Weekly Market Commentary
REFLECTING ON NASDAQ 6,000
Burt White Chief Investment Officer, LPL Financial
Jeffrey Buchbinder, CFA Market Strategist, LPL Financial
The Nasdaq Composite hit 6,000 last week, more than 17 years after first reaching 5,000 in March 2000. The road from the first break above 5,000 to the 6,000 milestone was a long one. During the internet boom in the late 1990s, moves from 3,000 to 4,000 and 4,000 to 5,000 were quick, at 56 and 71 days respectively, before the long and winding road to 6,000 over the course of 6,256 days [Figure 1]. But after the 15-year journey back to 5,000 was completed in 2015, the Nasdaq traversed the next 1,000 points relatively quickly to break through the 6,000 level on April 25, 2017.
Even at the big round number of 6,000, the Nasdaq stands on a much stronger foundation today than it did 17 years ago leading up to the dotcom crash. While achieving this milestone has sparked more bubble discussions in the media, here we make the case that Nasdaq stocks are far from bubble territory by comparing various valuation and sentiment measures in today’s market with those back in March 2000.
THEN VS. NOW
To assess whether the Nasdaq reflects excessive speculation that has historically characterized bubbles, we can compare valuation measures today with the levels seen in 2000, which highlight just how dramatically different the environment was then:
- Price-to-earnings ratio (PE). The PE ratio for the Nasdaq in March 2000 on current year estimates was 107, versus 23 today. Even using the consensus forward (next 12 months) earnings estimates, the PE stood at 75 back in March 2000 compared with 22 today. The cash flow multiples also tell the same story: near 100 then compared with mid-20s now.
- Price-to-book ratio. Valuation measures based on the value of company assets minus liabilities, or book value, also reveal a much more expensive Nasdaq in 2000 versus now. The lack of assets supporting valuations was a big problem during the dotcom bubble (page views, eyeballs, and clicks were not enough). The price-to-book ratio at the peak in March 2000 was over 7, compared with 3.9 now (as of April 28, 2017). And those assets today produce far more profits.
- Technology sector concentration. Enthusiasm for technology took the sector’s weighting in broad indexes well above where it had been. At the March 2000 peak, the technology sector represented about 34% of the S&P 500 Index, compared with just 5% in the early 1990s, and the current level of 22%. The Nasdaq had a 57% technology weighting at the peak of the bubble, compared with 44% today.
- Market trajectory. Another way to compare today’s Nasdaq to the 2000 version is looking at the steepness of the two rallies, which reveals a dramatic difference. The Nasdaq has gained 22% over the past two years, compared to its 189% surge during the two years leading up to the March 10, 2000 peak. Clearly today’s technology rally lacks the parabolic nature of the dotcom bubble.
We can also look for signs of a bubble in gauges of market sentiment:
- Consumer confidence. The Conference Board’s reading on consumer confidence peaked at an all-time record high of 145 during January 2000. The latest reading at 120 for April 2017 [Figure 2] suggests consumers are less euphoric today. This measure has not been above 120 since December 2000, so although confidence is well below prior peaks, it is as high as it has been in some time.
- Business confidence. CEOs are actually as confident today as they were during the tech bubble, as hard as that may be to believe. The Conference Board’s CEO Con dence Index reading on March 31, 2017, stood at 67, the highest level since 2004, and well above the 52 reading for March 2000. We would be more concerned about this measure being too frothy if businesses were overspending, but they are clearly not. In fact, underinvestment has been the bigger problem in recent years, though we consider the pickup in business spending on equipment in the first quarter 2017 gross domestic product (GDP) data encouraging.
- Investor sentiment. According to the American Association of Individual Investors (AAII) survey of bulls and bears, the percentage of bulls reached a record high of 75% during January 2000 (a record that still stands), and averaged over 60% for an eight-week period over December and January. Today’s bullishness reading is much more tempered at 38%, and an eight week average of 31% for the week ending April 27, 2017 [Figure 3].
- Fund flows. How much investors allocate to equities is another way to assess sentiment. Based on data from the Investment Company Institute (ICI), net purchases of equity mutual funds by individuals exceeded $25 billion per month at the peak in early 2000, compared with outflows for each month over the past year except for February 2017. Roughly $14 billion flowed out of equity mutual funds during March 2017, reflecting continued investor skepticism. Not even adding equity exchange-traded funds (ETF) gets flows into positive territory for the past 12 months.
- Household stock holdings. Stocks held by households as a percentage of household financial assets, data tracked by the Federal Reserve (Fed), is another interesting sentiment gauge that provides a sharp contrast between 2000 and today. This statistic reached an all-time high during the first quarter of 2000 at 47.7%, while the most recent reading for the fourth quarter of 2016 stood at a much lower 38.5%. Given the relatively less attractive value in fixed income markets, this level seems reasonable even though it is above its 30-year average of 31.2%.
- Margin debt. Margin balances at broker dealers, another gauge of investor enthusiasm, is actually at a higher level than in 2000 as a percent of total market capitalization. According to Fed data, NYSE margin debt as a percentage of total NYSE market value currently stands at 2.7%, slightly above the 2.5% ratio in March of 2000. We tackled this risk in a recent blog (here), and note that we see the risk as manageable based on the low cost of margin debt because of low interest rates and strong consumer finances.
Market sentiment can be assessed in many other ways, including reviewing initial public offerings, venture capital and private equity deal activity, CNBC ratings, or magazine covers, among others. Regardless of the metric used, almost without exception, the difference in sentiment between 2000 and today is dramatic. It’s not hard to find a bearish opinion, which from a contrarian perspective is a good thing.
Bottom line, comparing valuation and sentiment measures today with levels during the dotcom bubble gives us comfort that stocks, in particular the technology and other growth stocks that make up the Nasdaq, can still be owned here. Even on an absolute basis, we find current valuation measures for growth stocks reasonable given the positive fundamental outlook, low interest rates, and still low inflation levels.
The Nasdaq 6,000 milestone provides an opportunity to reflect on the stark differences between the Nasdaq today and the peak of the dotcom bubble 17 years ago. A comparison of valuation and sentiment measures then versus now reveals that the Nasdaq appears far from bubble territory and sentiment is far less euphoric today. We believe investors should consider staying invested based on the potential for the economic expansion to extend through 2018 and beyond, based on our assessment of leading economic indicators, despite the nervousness that may come with these milestones. We maintain our slight preference for growth stocks over value and our positive view of the technology sector. — —
The opinions voiced in this material are for general information only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual. To determine which investment(s) may be appropriate for you, consult your financial advisor prior to investing. All performance referenced is historical and is no guarantee of future results.
The economic forecasts set forth in the presentation may not develop as predicted and there can be no guarantee that strategies promoted will be successful.
Investing in stock includes numerous specific risks including: the fluctuation of dividend, loss of principal, and potential liquidity of the investment in a falling market.
All investing involves risk including loss of principal.
Because of its narrow focus, specialty sector investing, such as healthcare, financials, or energy, will be subject to greater volatility than investing more broadly across many sectors and companies.
All indexes are unmanaged and cannot be invested into directly.
The Standard & Poor's 500 Index is a capitalization-weighted index of 500 stocks designed to measure performance of the broad domestic economy through changes in the aggregate market value of 500 stocks representing all major industries.
The Nasdaq Composite Index measures all Nasdaq domestic and non-U.S.-based common stocks listed on the Nasdaq stock market. The index is market-value weighted. This means that each company’s security affects the index in proportion to its market value. The market value, the last sale price multiplied by total shares outstanding, is calculated throughout the trading day, and is related to the total value of the index. It is not possible to invest directly in an index.
The Consumer Confidence Index is based on consumers’ perceptions of current business and employment conditions, as well as their expectations for six months hence regarding business conditions, employment, and income. Three thousand households across the country are surveyed each month. In general, while the level of consumer confidence is associated with consumer spending, the two do not move in tandem each and every month.
American Association of Individual Investors (AAII) is a nonprofit organization that arms individual investors with the education and tools they need to build wealth.
The Investment Company Institute (ICI) is the national association of U.S. investment companies, including mutual funds, closed-end funds, exchange-traded funds (ETF), and unit investment trusts (UIT). Members of ICI manage total assets of $11.18 trillion and serve nearly 90 million shareholders.
The Consumer Confidence Index is a monthly survey of 5,000 U.S. households, published by the Conference Board since 1967, measuring American consumer outlook and confidence.
The PE ratio (price-to-earnings ratio) is a measure of the price paid for a share relative to the annual net income or profit earned by the firm per share. It is a financial ratio used for valuation: a higher PE ratio means that investors are paying more for each unit of net income, so the stock is more expensive compared to one with lower PE ratio.
Price-to-book ratio is the stock’s capitalization divided by its book value. The value is the same whether the calculation is done for the whole company or on a per-share basis. This ratio compares the market’s valuation of a company with the value of that company as indicated on its financial statements.
Forward price-to-earnings is a measure of the price-to-earnings ratio (PE) using forecasted earnings for the PE calculation. While the earnings used are just an estimate and are not as reliable as current earnings data, there is still benefit in estimated PE analysis. The forecasted earnings used in the formula can either be for the next 12 months or for the next full-year fiscal period.
Price-to-cash flow is a measure of the market’s expectations of a firm’s future financial health.
Trailing PE is the sum of a company’s price-to-earnings, calculated by taking the current stock price and dividing it by the trailing earnings per share for the past 12 months.
To purchase on margin is to borrow money used for the purchase of securities. Margin debt represents of the dollar value of the securities purchased and carries an interest rate. This means the value of margin debt will change each day as interest accrues and the values of the underlying securities fluctuates.
This research material has been prepared by LPL Financial.
To the extent you are receiving investment advice from a separately registered independent investment advisor, please note that LPL Financial is not an affiliate of and makes no representation with respect to such entity.
RES 5901 0517 | Tracking #1-604293 (Exp. 05/18)
retrieved from: LPL-research.com
Prior Weekly Market Commentaries:
- December 11 2017: CORPORATE BEIGE BOOK: UPBEAT AS EXPECTED
- December 4 2017: 2018 STOCK MARKET OUTLOOK: DOUBLE-DIGIT RETURNS?
- November 20 2017: HIGHLIGHTS FROM ANOTHER STRONG EARNINGS SEASON
- November 12 2017: TRUMP’S FIRST YEAR
- November 6 2017: MLP WEAKNESS APPEARS OVERDONEETS
- October 30 2017: WHAT MIGHT SCARE MARKETS
- October 23 2017: FIVE REASONS TO TAKE A LOOK AT JAPAN
- October 16 2017: THE 1987 CRASH: A NOT SO HAPPY ANNIVERSARY
- October 9 2017: THIRD QUARTER 2017 EARNINGS PREVIEW: SLOWER BUT STILL SOLID
- October 2 2017: MARKETS BUYING INTO TAX REFORM
- September 25 2017: THE BULL MARKET APPEARS ALIVE AND WELL
- September 18 2017: UPDATE ON GROWTH AND VALUE STOCKS
- September 11 2017: STRONG EUROPEAN EARNINGS ARE KEEPING EUROPE CHEAP
- September 5 2017: PUTTING THE NORTH KOREAN THREAT INTO PERSPECTIVE
- August 28 2017: CORPORATE BEIGE BOOK: UPBEAT AS EXPECTED
- August 21 2017: TAKING A LITTLE RISK OFF THE TABLE
- August 14 2017: BOTTOM LINE: IMPRESSIVE EARNINGS SEASON
- August 7 2017: BUY THE DIP? WHAT DIP?
- July 31 2017: IS POLICY SKEPTICISM CREATING A SMALL CAP OPPORTUNITY?
- July 24 2017: TAX REFORM PIVOT?
- July 17 2017: GLOBAL SUMMER EARNINGS: SIZZLE OR FIZZLE?
- July 10 2017: SECOND QUARTER 2017 EARNINGS PREVIEW: Q1 A TOUGH ACT TO FOLLOW
- June 26 2017: A TECHNICAL CHECK-IN: THE GLOBAL BULL LOOKS STRONG
- June 19 2017: MIDYEAR OUTLOOK 2017: BUSINESS FUNDAMENTALS BACK AT THE CONTROLS
- June 12 2017: HURDLING OVERSEAS EARNINGS-WHAT DO THE FORECASTS TELL US?
- June 5 2017: MASTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP MORE GOING ON THAN OIL PRICE
- May 30 2017: CORPORATE BEIGE BOOK: IT KEEPS GETTING BETTER
- May 22 2017: FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS
- May 15 2017: EARNINGS UPDATE: RAISING THE BAR
- May 8 2017: FIVE REASONS NOT TO SELL IN MAY
- May 1 2017: REFLECTING ON NASDAQ 6,000
- April 24 2017: EUROPE ENTERS THE TOUR DE FRANCE
- April 17 2017: WHICH BREAKS FIRST, STOCK PRICES OR UNCERTAINTY?
- April 10 2017: FIRST QUARTER 2017 EARNINGS PREVIEW: DOUBLE DIGITS?
- April 3 2017: CHECKING IN ON SOME TRUMP TRADES
- March 27 2017: THE STOCK MARKET’S FINAL FOUR FACTORS
- March 20 2017: WILL THIS SIXTEEN BE SWEET?
- March 13 2017: HOW MUCH IS LEFT IN THE TANK?
- March 6 2017: CORPORATE BEIGE BOOK: BETTER SENTIMENT AND LOTS OF TAX TALK
- February 27 2017: TIPTOE THROUGH THE TULIPS AND OTHER EUROPEAN OFFERINGS
- February 21 2017: EARNINGS UPDATE: FIVE OBSERVATIONS
- February 13 2017: REAL ESTATE OVERVIEW: ALL ABOUT THE CYCLES
- February 6 2017: TAKING STOCK OF TECHNICALS AND SENTIMENT
- January 30 2017: IS THERE STILL VALUE IN VALUE?
- January 23 2017: INTERNATIONAL STOCKS WE LOOK EAST TO JAPAN
- January 17 2017: IS SMALL CAP STRENGTH SUSTAINABLE?
- January 9 2017: FOURTH QUARTER 2016 EARNINGS PREVIEW: LOOKS LIKE ANOTHER GOOD ONE
- January 3 2017: 2017 STOCK MARKET OUTLOOK: GEARS ARE TURNING, BUT PARTS MAY NEED GREASE
- December 19 2016: A LOOK BACK AT 2016 HITS AND MISSES
- December 12 2016: CAN’T STOCKS AND BOND YIELDS JUST GET ALONG?
- December 5 2016: IRRATIONAL EXUBERANCE PART TWO?