Posted by on
Tags:
Categories: ALPHABET Amazon Cisco DELL EMC facebook Intel Microsoft

Summary The 1999-2000 tech balloon was not an online-only phenomenon. The “Four Horsemen” that controlled more than half of the market capitalization for the ill-fated @Nasdaq – @Microsoft, @Intel, @Cisco and @Dell – were exceptionally profitable. The notion that @Facebook, @Amazon, @Netflix and @Google/ @Alphabet represent something entirely different in terms of profitability is flawed. The ratio of American households’ net worth to disposable income in 2000 hit 620%, due in large part to tech stock euphoria. Now we have “FANG” stocks emulating the “Four Horsemen” and real estate prices in key parts of the country stretching affordability. Should investors really be dismissive of the ratio in 2017? Those who do not wish to draw any parallels between today’s stock market and the 1999-2000 tech stock bubble typically claim that “all of those turn-of-the-century dot-coms weren’t making any money. Today’s 2017 superstars – Facebook (NASDAQ:FB), Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN), Netflix (NASDAQ:NFLX) and Google/Alphabet (GOOG, GOOGL) – make money hand over fist!” The problem with this rationalization is threefold. First, the 1999-2000 tech balloon was not an online-only phenomenon. The “Four Horsemen” that controlled more than half of the market capitalization for the ill-fated Nasdaq – Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT), Intel (NASDAQ:INTC), Cisco (NASDAQ:CSCO) and Dell (NYSE:DVMT) – were exceptionally profitable. They also were extremely overvalued at a combined price-to-earnings ratio (P/E) of 60. It follows that the notion that Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google/Alphabet represent something entirely different in terms of profitability is flawed, especially when one considers an average P/E of 130 for “FANG.” Second, the ratio of American households’ net worth to disposable income in 2000 hit 620%, due primarily to an 18-year old secular bull market and tech stock euphoria. It was unsustainable, however, largely because the ratio had rarely deviated more than 1 standard deviation from its mean and because asset prices had frequently correlated with after-tax wage growth. Similarly, the ratio hit 650% on residential housing jubilation prior to the financial collapse in 2008. That too was unsustainable. Now we have “FANG” stocks emulating the “Four Horsemen,” the median stock bubbling over with froth, and real estate prices in key parts of the country stretching affordability. Should investors really be dismissive of the ratio in 2017?

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4114497-3-reasons-fang-phenomenon-will-end-badly

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.