General investing articles archive : Page 15 of 25

The Fascinating Facts Behind Warren Buffett’s Best Investment

The Washington Post Company is one of the best – if not the best – investment that Warren Buffett has made in percentage terms. What can we learn from it?

One of the best returns – maybe even the best – that Warren Buffett has enjoyed came from his 1973 investment in shares of The Washington Post Company (WPC), which is now known as Graham Holdings Company. Back then, it was the publisher of the influential US-based newspaper, The Washington Post.

Buffett did not invest much in WPC. He controls Berkshire Hathaway and in 1973, he exchanged just US$11 million of Berkshire’s cash for WPC shares. But by the end of 2007, Buffett’s stake in WPC had swelled to nearly US$1.4 billion. That’s a gain of over 10,000%.

There are two fascinating facts behind Buffett’s big win with the newspaper publisher.

First, WPC’s share price fell by more than 20% shortly after Buffett invested, and then stayed there for three years.

Second, WPC was a great bargain in plain sight when Buffett started buying shares. In Berkshire’s 1985 shareholders’ letter, Buffett wrote:

“We bought all of our WPC holdings in mid-1973 at a price of not more than one-fourth of the then per-share business value of the enterprise. Calculating the price/value ratio required no unusual insights. Most security analysts, media brokers, and media executives would have estimated WPC’s intrinsic business value at $400 to $500 million just as we did. And its $100 million stock market valuation was published daily for all to see.
Our advantage, rather, was attitude: we had learned from Ben Graham that the key to successful investing was the purchase of shares in good businesses when market prices were at a large discount from underlying business values.”

How many investors do you think have the patience to hold on through three years of losses? Buffett did, and he was well rewarded. Patience is the key to successful investing. It is necessary, even if you have purchased shares of the best company at a firesale-bargain price.

Warren Buffett has investing acumen that many of us do not have. But there are also times when common sense and patience is more important than acumen in making a great investment. Buffett himself said that no special insight was needed to value WPC back in 1973. What was needed to earn a smashing return with the company was the right attitude and patience.

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.

What Causes Share Prices to Increase?

Share price appreciation and dividends are the primary drivers of returns for shareholders.

In an earlier article, I discussed how stock prices are a function of future cash flows to the investor. In much the same light, investors sometimes value stocks based on multiples to earnings or revenue. This is because revenue and earnings is what ultimately drives cash flow to shareholders.

In this article, I discuss how business fundamentals and valuation growth may drive capital appreciation.

The two key factors

The equation below shows the relationship between share price appreciation, valuation, and a company’s growth.

Share price appreciation = Earnings/revenue growth X Price-to-earnings/revenue multiple expansion

Put simply, a company’s share price is driven by earnings/revenue growth and changes in the price-to-earnings/revenue multiple.

Increases in the price-to-revenue/earnings multiples are usually driven by a better outlook, new information, or market participants appreciating a company’s future prospects.

How to use this information?

As investors, knowing how stock prices rise can help us to pick stocks.

The sweet spot is to find a company that will grow its earnings/revenue and is also likely to experience valuation-multiple growth.

But companies that can grow revenue/earnings at a quick pace without a valuation multiple expansion can still serve investors very well. For example, a company that is growing earnings at 20% per year, and does not experience a valuation compression, will give shareholders capital appreciation of 20% per year.

Too often, investors focus on the second part of the equation, hoping that valuation-multiple expansion can drive stock price appreciation, without taking into account that business performance also drives stock price performance.

In fact, even if there is a valuation compression, a company can still be a good investment if revenue or profit grows faster than the valuation squeeze. To illustrate this, I came out with a simple example. Let’s assume Company ABC grows revenue at 70% per year but is expensively priced at 60-times sales.

The table illustrates what happens to ABC’s share price if there is a valuation compression each year.

As you can see, ABC’s share price grew a decent 25% per year despite the price-to-sales multiple dropping from 60 to 30. The above example can give us perspective on what we are experiencing in today’s investing environment.

There are numerous technology companies that are growing at a triple or high double-digit pace, and are expected to grow at these rates for the next few years At the same time, their price-to-revenue multiples are so high that is it likely the multiple will fall over the years. But if the top-line can grow faster than the contraction in the valuation multiple, we will still see the shareholders of these companies be handsomely rewarded.

Risks to growth

Before you invest in any richly-priced stock, you must know that high valuation multiples also pose a risk. If a company cannot grow revenues or profits as fast as its valuation contracts, its stock price may fall off a cliff.

As such, investors need to be mindful that a rich valuation also comes at a cost. Valuation contraction can be extremely painful for investors if the company does not live up to the kind of growth that the market is expecting of it.

Final words

Deep value investors tend to focus on the second part of the equation, hoping that the market will realise that a company’s valuation multiple is too low – when the market becomes aware of its folly, the valuation multiple could expand, which could lead to stock price growth.

But don’t underestimate the importance of the first part of the equation- business growth. This is ultimately the longer-term determinant of a company’s share price. Valuation multiples can only expand up to a certain point before the expansion becomes unsustainable, while business growth can continue for years. Business growth can lead to huge stock price appreciation and is to me, the best way to find multi-baggers over the long term.

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.

An Important Thing To Know About Stock Market Risk

Stock market risk is at its highest when everyone thinks there’s no risk; conversely, risk is at its lowest when everyone thinks it’s very risky.

A few days ago, I published Investing is Hard. In the article, I shared two things:

One, snippets of the State of the Union Address that two former US presidents, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, gave in January 2000 and January 2010, respectively.
Two, the subsequent performance of US stocks after both speeches. Clinton’s speech was full of optimism but the US stock market did poorly in the subsequent decade; on the other hand, Obama’s bleak address was followed by a decade-plus of solid gains for US stocks.

Here’s the snippet from Clinton’s State of the Union Address:

“We are fortunate to be alive at this moment in history. Never before has our nation enjoyed, at once, so much prosperity and social progress with so little internal crisis and so few external threats. Never before have we had such a blessed opportunity — and, therefore, such a profound obligation — to build the more perfect union of our founders’ dreams.

We begin the new century with over 20 million new jobs; the fastest economic growth in more than 30 years; the lowest unemployment rates in 30 years; the lowest poverty rates in 20 years; the lowest African-American and Hispanic unemployment rates on record; the first back-to-back budget surpluses in 42 years. And next month, America will achieve the longest period of economic growth in our entire history.

My fellow Americans, the state of our union is the strongest it has ever been.”

This is the S&P 500 from January 2000 to January 2010:

The snippet from Obama’s State of the Union Address is this:

“One in 10 Americans still cannot find work. Many businesses have shuttered. Home values have declined. Small towns and rural communities have been hit especially hard. And for those who’d already known poverty, life has become that much harder. This recession has also compounded the burdens that America’s families have been dealing with for decades — the burden of working harder and longer for less; of being unable to save enough to retire or help kids with college.”

The chart below shows the S&P 500 from January 2010 to today:

I think that Investing is Hard highlights an important idea about stock market risk: The riskiest time to invest is when everyone thinks there’s no risk; conversely, it’s the safest time to invest when everyone thinks risk is at its highest.

But why is this so? We can turn to the ideas of the late economist, Hyman Minsky, who passed on in 1996. When he was alive, Minsky was not well-known. It was after the Great Financial Crisis of 2007-09 that his ideas flourished.

That’s because he had a framework for understanding why economies go through inevitable boom-bust cycles. According to Minsky, stability itself is destabilising. When an economy is stable and growing, people feel safe. And when people feel safe, they take on more risk, such as borrowing more. This leads to the system becoming fragile.

Minsky was talking about the economy, but his idea can be extended to stocks. If we assume that stocks are guaranteed to grow by 8% per year, the only logical result would be that people would keep paying up for stocks, until stocks become way too expensive to produce that return. Or people will invest in stocks in a risky manner, such as borrowing to invest. But there are no guarantees in the real world. Bad things happen. And if stocks are priced for perfection in a fragile system, emergence of bad news will lead to falling stock prices.

The world of investing is full of paradoxes. The important idea that risk is at its highest when the perception of risk is at its lowest is one such example.

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.

How Future Dividends Drive Capital Growth in Stocks

What do we get when we buy a stock? In simplified terms, we are paying upfront for the rights to receive its future dividends.

The ultimate goal of investing is simply to make money.

The art of picking good investments is complicated but it boils down to one key question: What is the future cash investors can generate from an asset today? If we invest in real estate, rental income and resale value will determine our investment returns. For bonds, the cash flow is derived from coupons and the redemption value at maturity. Similarly, when we buy a stock it gives us the right to earn a stream of dividends in the future.

Companies that don’t pay dividends

But what if a company does not pay dividends? A famous example is Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway, which has only paid a dividend once since Buffett took over in 1965. Why then would a shareholder buy such a company if he is not going to earn any dividends from it?

The answer, though, still boils down to dividends. Shareholders believe that eventually, Berkshire will start paying them dividends. This, in turn, makes the company’s shares valuable so that it can then be sold to another investor.

I’ve drawn up a simple example to explain this.

Let’s assume Company ABC can earn $10 per share in year 1. From year 1 to year 10, it reinvests its entire profit and does not pay any dividend. During this time, it grows its profit by 30% per year.

From year 11 to year 20, it pays out 50% of its profit and reinvests the other 50% and grows its profits by 15% per year.

Eventually, in year 21, the company has run out of ways to grow its profits and decides to payout 100% of its profits to shareholders. It is able to earn this level of profit till eternity.

The table below shows how the value of the company changes over time based on the discounted dividend model.

I used a discount rate of 10% to calculate the value of the future dividend stream to the shareholder. As you can see, even though the company did not pay out any dividends in year 1, its shares still had value due to the promise of future dividends starting from year 11. The company’s share price grew as we got closer to the dividend-paying years.

As a result, even though shareholders in the first 10 years did not earn a cent in dividends, they still made money through capital gains.

From this example, we see the value of the company grows as the discount rate for the future cash flow decreases the closer we get to the dividend-paying years.

In addition, a company’s market value can also rise if there is an unexpected increase in earnings that results in a higher potential dividend.

Final words

Investing is ultimately about the future cash flow an investment brings for the investor.

In the case of stocks, it all boil down to dividends. Even capital appreciation is driven by (1) growth in dividends and (2) the smaller discount we apply to future dividends as the dividend stream draws closer.

Investing Is Hard

Near the start of every year, the President of the United States delivers the State of the Union Address. The speech is essentially a report card on how the US fared in the year that just passed and what lies ahead. It’s also a good gauge of the general sentiment of the US population on the country’s social, political, and economic future.

In one particular year, the then-US President said:

“We are fortunate to be alive at this moment in history. Never before has our nation enjoyed, at once, so much prosperity and social progress with so little internal crisis and so few external threats. Never before have we had such a blessed opportunity — and, therefore, such a profound obligation — to build the more perfect union of our founders’ dreams.

We begin the new century with over 20 million new jobs; the fastest economic growth in more than 30 years; the lowest unemployment rates in 30 years; the lowest poverty rates in 20 years; the lowest African-American and Hispanic unemployment rates on record; the first back-to-back budget surpluses in 42 years. And next month, America will achieve the longest period of economic growth in our entire history.

My fellow Americans, the state of our union is the strongest it has ever been.”

In another particular year, the US President of the time commented:

“One in 10 Americans still cannot find work. Many businesses have shuttered. Home values have declined. Small towns and rural communities have been hit especially hard. And for those who’d already known poverty, life has become that much harder. This recession has also compounded the burdens that America’s families have been dealing with for decades — the burden of working harder and longer for less; of being unable to save enough to retire or help kids with college.”

What do you think happened to the US stock market after the first and second speeches? Take some time to think – and no Googling allowed! If you had to bet on whether US stocks rose or declined after each speech, how would you bet?

…

Ready?

The first speech was delivered in January 2000, by Bill Clinton, near the peak of the dotcom bubble that saw US stocks – represented by the S&P 500 – fall by nearly half just a few years later. By the end of 2010, US stocks were lower than where they were when President Clinton gave his State of the Union Address.

The second speech was from President Barack Obama and was from January 2010. The US stock market bottomed out in March 2009 from the Great Financial Crisis. And from January 2010 to today, US stocks have been on an absolute tear, rising three-fold.

Investing is hard because the best time to invest can actually feel like the worst, while the worst time to invest can feel like the best time to do so. I’ve said before that I think “investing is only 5% finance and 95% everything else.” This 95% includes psychology and control of our emotions. But we humans are highly emotional creatures – and this is why investing is hard. The best antidote I currently have, is to be diversified geographically, and to invest regularly and – crucially – mechanically.

Making Sense Of Japan’s Epic Stock Market Bubble

Japanese stocks were in an epic bubble in late 1989. Understanding the size of the bubble gives us important perspective.

From time to time, Jeremy and myself receive questions from readers that are along this line: “Will the stock market of [insert country] be like Japan’s? Compared to its peak in late 1989, the Nikkei 225 Index – a representation of Japanese stocks – is still 40% lower today.”

It’s a good question, because Japanese stocks have indeed given investors a horrible return since late 1989, a period of more than 30 years. But perspective is needed when you’re thinking if any country’s stock market will go through a similar run as Japan’s stock market did from 1989 to today. Here’s some data for you to better understand what Japanese stocks went through back then:

Japanese stocks grew by 900% in US dollar terms in seven years from 1982 to 1989; that’s an annualised return of 39% per year.
At their peak in late 1989, Japanese stocks carried a CAPE (cyclically-adjusted price-to-earnings) ratio of nearly 100; in comparison, the US stock market’s CAPE ratio was ‘only’ less than 50 during the infamous 1999/2000 dotcom bubble. The CAPE ratio is calculated by dividing a stock’s price with its inflation-adjusted 10-year-average earnings. Near the end of May 2020, Japanese stocks had a CAPE ratio of 19, while US stocks today have a CAPE ratio of 30.

The data above show clearly that Japanese stocks were in an epic bubble in late 1989. It is the bursting of the bubble that has caused the painful loss delivered by Japan’s stock market since then.

If you’re worried about the potential for any country’s stock market to repeat the 1989-present run that Japanese stocks have had, then you should study the valuations of the country’s stock market. But you should note that there are two things that looking at valuations cannot do.

First, valuations cannot tell you the future earnings growth of a country’s stock market. If the earnings of a country’s stocks collapse in the years ahead for whatever reason (natural catastrophe, disease outbreak, war, incompetent leadership etc.), even a low valuation could prove to be expensive.

Second, valuations cannot protect you from short-term declines. What it can only do is to put the odds of success in your favour. In an earlier article, 21 Facts About The Wild World Of Finance and Investing, I shared the two charts below:

*Source: Robert Shiller’s* *data; my calculation*

They show the returns of the S&P 500 from 1871 to 2013 against its starting valuation for holding periods of 1 year (the first chart) and 10 years (the second chart). You can see that the relationship between valuation and eventual return – the higher the valuation, the lower the return – becomes much tighter when the holding period lengthens.

To end, I have another important takeaway from Japan’s experience: It’s important to diversify geographically. Global stocks have grown by around 5% per year in US dollar terms from 1989 to 2019, despite (1) the terrible performance of Japanese stocks in that period, and (2) Japan accounting for 45% of the global stock market by market capitalisation in early 1989.

Should We Wait For a Market Pullback?

Are you waiting for the stock market to pull back? Here are some thoughts on market timing and why I prefer to be always invested.

Just a glance at the price chart of a stock market index will tell you that stocks don’t go up in a straight line. Stocks go up in a zig-zag pattern, making peaks and troughs.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could keep buying at troughs and selling at peaks? We’d all be extremely rich. But the reality is it’s impossible. Even the best investors will tell you that timing the market perfectly is a pipedream. Yet, time and again, I still hear novice investors who are trying to do exactly that.

“The market looks expensive now. Maybe I should wait for another day.”

This statement may seem innocuous and something that many investors are feeling now. It is also understandable. The S&P 500 in the US fell by more than 30% from 19 February 2020 to 23 March 2020, but has since recovered almost all of the losses. Meanwhile, COVID-19 cases continue to surge and lockdowns are still imposed in many parts of the world.

I’m not saying that I know for a fact that stocks will keep rising from here. However, trying to time the market over the long-term will likely do you more harm than good. According to asset management firm Franklin Templeton, missing just a few of the stock market’s best days will severely damage your returns:

Source: https://www.franklintempleton.com/forms-literature/download/GOF-FL5VL

Staying fully invested over the 20 years leading up to December 2019 would have given you a 6.06% total annual return. However, miss just the best 10 days and your return would fall to only 2.44% per year. Miss the best 20 days, and your return drops to a negligible 0.08%. Miss the 30 best days and you are looking at a -1.95% annual loss. That would be 20 wasted years of investing.

I can draw one simple conclusion from this: The risk of staying out of the market is huge. Because of this, I much prefer a way less risky, albeit boring, approach of staying invested. By doing this, I know that I will not risk missing out on the best trading days of the market.

Less stress

Timing the market is also extremely stressful. Even for investors who are able to get it right once in a while, do the extra returns justify the effort? You’ll need to constantly monitor the market, find opportunities to buy and sell and are likely to still end up messing things up (see above).

Imagine you sold your investments just before some of the best trading days occur and the index/stock you are investing in never goes back to where you sold it at. You’d have missed out on some gains.

And what would you do next? Would you be able to convince yourself to buy back in at a higher price than you sold? You will likely continue compounding your mistake by never investing again. That’s a big mistake as historically the stock market tends to keep making new highs.

Final words

Time is your greatest friend in investing. There will always be reasons not to invest in the market.

The legendary investor Peter Lynch once said that “Wall Street makes its money on activity; you make your money on inactivity.” Investors who are tempted to time the market should remember these wise words.

3 Great Investing Lessons From My Favourite Warren Buffett Speech

Warren Buffett is one of my investing heroes.

He’s well known for producing incredible long-term returns at Berkshire Hathaway since assuming leadership of the company in 1965. What is less well-known is that he ran his own investment fund from 1957 to 1969 and achieved a stunning annualised return of 29.5%; the US stock market, in comparison, had gained just 7.4% per year over the same period.

Buffett has given numerous speeches and interviews throughout his long career. My favourite is a 1984 speech he gave titled The Superinvestors of Graham-and-Doddsville. I want to share three great lessons I have from the speech.

On what works in investing

Buffett profiled nine investors (including himself) in the speech. These investors invested very differently. For example, some were widely diversified while others were highly concentrated, and their holdings had no significant overlap.

There were only two common things among the group. First, they all had phenomenal long-term track records of investment success. Second, they all believed in buying businesses, not tickers. Here’re Buffett’s words:

“The common intellectual theme of the investors from Graham-and-Doddsville is this: they search for discrepancies between the value of a business and the price of small pieces of that business in the market.”

I firmly believe that there are many roads to Rome when it comes to investing in stocks. A great way is to – as Buffett pointed out – look at stocks as part-ownership of a real business. This is what I do too.

On risk and rewards

I commonly hear that earning high returns in stocks must entail taking on high risks. This is not always true. Buffett commented:

“It’s very important to understand that this group had assumed far less risk than average; note their record in years when the general market was weak.”

A stock becomes risky when its valuation is high. In such an instance, the potential return of the stock is also low because there’s no exploitable gap between the stock’s price and its intrinsic value. On the other hand, a stock becomes less risky when it’s priced low in relation to its intrinsic value; this is also when its potential return is high since there’s a wide exploitable-gap. So instead of “high risk / high return,” I think a better description of how investing works is “low risk / high return.”

It’s worth noting that a stock’s valuation is not high just because it carries a high price-to-earnings (P/E) or price-to-sales (P/S) ratio. What is more important here is the stock’s future business growth in relation to the ratios. A stock with a high P/E ratio can still be considered to have a low valuation if its business is able to grow significantly faster than average.

On why sound investing principles will always work

Will sharing the ‘secrets’ to investing cause them to fail? Maybe not. This is what Buffett said (emphasis is mine):

“In conclusion, some of the more commercially minded among you may wonder why I am writing this article. Adding many converts to the value approach will perforce narrow the spreads between price and value. I can only tell you that the secret has been out for 50 years, ever since Ben Graham and David Dodd wrote “Security Analysis”, yet I have seen no trend toward value investing in the 35 years I’ve practiced it. There seems to be some perverse human characteristic that likes to make easy things difficult.”

Surprisingly, it seems that human nature itself is what allows sound investing principles to continue working even after they’re widely known. Investing, at its core, is not something difficult – you buy small pieces of businesses at a price lower than their value, and be patient. So let’s not overcomplicate things, for there’s power in simplicity.

Is It Too Late To Invest in Stocks Now?

We are in a recession yet the S&P 500 has bounced strongly since March 2020. Why is this and does that mean stocks are overvalued now?

The S&P 500 index continues to defy gravity even as COVID-19 cases rise in the US.

Investors whom I’ve been talking to are understandably getting nervous. Will the S&P 500 eventually come crashing down to reflect the recession the world is living in?

Distinguishing the S&P 500 index from the economy

The first thing I want to point out is that the S&P 500 is not an accurate representation of the US economy.

The S&P 500 represents a basket of 500 of the biggest companies listed in the US. Although it may be tempting to assume that this basket of stocks should rise and fall in tandem with the whole economy, reality looks different.

There are 32 million businesses in the US, so the S&P 500 is just a fraction of this. In addition, the S&P 500 is a market-cap-weighted index that is heavily weighted toward just a few big firms such as Apple, Amazon, Alphabet, and Facebook. These mega-cap tech companies have arguably thrived during the COVID-19-induced lockdown.

Amazon, for example, had a big jump in sales due to the need for social distancing. Facebook double-downed on investing its spare cash. With so much cash on their balance sheets, these tech giants can find bargains at a time when other businesses are struggling for cash.

If these mega caps rise in value, it can positively skew the S&P 500.

But should we invest at all-time highs?

Another concern is whether we should invest at all-time high prices? The reality is that the S&P 500 reaching new all-time high prices is actually not that uncommon.

Engaging-data.com has some interesting data related to this topic. Between 1950 to 2019, there were a total of more than 17,000 trading days. Of which, the S&P 500 reached an all-time high on 1,300 days. Interestingly, if you invested on days after the S&P 500 reached all-time highs, you’d be doing just as well as if you invested on any other day.

The chart below compares your returns if you bought at all-time high (ATH) prices vs if you bought at any other time.

If you bought the S&P 500 the day after it hit a new high, your mean return over five years was 53.7%. If you bought on any other time, your mean return was 50.0%. I checked the 10-year return data, and the numbers point to the same conclusion. The mean return after 10 years, if you bought at a high, was 103.2% compared to 114.7% if you bought on all trading days.

The data shows that investing during new market highs, contrary to popular belief, gives you very similar returns to if you invested at any other time.

If this is a market peak?

But what if this market high is a peak and stocks do come crashing down after this? In this case, your returns will most likely not be as good as if you invested before or after the crash. However, that doesn’t mean you will have poor returns per se.

Ben Carlson, a respected financial blogger and wealth manager wrote an insightful piece in 2014 on investing just before a market crash.

In his article, Carlson wrote about a fictional investor who somehow managed to time his investments at all the worst times over a 40-year period. The investor invested in the S&P 500 just before the crash of 1973, before Black Monday of 1987, at the peak of the tech bubble in 1999, and at the peak before the start of the Great Financial Crisis of 2008.

Though this frictional investor was a terrible market timer, he was a long-term investor and never sold any of his positions. Despite his terrible luck in market timing, he ended up making a 490% return on his investment over his 40-year investing period.

This goes to show that even if you invest just before a crash, stocks tend to rebound and will eventually reach new peaks.

Final Takeaways

There are a few takeaways here:

It may be scary to invest in the stock market when it is at an all-time high. It is especially scary when the economy is in a recession, as we are seeing today. However, the S&P 500 is not the economy.
Not all companies have businesses that live or die by the broad economy. Some thrive during times of crisis and investing in these “anti-fragile” companies can pay dividends down the road.
Whether the S&P 500 is at an all-time high or not shouldn’t make a difference to a long-term investor. The stock market tends to keep making new highs.
Even if stocks were to fall dramatically tomorrow, if the past is anything to go by, investing in a broad index like the S&P 500 over the long-term will still provide a very decent return over a sufficiently long investing period.

A Quick Thought On “Expensive” Software Stocks

Are young software companies expensive?

A few days ago, I was mucking around with historical data on Alphabet, the parent company of the internet search engine of our time, Google. I found some interesting data on this company that led to me writing this short but hopefully thought-provoking article.

Alphabet was listed in August 2004 and closed its first trading day at a share price of US$50. By 31 January 2005, Alphabet’s share price had risen to US$98, and it carried an astronomical price-to-earnings ratio of 250. On 31 January 2005, Alphabet’s revenue and profit were respectively US$2.67 billion and US$222 milion, giving rise to a profit margin of 8.3%.

Today, Alphabet’s share price is US$1,418, which represents an annualised return of 19% from 31 January 2005. Its P/E ratio has shrunk to 29, and the company’s revenue and profit are US$166.7 billion and US$34.5 billion, respectively, which equate to a profit margin of 21%.

Today, many software companies – especially the young ones categorised as software-as-a-service (SaaS) companies – carry really high price-to-sales ratios of 30 or more (let’s call it, 35). Those seem like extreme valuations, especially when we consider that the SaaS companies are mostly loss-making and/or generating negative or meagre free cash flow. If we apply a 10% net profit margin to the SaaS companies, they are trading at an adjusted P/E ratio of 350 (35 / 0.10).

But many of the SaaS companies today – the younger ones especially – have revenues of less than US$2.7 billion, with huge markets to conquer. The mature SaaS companies have even fatter profit margins, relative to Alphabet, of 30% or more today. So, compared to Alphabet’s valuation back then on 31 January 2005, things don’t seem that out-of-whack now for SaaS companies, does it? Of course, the key assumptions here are:

The young SaaS companies of today can go on to grow at high rates for a long period of time;
The young SaaS companies can indeed become profitable in the future, with a solid profit margin.

Nobody can guarantee these assumptions to be true. But for me, looking at Alphabet’s history and where young SaaS companies are today provides interesting food for thought.