it depends on a multitude of factors. 

But the main takeaway is that we should never look at a company’s price-to-sales or price-to-earnings multiples in isolation.

Too often, I hear investors make general statements about a stock simply because of the high or low multiples that a stock is priced at.

These multiples may be a good starting point to value a company but it is only one piece of the puzzle. It doesn’t capture the nuances of a company’s business model, its growth, or its unit economics… Only by considering all these factors together can we make a truly informed decision.

Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life. I currently have a vested interest in the shares of Amazon, Costco Wholesale Corporation, and Shopify. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

What We’re Reading (Week Ending 20 December 2020)

The best articles we’ve read in recent times on a wide range of topics, including investing, business, and the world in general.

We’ve constantly been sharing a list of our recent reads in our weekly emails for The Good Investors.

Do subscribe for our weekly updates through the orange box in the blog (it’s on the side if you’re using a computer, and all the way at the bottom if you’re using mobile) – it’s free!

But since our readership-audience for The Good Investors is wider than our subscriber base, we think sharing the reading list regularly on the blog itself can benefit even more people. The articles we share touch on a wide range of topics, including investing, business, and the world in general.

Here are the articles for the week ending 20 December 2020:

1. Last Man Standing – Morgan Housel

Let me propose the equivalent for individual investors. It might push you away trying to earn the highest returns because returns, like margins, don’t matter; generating wealth does.

Everything worthwhile in investing comes from compounding. Compounding is the whole secret sauce, the rocket fuel, that creates fortunes.

And compounding is just returns leveraged with time.

Earning a 20% return in one year is neat. Doing it for three years is cool. Earning 20% per year for 30 years creates something so extraordinary it’s hard to fathom. Time is the investing factor that separates, “Hey, nice work,” from “Wait, what? Are you serious?”

The time component of compounding is why 99% of Warren Buffett’s net worth came after his 50th birthday, and 97% came after he turned 65.

Yes, he’s a good investor.

But a lot of people are good investors.

Buffett’s secret is that he’s been a good investor for 80 years. His secret is time. Most investing secrets are.

Once you accept that compounding is where the magic happens, and realize how critical time is to compounding, the most important question to answer as an investor is not, “How can I earn the highest returns?” It’s, “What are the best returns I can sustain for the longest period of time?”

That’s how you maximize wealth.

2. The Essex Boys: How Nine Traders Hit a Gusher With Negative Oil – Liam Vaughan, Kit Chellel, and Benjamin Bain

Among the many previously unthinkable moments of 2020, one of the strangest occurred on April 20, when the price of crude oil fell below zero. West Texas Intermediate futures, the most popular instrument used to trade the commodity, had started the day at $18 a barrel. That was already low, but prices kept tumbling until, at 2:08 p.m. New York time, they went negative.

Amazingly, that meant anyone selling oil had to pay someone else to take it off their hands. Then the crude market collapsed completely, falling almost $40 in 20 minutes, to close at –$38. It was the lowest price for oil in the 138-year history of the New York Mercantile Exchange—and in all likelihood the lowest price in the millennia since humans first began burning the stuff for heat and light…

…U.S. authorities and investigators from Nymex trawled through trading data for insights into who exactly was driving the action on April 20. According to people familiar with their thinking, they were shocked to discover that the firm that appeared to have had the biggest impact on prices that afternoon wasn’t a Wall Street bank or a big oil company, but a tiny outfit called Vega Capital London Ltd. A group of nine independent traders affiliated with Vega and operating out of their homes in Essex, the county just northeast of London, had made $660 million among them in just a few hours. Now the authorities must decide whether anyone at Vega breached market rules by joining forces to push down prices—or if they simply pulled off one of the greatest trades in history. A lawyer for a number of the Vega traders vehemently denies wrongdoing by his clients and says they each traded based on “blaring” market signals…

…The pits were collegial and freewheeling, a place of ethical and regulatory gray areas. If a local overheard news about a big trade that some oil major had in the works, he might try to jump ahead of it, a prohibited but pervasive practice known as front-running. The cavernous trading floor had cameras, but there were blind spots where people went to share information. A former executive struggles to remember a single meeting of the exchange’s compliance committee.

One trick involved an instrument called Trade at Settlement, or TAS, an agreement to buy or sell a future at wherever the price ends up at the closing bell. The contract was aimed at investment funds, whose mandate it was to track the price of oil over the long term. But some traders figured out that they could take the other side of these TAS trades, then work together at the end of the day to push the closing price as low as possible so they could pocket a profit. The practice, while officially against the rules, was so common and effective it had a nickname: “Grab a Grand.”

3. Terry Smith talks big tech, fraud and ESG – Dave Baxter

[Question to Terry Smith] On Facebook (US:FB), what are your thoughts on the risks of it being broken up or more heavily regulated? More generally, is the quality of Facebook’s service deteriorating for advertisers? We ask this in light of this year’s hate speech ad boycott and recent news that the company overestimated the reach of some ad campaigns.

[Terry Smith’s response] Regulation doesn’t concern me much. Increased regulation tends to cement incumbents in place as newcomers find it hard to comply. The tobacco industry flourished for decades with tighter regulation.

I am not saying a break-up couldn’t occur, but I believe the last break-up of a company in the US forced by antitrust action was AT&T in 1984. It produced the so called Baby Bells (the offspring of ‘Ma Bell’-AT&T), which by 2018 had merged to form…AT&T. Also as an investor it’s by no means clear that a break up into its constituent parts would destroy value.

Again let’s look at the facts. The hate speech ad boycott was a non-event. Most advertisers did not participate, those who did only ‘paused’ their advertising rather than cancelling it indefinitely, and some of those who said they would boycott Facebook were, shall we say, misleading. Moreover, it is quite likely that other advertisers took advantage of the absence of their virtue signalling competitors to up their advertising spend. In its last quarter, Facebook’s revenue was up 22 per cent and ad impressions were up 35 per cent. It’s important to understand that Facebook’s advertising is more about enabling small businesses to advertise effectively than it is about the large corporate advertisers who were the ones who publicly announced their boycott, which was temporary if it happened at all.  Facebook’s top 100 advertisers only account for 16 per cent of Facebook’s revenues. I regard the recent news about Facebook overestimating the time viewers spent watching videos in the same light. Try to bear in mind when you read news about Facebook that most of the conventional media loathes and fears it in equal proportions…

[Question to Terry Smith] Nowadays how widespread (or not) is creative accounting, and outright fraud, compared with when you wrote Accounting for Growth?

[Terry Smith’s response] I think Wirecard answers that in a single word.

4. The Daughter of a Slave Who Did the Unthinkable: Build a Bank – Jason Zweig

If Ms. Fraser has finally cracked the glass ceiling, it was Maggie Lena Walker who first battered down the walls.

The daughter of a former slave, Walker became the first Black woman ever to head a U.S. bank when she founded the St. Luke Penny Savings Bank in Richmond, Va., in 1903. Her success came from doing what great entrepreneurs do: Walker zeroed in on an underserved market and focused her prodigious energy on meeting its needs. But her story is all the more remarkable because it played out on a stage of such intense bigotry.

Her mother, Elizabeth Draper, was an illiterate teenager when Walker was born. Her father was a white Confederate soldier who, historians believe, raped Elizabeth. When Walker finished high school, her father, who still lived nearby, sent her a dress as a graduation gift. Her mother burned it.

As a girl, Walker helped her mother work as a washerwoman and soon joined her as a member of the Independent Order of St. Luke. This was a mutual-benefit society originally set up by a free woman in Baltimore that provided insurance, educational funding and other financial services to Black people after the Civil War.

After graduating high school and working three years as a teacher, Walker quickly advanced at St. Luke. She became the organization’s head in 1899, when it was on the brink of failure. Under her leadership, it blossomed to 100,000 members across 24 states.

Having grown up in a network of mothers who had to manage family finances to the penny, Walker saw the economic independence of Black women as an ethical imperative.

“Who is so helpless as the Negro woman?” she asked in a speech in 1901. “Who is so circumscribed and hemmed in, in the race of life, in the struggle for bread, meat and clothing, as the Negro woman?”

She called for St. Luke to create a department store and a newspaper—but, above all, a bank. That, she believed, was the way to uplift Black women. “Let us put our moneys together; let us use our moneys; let us put our money out…and reap the benefit ourselves,” she proclaimed. “Let us have a bank that will take the nickels and turn them into dollars.”

5. Penis Thieves & Asset Bubbles – Ben Carlson

In 2005, a man was sitting on a bus in Nigeria minding his own business when all of the sudden he let out an ear-piercing scream.

Wasiu Karimu began shouting that his genitalia had magically disappeared into his own body.

He immediately grabbed the woman seated next to him and demanded that she restore his stolen manhood at once.

Karimu continued shouting at the woman as they got off the bus which caused a commotion. The police eventually brought them down to the station to settle their dispute.

When asked to prove his claim of penis theft, the man told the police commissioner his organ had gradually returned to its rightful place.

This may sound like a case of a mentally unstable person making an outlandish claim. But thousands of people in places like Nigeria, Singapore and parts of China have experienced the phenomenon known in medical literature as koro or magical penis theft.

It’s a situation where people, mostly men, have the feeling their genitals are being sucked into their bodies. When doctors examine these patients, the men often look down and claim it had magically reappeared.

Magic penis theft is what is referred to as a culture-bound syndrome which are diseases that are more prevalent in certain societies or cultures…

…I believe culture-bound syndrome exists in the markets as well.

One of the simplest explanations offered for the continued strength of the U.S. stock market in recent years is generationally low interest rates. If there are no safe yield alternatives, investors are forced to go out further on the risk curve.

And this makes sense in theory until you realize the fact that rates are even lower in places like Europe and Japan yet they haven’t seen the same level of euphoria in their markets.

Yields for 10 year government bonds in Japan have been under 3% since 1996 and less than 1% since 2010:

Yet there hasn’t been a whiff of speculation in Japanese markets in that time.

6. Twitter thread on quotes from Charlie Munger from a recent interview Tren Griffin

2/ “All successful investment involves trying to get into something where it’s worth more than you’re paying. That’s what successful investment is. There are a lot of different ways to find something worth more than you’re paying. You can do what Sequoia does [e.g, in VC].”

3/ “Good investing requires a weird combination of patience and aggression and not many people have it. It also requires a big amount of self-awareness about how much you know and how much you don’t know. You have to know the edge of your own competency.”

4/ “A lot of brilliant people are no good knowing the edge of their own competency. They think they’re way smarter than they are. Of course, that’s dangerous and causes trouble.” Charlie Munger…

…6/ “I don’t think we want the whole world trying to get rich by outsmarting the rest of the world. But that’s what’s happened. There’s been frenzies of speculation and so on.  It’s been very interesting, but it’s not been all good.” ..

…20/ “Early innovation by Giannini’s Bank of America helped immigrants by giving them loans. He kind of knew which ones were good for it and which ones weren’t. I think that was all for the good. That brought banking to a lot of people who deserved it.”

21/ “Bank of America helped the economy and helped everybody. Once banking got so they wanted to have soft hands and make zillions as speculators, those developments haven’t been a plus. In other words, I like banking when they’re trying to avoid losses prudently.”

7. How to Revive the Economy, and When to Worry About All That Debt – Corinne Purtill

Maya MacGuineas is head of an organization called Campaign to Fix the Debt, which is dedicated to the thesis that “America’s growing national debt profoundly threatens our economic future.” But even she says that now is not the time to worry about borrowing.

“Responsible fiscal policy is borrowing like crazy right now,” Ms. MacGuineas said. There will come a time, she said, to re-evaluate the trade-offs. In the meantime, it’s time to spend, but be aware that a pivot will be necessary at some point:

“No matter which party is in power, it’s nice to be able to enact your agenda without having to pay for it. We saw that in the four years leading up to this downturn, and I’m concerned there will be lots of voices saying we shouldn’t pay for things down the road. But I think responsible fiscal policy is borrowing like crazy right now. Things that are targeted, things that are smart, to goose the economy. But once we stabilize the economy, be willing to bring that debt back down so it’s not growing faster than the economy.”

The urgency of economic aid can’t be an excuse for programs that worsen inequality.


Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life. We currently have a vested interest in the shares of Facebook. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

The “Mystery” of Investing Simplified

Two individuals with a deep passion for investing, talking about all-things investing.

In early October this year, I recorded a podcast with Kelvin Seetoh, co-founder of Growth Investing Mastery, an investment education services provider. The podcast is for GIM’s recently-launched podcast series, Growth Investing Secrets. I’ve known Kelvin for a few years and he’s one of the brightest young investors I know. The title of this article is the title that he gave for the podcast.

During our conversation, we covered a lot of ground, including:

  • How I became so passionate about investing
  • How I developed the confidence to be a stock picker
  • What it means to be “active” vs “passive”
  • The underappreciated traits of good investors
  • How I think about my geographical exposure in my investing activities
  • A deep dive into my investment framework
  • Why “copying” others is important
  • How to think about loss-making companies
  • My guiding light for portfolio construction, which is a phrase from David Gardner:  “Make your portfolio reflect your best vision for our future.”
  • How I think about which industries or sectors to focus on
  • How I navigated through the COVID-19 crisis

All credit goes to Kelvin for leading the conversation masterfully! You can check out the podcast here, which was published yesterday. I hope you’ll enjoy the session with Kelvin – I absolutely did! 

Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life. I may have vested interests in the companies mentioned during the podcast.

What We’re Reading (Week Ending 13 December 2020)

The best articles we’ve read in recent times on a wide range of topics, including investing, business, and the world in general.

We’ve constantly been sharing a list of our recent reads in our weekly emails for The Good Investors.

Do subscribe for our weekly updates through the orange box in the blog (it’s on the side if you’re using a computer, and all the way at the bottom if you’re using mobile) – it’s free!

But since our readership-audience for The Good Investors is wider than our subscriber base, we think sharing the reading list regularly on the blog itself can benefit even more people. The articles we share touch on a wide range of topics, including investing, business, and the world in general.

Here are the articles for the week ending 13 December 2020:

1. The Secret Wisdom of Nature: Trees, Animals, and the Extraordinary Balance of All Living Things by Peter Wohlleben – The Rabbit Hole

1. Nature is like the mechanism in an enormous clock. Everything is neatly arranged and interconnected. Every entity has its place and its function.

2. It’s important for us to realize that even small interventions can have huge consequences,  and we’d do better to keep our hands off everything in nature that we do not absolutely have to touch…

…4. In undisturbed ancient forests, youngsters have to spend their first two hundred years waiting patiently in their mothers’ shade. As they struggle to put on a few feet, they develop wood that is incredibly dense. In modern managed forests today, seedlings grow without any parental shade to slow them down. They shoot up and form large growth rings even without a nutrient boost from added nitrogen. Consequently, their woody cells are much larger than normal and contain much more air, which makes them susceptible to fungi—after all, fungi like to breathe, too. A tree that grows quickly rots quickly and therefore never has a chance to grow old…

…19. Researchers from the United States suspect that there are definite disadvantages to our powerful brain. They compared the self-destructive programming of human cells with a  similar program run by ape cells. This program destroys and dismantles old and defective cells. Their comparison showed that the cleanup mechanism is a lot more effective in apes than it is in people, and the researchers believe that the reduced rate at which cells are broken down in people allows for larger brain growth and a higher rate of connections between cells. This improvement in intelligence probably comes at a high price, because the self-cleansing mechanism also gets rids of cancer cells. Whereas apes hardly ever get cancer, this disease is one of the top causes of death in people. Is the price for our intellectual capacities too high? If our current level of intelligence is not suited to the survival of humankind, it must either be increased or lowered. The latter is probably unacceptable thanks to our ideas about self-worth.

20. There’s a simple reason these treeless landscapes delight us so much. We are, from a  biological perspective, animals of the plains, and we feel secure in landscapes with extensive views where we can move around easily.

2. Everything We’ve Learned About Modern Economic Theory Is Wrong – Brandon Kochkodin

His beef is that all too often, economic models assume something called “ergodicity.” That is, the average of all possible outcomes of a given situation informs how any one person might experience it. But that’s often not the case, which Peters says renders much of the field’s predictions irrelevant in real life. In those instances, his solution is to borrow math commonly used in thermodynamics to model outcomes using the correct average.

If Peters is right — and it’s a pretty ginormous if — the consequences are hard to overstate. Simply put, his “fix” would upend three centuries of economic thought, and reshape our understanding of the field as well as everything it touches, from risk management to income inequality to how central banks set interest rates and even the use of behavioral economics to fight Covid-19…

…Peters takes aim at expected utility theory, the bedrock that modern economics is built on. It explains that when we make decisions, we conduct a cost-benefit analysis and try to choose the option that maximizes our wealth.

The problem, Peters says, is the model fails to predict how humans actually behave because the math is flawed. Expected utility is calculated as an average of all possible outcomes for a given event. What this misses is how a single outlier can, in effect, skew perceptions. Or put another way, what you might expect on average has little resemblance to what most people experience.

Consider a simple coin-flip game, which Peters uses to illustrate his point.

Starting with $100, your bankroll increases 50% every time you flip heads. But if the coin lands on tails, you lose 40% of your total. Since you’re just as likely to flip heads as tails, it would appear that you should, on average, come out ahead if you played enough times because your potential payoff each time is greater than your potential loss. In economics jargon, the expected utility is positive, so one might assume that taking the bet is a no-brainer…

…Suppose in the same game, heads came up half the time. Instead of getting fatter, your $100 bankroll would actually be down to $59 after 10 coin flips. It doesn’t matter whether you land on heads the first five times, the last five times or any other combination in between.

The “likeliest” outcome of the 50-50 proposition would still leave you with $41 less in your pocket.

Now, say 10,000 people played 100 times each, without assuming all players land on heads exactly 50% of the time. (This mimics what happens in real life, where outcomes often diverge dramatically from the mean.)

Well, in that case, one lucky gambler would end up with $117 million and accrue more than 70% of the group’s wealth, according to a natural simulation run by Jason Collins, the former head of behavioral economics for PwC in Australia who has written extensively about Peters’ research. The average expected payout, pulled up by a lucky few, would still be a hefty $16,000.

But tellingly, over half the players wind up with less than a dollar.

“For most people, the series of bets is a disaster,” Collins wrote. “It looks good only on average, propped up by the extreme good luck” of a just a handful of players.

3. Company Offering Pandemic Stock Tips Accused of $137M Fraud – Michael Kunzelman

The founders of a company called Raging Bull tout themselves as expert stock traders who teach customers how they, too, can become millionaires…

…Federal regulators say the company operators have defrauded consumers out of more than $137 million over the past three years. And the coronavirus-fueled economic crisis hasn’t tempered their “reckless” efforts to dupe vulnerable investors, government lawyers wrote in a court filing Monday.

The Federal Trade Commission sued RagingBull.com LLC and the company’s co-founders, Jeffrey Bishop and Jason Bond, in Maryland. FTC attorneys are seeking federal court orders freezing company assets, halting the alleged fraud scheme and awarding relief to consumers, including refunds and restitution…

…Ads for Bishop’s services call him a “genius trader who has made millions in the stock market.” The company’s website says Bond is a former gym teacher who taught himself to trade stocks and rid himself of $250,000 in debt.

The company’s marketing materials don’t tell consumers that Bishop and Bond primarily derive their incomes from Raging Bull customers’ subscription fees, not from stock and options trades. The suit says they have incurred “substantial and persistent losses” from their own stock and options trading activities.

In 2017, Raging Bull emailed subscribers that Bond was invited to speak at Harvard Business School and posted video of the speech. But the FTC says the school never invited him. Instead, the agency says Bond paid a third-party promoter to stage the event at the Harvard Faculty Club using a fake Harvard insignia.

4. The Reasonable Optimist – Morgan Housel

Germany’s GDP fell by more than half in 1945, when the end of World War II left a pile of bombed-out buildings and starving citizens.

No one a few years prior was predicting a 50% economic collapse, but it’s what happened.

Then came an equal surprise in the other direction: West Germany’s economy recovered all its lost ground and exceeded its pre-war GDP by 1950…

…One prominent medical study begins: “The incidence of pathological gambling in Parkinson’s patients is significantly greater than in the general population.”

Dozens of studies have confirmed this. Even among people with no history of poor financial decisions, a typical Parkinson’s drug regimen increases the likelihood of compulsive gambling.

It’s a big deal. Doctors have been sued. Casinos have been sued. Pharmaceutical companies have been sued – all linked to compulsive gambling after taking Parkinson’s medications. A Louisiana lawmaker once raided his campaign account to go on a gambling spree. He claimed his addiction started soon after he began treatment for Parkinson’s. “The drugs involved, I’m sure they had something to do with it,” he said.

Other Parkinson’s patients suffer cheaper but similar side effects: superstitious beliefs and delusions.

The suspect drugs – dopamine agonists – help reduce Parkinson’s tremors. But as a nasty side effect they can fool patients into believing the world is giving them concrete signals: that there are patterns to exploit at casinos, that conspiracy theories are real, that a person obviously loves or hates you, or that a full moon portends disaster.

That’s what dopamine does: it reduces skepticism and pushes the signal-to-noise ratio heavily towards signal, offering a rewarding brain buzz for finding patterns in the world whether they’re real or not. It’s gullibility and overconfidence’s best friend.

5. Bill Gates Just Predicted the Pandemic Will Change the World in These 7 Dramatic Ways – Jessica Stillman

Before the pandemic you would probably worry a client might feel slighted if you opted to meet with them virtually rather than in person, but after Covid the calculus of when to go and when to Zoom will be very different, according to Gates.

“Just like World War II brought women into the workforce and a lot of that stayed, this idea of, ‘Do I need to go there physically?’ We’re now allowed to ask that,” he says. That will be true of work meetings, but also of other previously in-person interactions.

“The idea of learning or having a doctor’s appointment or a sales call where it’s just screen-based with something like Zoom or Microsoft Teams will change dramatically,” Gates predicts…

…The knock-on effects of more remote work won’t end there. They’ll also reshape our communities, Gates believes. Downtowns will be less important, bedroom communities will be more important (and we may even rethink the design of our homes).

“In the cities that are very successful, just take Seattle and San Francisco … even for the person who’s well-paid, they’re spending an insane amount of their money on their rent,” he points out. Without the anchor of an office you have to visit every day, staying in such expensive places becomes less appealing, and a bigger house in a smaller community with less traffic much more so.

6. I Started Trading Hot Stocks on Robinhood. Then I Couldn’t Stop. Jason Zweig

You’ve probably heard of it, even if you aren’t among the 13 million people already using it. Robinhood makes trading stocks, options and cryptocurrencies fun and exciting, and analysts have attributed some of this year’s skyrocketing stock prices to novice Robinhood traders.

My editor and I decided that I should see what the fuss is all about. I started trading on Robinhood on Oct. 27, expensing my $100 investment. Any profits I made would go to charity; any losses would go toward public humiliation. I closed all my positions on Nov. 17…

…Signing up was fun and easy. Three mystery cards emblazoned with question marks popped up. I scrubbed to reveal which free stock I had won, like in a scratch-off lottery game. Confetti showered my phone screen: I’d gotten one free share of Sirius XM Holdings Inc., at $5.76.

The next morning, my phone lit up: “Your free share of SIRI is up 1.05% today. Check on your portfolio now.” Two hours later, Robinhood nudged me again: “Start Trading Today.” An email from Robinhood proclaimed “You’re Ready To Begin Trading!”

Still, I didn’t start for a few days. Then I was swept away.

Whenever a stock’s price changes, Robinhood updates it not just by showing an uptick in green and a downtick in red, but also by spinning the digits up and down like a slot machine. This flux of direction and color quickly becomes hypnotic…

…Robinhood doesn’t think my experience is typical. “We’re proud to have made investing relevant to a new generation and to help first-time investors become long-term investors,” the firm said in a statement.

In the end, after three hectic weeks, I finished with $95.01. I’d lost 5% of what I’d put in. Counting the free stock I’d gotten, I was down 10.2%.

Over the same period, the S&P 500 went up 7%.

The lesson?

You can’t invest without trading, but you can trade without investing. Even the most patient and meticulous buy-and-hold investor has to buy in the first place.

A short-term trader, however, can make money—for a while, by sheer luck—without knowing anything. And thinking you’re investing when all you’re doing is trading is like trying to run a marathon by doing 26 one-mile sprints right after the other.

To invest means, literally, to clothe yourself in an asset. That gives a stock the chance to work for you over the years it may take for a company to prosper. It also minimizes your tax bills—and your stress.

7. How an Energy Startup’s Plan to Disrupt the Power Grid Got Disrupted – Rebecca Davis O’Brien & Katherine Blunt

Bloom Energy Corp. became a hot startup more than a decade ago by promising to upset the utility industry with devices that could power the nation’s buildings. Today, it’s a reminder of how a rapidly changing industry can foil even the most driven entrepreneurs.

Bloom’s founder, KR Sridhar, helped develop fuel cells for NASA before forming the company in 2001. The next year, he packed his technology into three U-Hauls and headed to California.

Fuel cells use chemical reactions to generate electricity, and proponents hold they will go mainstream one day as a clean, reliable energy source. They have defied broad commercialization, but Mr. Sridhar told a powerful story: Bloom would sell the technology in “Bloom Boxes” running on natural gas and providing power more cheaply than the utilities on the electric grid…

…As with many Silicon Valley startups, Bloom presented the kind of bold technological and revenue prospects that persuade investors to look beyond profitability. Mr. Sridhar’s vision: a Bloom Box in every American home. “It’s about seeing the world as what it can be,” he told “60 Minutes” in 2010, “and not what it is.”

The world Mr. Sridhar foresaw hasn’t arrived. His San Jose, Calif., startup hasn’t put fuel cells in homes and instead has a niche clientele among companies willing to pay a premium for a continuous on-site energy source. In 2009, it projected profits by 2010, according to board materials reviewed by The Wall Street Journal; but it has never reported a profit, losing over $3 billion since inception.

Mr. Sridhar’s proposition to disrupt the energy market came as the world was trying to figure out how to wean off fossil fuels. Instead, the energy industry has disrupted Mr. Sridhar’s strategy, turning to wind and solar power, which have lower costs and deliver cleaner energy than Bloom’s cells, which emit carbon dioxide. Grid power is still less expensive than Bloom’s in most places.

Along the way, Bloom ran into supply issues, its cells remained expensive and it fell short of its projections for how many customers it would win, according to former executives and employees, board materials and public filings.

After Bloom’s auditor raised concerns about how the company had reported revenue, it restated results in March for the two years since its $270 million initial public offering, cutting its reported revenue by 15%. Bloom’s growth is sometimes difficult to assess because of its accounting practices.


Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life. We currently do not have a vested interest in any companies mentioned. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

Is Index Investing Really Passive?

Wallstreet terms index investing as a passive strategy. But is investing in an index fund truly passive? Personally, I don’t think so.

The finance community often use the term “passive investing” to apply to investing in index funds. But is investing in an index fund really a “passive” strategy?

Actually not.

Most indexes actually have an active method of selecting their stocks. For example, the S&P 500 only includes the top 500 stocks by market capitalisation that are listed and headquartered in the USA. In addition, the stocks need to have at least four consecutive quarters of profitability.

The S&P 500 is also market-cap weighted. As such, bigger companies have a larger weight in the S&P 500 index, and their returns have a bigger impact on the index’s overall return.

I consider this method of selection and weighting as an active method of selecting stocks. Moreover, the selection criteria are determined by a committee and the committee also has the final say on whether a stock should be included in the index. This was the case for Tesla Inc (NASDAQ: TSLA), which was only included after it reported its fifth profitable quarter (instead of fourth).

Portfolio weighting

Ultimately, these active decisions made by a committee impact the index’s returns. For instance, the simple act of choosing to weight the index based on market cap has had a profound impact on the S&P 500 index over the last 10 years.

The table below shows the returns of the S&P 500 index against the S&P 500 equal-weighted index.

Source: My compilation from data from S&P

As you can see, the market-cap weighted index far outpaced the equal-weighted one. This is because larger stocks, which have a bigger weighting in the market-cap-weighted index, have outperformed their smaller counterparts over the last 10 years.

Choosing the right index 

All of which points to the fact that not all indexes are made equal.

Each index has specific selection criteria and a specific method of weighting its constituent stocks. Ultimately, these are active choices made by the committee building the index. 

As investors, we may think that “index investing” is a passive strategy.

But indexes are not completely passive. The stocks within an index have been picked based on criteria that are “actively” chosen.

Even in Singapore, the Straits Times Index (STI), which is a commonly used indicator of the health of Singapore’s stock market, may not be truly representative or passive.

The rules for inclusion into the STI are based on a stock’s market cap, liquidity, and a minimum amount of voting rights in public hands. As such, the stocks selected in the STI are actually picked by the committee based on a selection methodology that they have actively chosen.

Index investing is actually “active”

Ultimately, investing in any index is not a truly passive way to invest. The exposure you gain is based on active decisions made by the index committee that built the index.

In addition, with so many indexes available, choosing an index to invest in is also an active decision made by the investor. Within the US alone, there are funds that track the S&P 500, S&P 500 Equal Weight, MSCI USA, MSCI USA Equal Weighted Indexes, and many more. Each of these indexes has performed differently over the last 10 years.

Index investing is, hence, not truly “passive”.

By investing in any index, you are actually making an “active” decision that the “active” selection and weight criteria used in that particular index will work best for your investment needs.

Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life. I currently do not have a vested interest in the shares of any companies mentioned. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

What We’re Reading (Week Ending 06 December 2020)

The best articles we’ve read in recent times on a wide range of topics, including investing, business, and the world in general.

We’ve constantly been sharing a list of our recent reads in our weekly emails for The Good Investors.

Do subscribe for our weekly updates through the orange box in the blog (it’s on the side if you’re using a computer, and all the way at the bottom if you’re using mobile) – it’s free!

But since our readership-audience for The Good Investors is wider than our subscriber base, we think sharing the reading list regularly on the blog itself can benefit even more people. The articles we share touch on a wide range of topics, including investing, business, and the world in general.

Here are the articles for the week ending 06 December 2020:

1. ‘It will change everything’: DeepMind’s AI makes gigantic leap in solving protein structures – Ewen Callaway

An artificial intelligence (AI) network developed by Google AI offshoot DeepMind has made a gargantuan leap in solving one of biology’s grandest challenges — determining a protein’s 3D shape from its amino-acid sequence.

DeepMind’s program, called AlphaFold, outperformed around 100 other teams in a biennial protein-structure prediction challenge called CASP, short for Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction. The results were announced on 30 November, at the start of the conference — held virtually this year — that takes stock of the exercise.

“This is a big deal,” says John Moult, a computational biologist at the University of Maryland in College Park, who co-founded CASP in 1994 to improve computational methods for accurately predicting protein structures. “In some sense the problem is solved.”

The ability to accurately predict protein structures from their amino-acid sequence would be a huge boon to life sciences and medicine. It would vastly accelerate efforts to understand the building blocks of cells and enable quicker and more advanced drug discovery.

2. Tony Hsieh’s American Tragedy: The Self-Destructive Last Months Of The Zappos Visionary – Angel Au-Yeung and David Jeans

Taken together, the memories of Hsieh paint an image of a man whose mission in life was to create happiness. This took shape in many ways. In pioneering, at Zappos, the concept of an online store fueled by a customer-first, no-questions-asked return policy, Hsieh arguably had a bigger effect on online retail than anyone short of Bezos himself. In investing $350 million into downtown Las Vegas, he lovingly turned a seedy part of town into an arts, cultural and tech hub, with a community of Airstream trailers, one of which Hsieh lived in for years. As a business evangelist, the 2010 title of his New York Times number one bestseller said it all: Delivering Happiness: A Path To Profits, Passion and Purpose.

But while he directly (by the tens of thousands) and indirectly (by the millions) delivered on making other people smile, Hsieh was privately coping with issues of mental health and addiction. Forbes has interviewed more than 20 of his close friends and colleagues over the past few days, each trying to come to grips with how this brightest of lights had met such a dark and sudden end.

Reconciling their accounts, one word rises up: tragedy. According to his friends and family, Hsieh’s personal struggles took a dramatic turn south over the past year, especially as the Covid-19 pandemic curtailed the nonstop action that Hsieh seemingly craved. According to numerous sources with direct knowledge, Hsieh, always a heavy drinker, veered into frequent drug use, notably nitrous oxide. Friends also cited mental health battles, as Hsieh often struggled with sleep and feelings of loneliness—traits that drove his fervor for purpose and passion in life. By August, it was announced that he had “retired” from the company he built, and which Amazon had let him run largely autonomously since paying $1.2 billion for Zappos in 2009. Friends and family members, understanding the emerging crisis, attempted interventions over the past few months to try to get him sober.

Instead, these old friends say, Hsieh retreated to Park City, where he surrounded himself with yes-men, paying dearly for the privilege. With a net worth that Forbes recently estimated, conservatively, at $700 million, Hsieh’s offer was simple: He would double the amount of their highest-ever salary. All they had to do was move to Park City with him and “be happy,” according to two sources with personal knowledge of Hsieh’s months in Utah. “In the end, the king had no clothes, and the sycophants wouldn’t say a fucking word,” said a close friend who tried to stage one of the interventions, with the help of Hsieh’s family. “People took that deal from somebody who was obviously sick,” encouraging his drug use, either tacitly or actively.

3. How Venture Capitalists Are Deforming Capitalism – Charles Duhigg

Neuner began hearing similar stories from other co-working entrepreneurs: WeWork came to town, opened near an existing co-working office, and undercut the competitor on price. Sometimes WeWork promised tenants a moving bonus if they terminated an existing lease; in other instances, the company obtained client directories from competitors’ Web sites and offered everyone on the lists three months of free rent. Jerome Chang, the owner of Blankspaces, in Los Angeles, told me, “My average rate was five hundred and fifty dollars per desk per month, and I was just scraping by. Then WeWork arrived, and I had to drop it to four hundred and fifty, and then three hundred and fifty. It eviscerated my business.” Rebecca Brian Pan, who founded a co-working company named Covo, said, “No one could make money at these prices. But they kept lowering them so that they were cheaper than everyone else. It was like they had a bottomless bank account that made it impossible for anyone else to survive.”

Neuner began slashing NextSpace’s prices and adding amenities—free beer; lunchtime classes on accounting, coding, and chakra cleansing—but none of it mattered. WeWork’s prices were too low. By the end of 2014, WeWork had raised more than half a billion dollars from venture capitalists. Although it was now losing six million dollars a month, it was growing faster than ever before, with plans for sixty locations in more than a dozen cities.

Meanwhile, one of Silicon Valley’s most prominent investors, Bruce Dunlevie, of the venture-capital firm Benchmark, had joined WeWork’s board of directors. Benchmark, founded in 1995 in Menlo Park, had funded such Silicon Valley startups as eBay, Twitter, and Instagram. Dunlevie admitted to a partner that he wasn’t certain how WeWork would ever become profitable, but he was taken with Neumann. Dunlevie said to the partner, “Let’s give him some money, and he’ll figure it out.” Around this time, Benchmark made its first investment in WeWork—seventeen million dollars….

…In six years, Neuner opened nine NextSpace locations, as far east as Chicago. “But I was so burnt out by everyone saying I was a failure just because I didn’t want to dominate the globe,” he said. In 2014, Neuner resigned, and NextSpace began closing its sites. “It was heartbreaking,” he said. “V.C.s seem like these quiet, boring guys who are good at math, encourage you to dream big, and have private planes. You know who else is quiet, good at math, and has private planes? Drug cartels.”

As NextSpace’s offices shut down or were sold off, WeWork opened forty new locations and announced that it had raised hundreds of millions of dollars more. It became one of the biggest property lessors in New York, London, and Washington, D.C. One fall day in 2017, as Neuner was browsing in a bookstore near NextSpace’s original location, in Santa Cruz, he passed a magazine rack and saw that Forbes had put Adam Neumann on its cover. The accompanying article described how Neumann had met with Masayoshi Son, one of Japan’s wealthiest men and the head of the enormous investment firm SoftBank. Son had been so impressed by a twelve-minute tour of WeWork’s headquarters that he had scribbled out a spur-of-the-moment contract to invest $4.4 billion in the company. That backing, Neumann had explained to the Forbes reporter, was based not on financial estimates but, rather, “on our energy and spirituality.”

4. The 3 Most Important Words in Finance – Ben Carlson

When I first started out in the investment business I was always overly impressed with the smartest people in the room who seemed to have it all figured out about what was going to happen with certain stocks or the markets in general.

It took a while but I eventually discovered it was those investors who had enough self-awareness to admit they didn’t know what was going to happen next and they didn’t have all of the answers who were truly intelligent.

The 3 most important words in finance are “I don’t know” because the markets will humiliate you without the requisite self-awareness to recognize your own deficiencies.

It’s actually quite freeing for yourself and your clients when you’re willing to admit you don’t know what’s going to happen next.

Useful financial advice does not have to be predicated on your ability to predict the future. In fact, pitching yourself as someone who can predict the future is the fastest way to create a mismatch between expectations and reality. Eventually you will be disappointed or caught off guard when you’re wrong.

5. Who is the world’s best banker? – The Economist

Measured by the hardest test of all— creating something from nothing and delivering long-term shareholder returns while supporting the economy—the answer is someone of whom few outside Asia and the investment elite would have heard: Aditya Puri, who on October 26th retired from HDFC Bank. Now the world’s tenth-most-valuable bank, it is worth about $90bn, more than Citigroup or HSBC.

HDFC is Indian, headquartered in Mumbai, and has been run by Mr Puri since its creation in 1994. Today it has branches in mega-cities and rural backwaters alike. It serves consumers and firms and eschews the wilder reaches of investment banking and foreign adventures. This unlikely formula has produced spectacular results.

In order to assess Mr Puri’s performance The Economist has compared total shareholder returns during his tenure with those achieved by the chief executives of the world’s top 50 banks, by market value (see chart). Mr Puri has delivered cumulative returns exceeding 16,000% over the quarter-century since his bank went public. That is far more than any other boss in our sample, including Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, widely viewed as the leading banker of his generation. This is not wholly a function of the length of Mr Puri’s tenure: annualised total returns have been 22%, placing him among the top two. The power of compounding means the absolute value created for shareholders during his tenure is a giant $83bn….

…So what is HDFC’s secret sauce? Being in India is no guarantee of success—the industry still features decrepit state lenders and wild-west chancers and is in the midst of a slump that has only been aggravated by covid-19. Instead three factors stand out. First, Mr Puri’s management style, which features a clear vision, microscopic attention to detail, blunt speaking and a knack for retaining talent. Such was his dedication that, presented with a staggering bill for heart surgery, he sought to encourage the doctor to bank more with HDFC….

…Mr Puri leaves behind some question marks. The man many saw as his most likely successor quit in 2018; the bank’s new CEO is Sashidhar Jagdishan, another veteran. Some investors wonder if the bank will eventually merge with its largest shareholder, Mr Parekh’s Housing Development Finance Corporation. The biggest question of all is how Mr Puri got away with working the sort of hours that get you laughed off Wall Street. He tended to take a lunch break, often at home with his wife, and would leave the office at 5.30pm. Perhaps this was the secret of his success.

6. When Hedge Funds Hide Michelle Celarier

The only default that threatens to rival the politics of the Argentine drama is the ongoing fracas over $74 billion in defaulted Puerto Rico debt that began to take shape in 2015, when then-governor Alejandro García Padilla boldly proclaimed, “The debt is not payable.”

Hedge funds, it turned out, had gobbled up Puerto Rico debt assuming it was a sure thing. Their reasoning was that, unlike other issuers of municipal debt, under U.S. law Puerto Rico couldn’t file for bankruptcy. DCI Group, the same lobbying group that had worked for Singer and other Argentina bondholders, fought hard to keep it that way.

But Puerto Rico is not like Argentina in one critical way: Its residents are also U.S. citizens.

In 2016 the U.S. Congress finally enabled the island commonwealth to declare bankruptcy. Puerto Rico did just that. Now payments of debt and principal have ceased as lawsuits with several groups of competing bondholders are winding their way through the courts even as the island struggles to recover from the devastation of Hurricane Maria.

In both of these highly charged cases, powerful hedge funds — Singer’s Elliott in Argentina and Seth Klarman’s Baupost Group in Puerto Rico — tried to hide their ownership of the beleaguered debt and their attempt to wrest payment from desperate creditors. The stories behind their efforts at secrecy shed more light on why such opacity is prized by the hedge funds, equally abhorred by their opponents, and often ultimately unsuccessful in shielding funds from public censure.

In fact, sometimes the attempt to hide only makes things worse.

7. How to Find Winning Stocks in an Uncertain Recovery – Chin Hui Leong 

Most companies have taken it on the chin as lockdowns disrupted their businesses.

For instance, Mexican food chain Chipotle Mexican Grill was forced to temporarily shutter 100 of its stores, causing it to lose almost a quarter of its restaurant sales in April.

But as in-store sales declined, its digital orders started to take over.

As shutdowns peaked in the second quarter, Chipotle was able to arrest the decline in sales by increasing the proportion of its digital sales to over 60% of total revenue, more than twice the channel’s contribution compared to its first quarter.

Interestingly, as lockdowns were eased, Chipotle’s digital sales were sustained at almost 50% of revenue for the third quarter. As a result, the company was able to deliver a solid 14.1% year on year growth in sales.

As we look back at the first nine months of the year, the Mexican restaurant chain had to take its lumps like most companies.

However, unlike many companies, Chipotle was able to emerge as a much stronger version of itself compared to where it was before the pandemic.

In response, its shares have risen almost 60% year to date.


Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life. We currently have a vested interest in the shares of Alphabet (parent of Google), Amazon, and Chipotle Mexican Grill. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

Bright Future For Tech Stocks In Post-COVID world

It is doubtful that companies will stop their digital transformation simply because the threat of COVID-19 has been removed.

Note: This article was first published in The Business Times on 25 November 2020; data as of 19 November 2020

On 9 November 2020, Pfizer announced a wonderful development for mankind. Trial results from the pharmaceutical giant’s COVID-19 vaccine candidate, developed together with Bio NTech, showed that it could be 90% effective in preventing infection.

A week later, Moderna revealed that its COVID-19 vaccine candidate was 94.5% effective in trials. This was followed by an update from Pfizer a few days later that its vaccine candidate was actually 95% effective .

COVID-19 is still a serious global health threat. Pfizer and Moderna’s vaccines have yet to pass regulatory approvals at the time of writing (19 November 2020). Both companies have said too that they can supply their respective vaccines at scale only in 2021. Pfizer’s vaccine candidate also poses a significant logistical challenge since it needs to be transported and stored at an extremely cold temperature of minus 70 degrees celsius .

But, we can at least see some light at the end of the tunnel now.

A celebration – for some

The stock market welcomed Pfizer’s announcement. In the USA, the S&P 500 index was up by as much as 3.9% in the next trading session following the release of Pfizer’s vaccine trial data, before closing with a 1.2% gain. Singapore’s stock market barometer, the Straits Times Index, climbed by 3.7%. But the warm reception did not extend to all corners of the market. The stock price of e-signature specialist DocuSign sank by 14.7% despite the S&P 500’s 1.2% gain.

There were also painful drops of 13.6% and 17.4%, respectively, in the stock prices of e-commerce software provider Shopify and video conferencing platform Zoom Video Communications. These are just some examples of the sharp stock price declines that many US-listed technology companies faced immediately after Pfizer shared the great news about its COVID-19 vaccine trial.

The future for tech stocks?

COVID-19 has led to restrictions on human movement in many countries around the world. Many technology companies benefitted as their products help people to live, work, play, and consume better from home. In late April this year, Microsoft’s CEO Satya Nadella famously said that he saw “two years’ worth of digital transformation happening in two months”.

As a microcosm of what happened with technology companies, DocuSign, Shopify, and Zoom saw their stock prices jump by between 133% and 577% from the start of 2020 to the end of October.

If Pfizer and Moderna’s vaccines are as effective as their trial results suggest, then COVID-19 could cease to be a worry for society in the near future.

Technology companies would then lose a powerful tailwind. This train of thought, along with the sharp difference in the movement of the broader market and technology stocks after Pfizer’s announcement, may prompt a question among many investors: Should we invest in technology stocks in the post-COVID world?

Better question

From my perspective, many of the tech companies whose stock prices were pummelled after Pfizer’s good news are creating or riding on powerful long-term trends.

For instance, before COVID-19, DocuSign was already providing e-signatures to a growing number of companies. Retail merchants were already flocking to Shopify in droves to create an online or omnichannel retail presence to meet consumer demand. A large and growing number of people and companies were already experiencing the joys of a well-built video conferencing app through Zoom.

From 2017 to 2019, DocuSign’s customer base increased by 57% from 373,000 to 585,000. Shopify’s merchant base jumped by two-thirds from 609,000 to over one million; and Zoom’s customers with more than 10 employees tripled from 25,800 to 81,900 . The trio, and many other tech companies, were growing before COVID-19 because their products and services are superior to how things are done traditionally.

When we’ve solved COVID-19, will the advantages that these technology companies have over the traditional ways still hold? I humbly suggest that this is the better question to ask, compared to whether we should we invest in tech stocks in the post-COVID world. This is because the question hones us in on a key driver of a company’s stock price over the long run: Its business performance. Answering this better question can help us determine if any particular technology company’s product or service will enjoy growing demand in the years ahead. With growing demand comes a higher chance of earning higher revenue, profit, and cash flow.

You will need to figure out your own answer to the better question, but my reply to it is “yes”. Will companies really stop their digital transformation and be content with or revert back to more archaic ways of conducting their business simply because the threat of COVID-19 has been removed? I doubt so.

What lies ahead

Some technology companies aren’t worth investing in because they already or will struggle to grow their businesses meaningfully over the long run. The trick lies in separating the wheat from the chaff.

Technology stocks could also be in for more pain in the months or even the next one or two years ahead. Short-term stock price movements are unpredictable. But as a long-term investor, I’m focused on what the businesses of technology stocks could look like five to 10 years from now. For me, the future looks bright, with or without COVID-19.

Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life. I currently have a vested interest in the shares of DocuSign, Microsoft, Shopify, and Zoom Video Communications. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

Is It Too Late to Buy Moderna and BioNTech Shares?

Moderna and BioNTech’s share prices have increased by 621% and 237% year-to-date. Is it too late to get in on these COVID-19 vaccine frontrunners?

A few weeks ago, the world rejoiced to the news that two COVID-19 vaccine trials produced extremely encouraging results.

Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc (NYSE: PFE) and BioNtech (NASDAQ: BNTX) announced that their trial COVID-19 vaccine was 95% effective. In its phase III trial, out of the 170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 among the trial participants, 162 were from the placebo group, while only 8 were in the vaccine group. 

Hot on the heels of Pfizer and BioNtech’s announcement, Moderna (NASDAQ: MRNA), a young front-runner in the development of mRNA-based vaccines, announced that its own investigational COVID-19 vaccine had promising interim results. Out of 95 participants of the trial who got COVID-19, only 5 were from the vaccinated group, suggesting a 94.5% efficacy rate.

Stock markets have reacted sharply to the news. Moderna’s current share price is nearly 60% higher from the day before its vaccine announcement on 16 November 2020, while BioNtech’s share price is up by 24% since its joint announcement with Pfizer on 9 November.

Year-to-date, Moderna and BioNtech’s share prices are up by 621% and 237%, respectively.

US$200 billion opportunity

With the hype surrounding these two companies, I wanted to find out if it was too late to get in on their shares. To do so, I came up with a simple calculation to see how much the two companies could potentially earn from their vaccines.

We are currently being told that for best efficacy, two doses of the vaccines are required. There are 7 billion people in the world and to achieve herd immunity, 70% of the population (5 billion people) needs to be vaccinated.

Based on these figures, the world will need about 10 billion doses. 

The US government has placed an initial order of 100 million doses for US$1.95 billion with Pfizer and BioNTech, with the option to purchase 500 million additional doses.  That works out to US$20 per dose. Moderna has said that it will charge between US$25 and US$37 per dose.

Moderna’s market cap vs its potential profits

We can now answer the question of whether the rally in Moderna and BioNTech’s share prices are justified.

Let’s take a base case scenario that the two front runners will manage to corner 50% of the market opportunity.

If Moderna can supply 25% of the global need for COVID-19 vaccines, it will need to supply 2.5 billion doses. We can also assume that these vaccine doses will be sold over a few years. Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel said that they are on track to produce between 500 million to 1 billion doses in 2021.

For the sake of simplicity, let’s assume that Moderna will sell 500 million doses a year for five years. Based on US$25 per dose, that translates to US$12.5 billion in revenue each year.

Pharmaceutical companies can command extremely high margins, especially for a novel product that is first to the market. Given this, Moderna can possibly earn a gross margin as high as 60%, and a net margin of 40%. This will mean that Moderna could earn an annual net profit of US$5 billion based on my projected revenue figure.

Moderna currently sports a market cap of US$56 billion. Given these assumptions, it trades at around 11 times its potential annual earnings.


How About BioNTech?

BioNtech currently has a market cap of US$27.5 billion. Pfizer has agreed to pay BioNTech US$185 million in a mix of cash and Pfizer shares, and an additional US$563 million for future milestone payments.

In addition, BioNTech stands to earn 50% of the profit brought in from the sale of the vaccines.

Pfizer and BioNTech sold their first batch of vaccine doses to the US government at US$20 per dose. If they can sell a similar number of doses as Moderna and achieve similar margins, BioNTech’s share of the profit will be around US$2 billion.

Based on this scenario, BioNTech trades at 14 times this potential annual earnings.

If the above scenarios materialise, BioNTech and Moderna stand to gain a huge windfall. On top of that, their current valuations, at less than 15 times future earnings each, do not seem too demanding.

But…

… there are risks. 

First of all, not every government may be willing to pay for the vaccines to immunise their country. Governments from first world countries such as the US, UK, Malaysia, and Singapore have shown a willingness to pay for the vaccines for their citizens but other countries may not be so willing or even have the means to do so. If fewer governments bite, my estimate of a market opportunity of 10 billion doses over five years may have been overstated.

Another thing to consider is the threat of new vaccines. Competition could erode margins and lead to a lower market share than I modelled for. Pharmaceutical giants AstraZeneca and Johnson and Johnson, have pledged not to make a profit from their vaccines as long as the world is still in a pandemic. This could force companies like Moderna to lower their prices if vaccines from these companies gain approval in the coming months.

We should also not overlook the fact that the vaccines may be effective enough that patients do not need a booster every few years. In this scenario, it could be possible that after the initial demand for vaccines, and once global herd immunity is achieved, subsequent demand for vaccines will subside and earnings will dry up.

This is a legitimate concern as both BioNTech and Moderna have no other product currently in the market.

Potential tailwinds

But there are some potential tailwinds on the cards. Both Moderna and BioNTech have a healthy pipeline of drugs in development besides their COVID-19 vaccines.

The success of their COVID-19 vaccines also validates the potential of mRNA technology in other use-cases. Experts claim that mRNA-based vaccines could potentially be targeted at numerous diseases that we previously had no vaccines for. Both companies specialise in mRNA technology and could stand to benefit from this breakthrough. Moderna, for example, is working on another mRNA vaccine for CMV, which is already in phase II clinical trial.

Besides vaccines, both companies are also researching drugs that use similar mRNA technologies to treat cancer. Moderna currently has a total pipeline of 20 other drugs while BioNTech boasts a pipeline of 28. If another blockbuster drug reaches the market, they could unlock a different source of profits.

So is it too late to buy now?

Investing in young Biotech companies is risky but can be rewarding. The successful commercialisation of a single drug, as in the case of both Moderna and BioNTech, can lead to a multi-year windfall for the company and, as shown, a large appreciation in its share price.

However, there are also risks to pre-product companies.

Many may start off with a promising novel technology only to stumble at the final hurdle.

In Moderna and BioNTech’s case, they seemed to have successfully navigated the final hurdle to commercialisation by posting excellent phase III results for their COVID-19 vaccines. The market opportunity for them is huge and they are set to bring in copious amounts of cash in the not so far future.

But are investors on the sidelines too late now? With the spike in both the share prices of Moderna and BioNTech, and considering the possibility of competition, it seems that the market has already priced in a substantial amount of the future earnings from both companies’ COVID-19 vaccine.

I believe investors who are still considering investing in these two companies should not focus on the COVID-19 vaccine as this has already been priced into the stock. Instead investors should explore the pipeline of drugs and how Moderna and BioNTech plan to invest their windfall. This will be a greater determinant of the long-term returns of the company’s shares.

Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life. We currently have no vested interest in any companies mentioned. Holdings are subject to change at any time.