“To act wisely when the time for action comes, to wait patiently when it is time for repose, put man in accord with the tides. Ignorance of this law results in periods of unreasoning enthusiasm on the one hand, and depression on the other.” – Helena Blavatsky, Russian esoteric philosopher, and author who co-founded the Theosophical Society in 1875
“Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.” – Stephen Hawking
“As soon as you stop wanting something, you get it.” – Andy Warhol
One of the universally accepted ideas in sport is that of home court advantage. The idea, after all, is not a difficult one to accept: Home teams have the crowd behind them, cheering them on, filling them with confidence; visiting teams, on the other hand, have to deal with the home crowd’s hostility, which saps energy. And the stats seemingly reinforce the idea. For example, over the course of the NBA’s history, home teams have won roughly 60 per cent of the games played in almost any given season.
The crowd is powerful.
When it comes to capital markets, the crowd has unquestionably been cheering on growth and mocking value. Leaving many a value investor confounded by the apparently unstoppable rise in the likes of Netflix, Amazon, and NVIDIA. While valuations may be stretched and fundamentals in some cases appear questionable, if we take a step back and consider the secular trend, the continued outperformance of technology becomes less puzzling.
Plotting total business sales of US corporates against the ratio of Nasdaq 100 Index to the S&P 500 Index, we find a strong correlation – 74.1% using monthly data – between the two data series. That is the outperformance of the technology focused Nasdaq 100 Index relative to the broader S&P 500 Index is positively correlated with US business sales.
Total US Business Sales versus Nasdaq 100 Index to S&P 500 Index Ratio Sources: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Bloomberg
Given the latency between data releases, this relationship does not provide a trading signal. The relationship, however, does appear to suggest that US business sales growth has largely been dependent upon the growth in sales at technology companies and the market accordingly has rewarded technology stocks.
Our goal here is not to espouse the merits of investing in technology or in growth. Instead, we want to focus on what we consider to be the most interesting part of the above chart – the period from 2003 through 2006. During this period US business sales grew strongly yet the ratio between the two indices flat lined i.e. the S&P 500’s price performance roughly matched that of the NASDAQ 100.[i]
Digging a little deeper, we plot the ratio of per share sales of the S&P 500 to per share sales of the NASDAQ 100 against the relative price performance of the NASDAQ 100 Index to the S&P 500 Index. Zooming in on the period between 2003 and 2007 we find that the comparable price performance of the two indices during this period coincided with the quarterly fluctuations in per share sales also being comparable. Similarly, during the years of significant relative outperformance by the NASDAQ 100 Index, we find that per shares sales of the index were increasing relative to the per share sales of the S&P 500 Index.
Nasdaq 100 Index T12M Sales to S&P 500 Index T12M Ratio (Quarterly Data)Source: Bloomberg
Next, we consider the relative performance of S&P 500 Growth Index to that of the S&P 500 Value Index. Comparing the performance of these two indices we find that while the Nasdaq 100 Index and S&P 500 Index achieved comparable performance during the period from 2003 through 2006, the value index significantly outperformed the growth index during this period. The value index peaked relative to the growth index in 2007.
Ratio of S&P 500 Growth Index to S&P 500 Value Index (Monthly Data)Source: Bloomberg
At the time of the dotcom bubble the ratio of the growth index to the value index, on a monthly basis, peaked at 1.56. Today the ratio stands at 1.47.
The crowd may well be at the cusp of switching loyalties.
We look for clues in and around the period between 2003 and 2007 to help us determine whether the time for value is coming or not.
The cyclical low in the effective US Federal Funds Rate registered a cyclical low in 2003.
US Federal Funds Effective RateSource: Bloomberg
The Commodity Research Bureau All Commodities Spot Index registered a cyclical low in 2001 and MSCI Emerging Markets Index started its multi-year ascent in 2003.
CRB Spot All Commodities IndexSource: Bloomberg
MSCI Emerging Markets IndexSource: Bloomberg
The US dollar had its cyclical peak in 2002, the same year in which the Bush Administration imposed tariffs on imported steel.
In 2004, Congress approved a one-time tax holiday for US corporations repatriating overseas profits.
In 2005, George Bush signed a USD 286 billion transportation bill.
If we compare the events and market action that preceded and coincided with the relative outperformance of value during the years from 2003 to 2007 to that of today, we find many similarities across both policy-making and market action. With growth’s outperformance relative to value reaching levels last seen during the very same period, the signs are difficult to ignore. It may not be time to bail on growth as yet, but it certainly is not the time to have a 100 per cent allocation to it either.
Human nature is such that we desire that which is rare and take for granted that which is common. In the recent past growth has been elusive – and that which has been available has been heavily concentrated in the US and in technology. It is no wonder then that investors have rushed into US technology names without abandon.
Growth is no longer as elusive. We can find growth in Asia, Europe and other parts of the emerging world and across both old industries and new. With its abundance the price of growth should de-rate. Value, however, has become hard to find and it is this scarcity of value, we believe, that will bring about the inevitable shift in market leadership away from technology to other sectors.
Forewarned is forearmed.
[i] The total return for the NASDAQ 100 Index for the period was 80.9% versus 74.05% for the S&P 500 Index.
Please don’t forget to share!
This post should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation to purchase any particular security, strategy or investment product. References to specific securities and issuers are not intended to be, and should not be interpreted as, recommendations to purchase or sell such securities. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed.