Over 20 years in the past, the NASDAQ Composite Index soared to what was its all-time excessive. On 10 March 2000, it crested at the 5,132 mark.
After which issues got here crashing down.
The dot-com bubble popped. From its spectacular heights, the NASDAQ Composite plunged right into a downward spiral, dropping by roughly 75% within the subsequent two years. It might take a few decade and a half all instructed for the index to return to and surpass its earlier peak.
Latest volatility however, many traders take a look at the NASDAQ at the moment and have a way of déjà vu. They’re beginning to describe the index’s efficiency with phrases like these trotted out in the course of the tech bubble of the late Nineteen Nineties. Valuation ranges for these new tech darlings, the analysts inform us, are “frothy,” “extreme,” and every now and then, “bubble-like.”
So what are we to make up off all this? Is the NASDAQ headed for one more crash, a bust of doubtless dot-com bubble proportions?
For perception on these questions, we in contrast the present tech panorama to that of the dot-com bubble period of 2000. To do that, we took all NASDAQ-listed corporations on 10 March 2000 and 1 September 2020 and divided all tech-focused companies into 15 sub-industries. From this, we derived the median price-to-book (P/B) and price-to-sales (P/S) ratios for every of the 15 classes and in contrast these values on the two totally different deadlines.
Why these two valuation measures slightly than the extra frequent price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio? As a result of greater than half of the businesses within the yr 2000 pattern had adverse earnings and thus lacked a usable P/E.
So what was the takeaway? What does the comparative evaluation inform us?
|March 2000 P/B||March 2000 P/S||September 2020 P/B||September 2020 P/S|
|Web Content material||7.25||32.44||4.52||3.15|
|Software program: Software||10.57||13.39||5.64||3.99|
|Software program: Infastructure||9.07||8.71||6.44||4.38|
Fairly merely, most tech sector classes are nonetheless nowhere close to the valuation ranges of the dot-com period.
In reality, on a P/B foundation, the median tech sector agency of March 2000 had a valuation stage that was 100% larger than that of its September 2020 counterpart. And on a P/S foundation, the median March 2000 tech firm had a 200% larger valuation stage.
Solely two tech classes had valuation ranges in September 2020 that approached these of March 2000. These had been the Digital Gaming and Scientific Gear sectors. In Digital Gaming, the September 2020 median firm’s P/S valuation exceeded that of its March 2000 predecessor. And the median Scientific Gear firm’s valuation on a P/S and P/B bases outpaced that from March 2000.
Except for Digital Gaming and Scientific gear, all 13 of the opposite tech classes had increased valuations in March 2000 than they did in September 2020. Notably, the Web Content material class had a median P/S ratio of 32.44 in March 2000 in comparison with 3.15 in September 2020, whereas the median Semiconductor agency had a P/B ratio of 13.85 in March 2000 and three.32 in September 2020.
Our analysis demonstrates that whereas the present tech business has but to copy the extreme valuations seen within the lead-up to the dot-com crash, their valuations ranges are elevated. Certainly, in most subcategories, they’re increased than they had been in practically all different years other than the lead as much as the tech bubble in 1998 and 1999.
In fact, regardless that valuation ranges would want to double and even triple to match to in March 2020, pundits will little doubt proceed to take a position and sound the alarm. “Tech is overvalued and approaching dot-com bubble territory,” they’ll warn.
However primarily based on our evaluation, such considerations are overblown and such warnings protected to disregard. Regardless of the present period for tech shares, it’s not a dot-com redux.
In case you preferred this submit, don’t overlook to subscribe to the Enterprising Investor.
All posts are the opinion of the writer. As such, they shouldn’t be construed as funding recommendation, nor do the opinions expressed essentially replicate the views of CFA Institute or the writer’s employer.
Picture credit score: ©Getty Pictures / egromov