FOR TOO many investors, holding FAANG stocks (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Alphabet’s Google) is coming to be an obligatory part of the investment process. These firms’ valuations are often based on optimistic assessments of their future growth potential, but when it becomes apparent that these projections are erroneous the correction can be dramatic, as the recent plunge in the share prices of both Facebook and Netflix demonstrates.
Technology has performed very strongly in recent years and now makes up a large part of global equity indices. While there is value in some of the 'old' US tech names, there is an increasing number of red flags for investing in the sector.
One point to note is the continued shift to passive investing. The increasing prevalence of exchange-traded funds (ETFs), which invest in the whole market, is creating a virtuous circle for the FAANG stocks, which make up the largest part of the US equity market. As investing through ETFs involves buying shares without any regard to valuation it is easy to see how the FAANGs can rapidly become overvalued. The growth in passive investing and particularly ETFs is a relatively recent phenomenon that has undoubtedly worked well for both investors and the FAANG stocks during the elongated bull market. However, this may unwind rapidly if and when markets turn.
It is becoming apparent that some investors are now taking a top-down view on the sector and targeting a specific weighting irrespective of the valuation of the underlying stocks. This suspension of the investment process is very noticeable in both UK and European markets where there is a scarcity of tech and investors have to pay very full multiples to gain exposure.
In an environment of lower global growth, there is admittedly some rationale for paying a premium for faster-growing businesses. Nevertheless, many of the highly valued tech businesses are very large already, with market capitalisations in the hundreds of billions of dollars and share prices already discounting substantial future returns. Many of these tech businesses must therefore be considered high-risk investments.
Indeed, the market capitalisation of these relatively young companies, which are disrupting many aspects of business and the every-day lives of consumers, remains staggering. At some point governments across the world will have to look at the regulation and taxation of these companies.
It is hard to categorically state that any of these businesses are overvalued. However, investors have priced-in bold assumptions on the future rate of growth, technological change and challenges to their market positions, both from new entrants and regulatory challenges.
Crucially, while growth drivers such as the shift to the cloud, the internet of things, machine learning and autonomous vehicles are very interesting, older US tech stocks are actually a much cheaper way of playing these trends.
Cisco, IBM and Intel all have the characteristics value-orientated investors should look for in any investment. Their valuations are low because they are not pure plays on the new growth drivers. However, they are all investing massively in next-generation technology.
For example, Cisco is transitioning its business model away from a traditional 'book and ship' every quarter model to a combination of hardware, software and recurring revenues.
IBM has created a strategic-imperatives division, which is growing by 10 to 15 per cent per annum and now represents over 40% of group revenue.
And Intel, meanwhile, is trying to evolve from a personal computer company to one that provides the infrastructure for an increasingly smart and connected world.
There is value to be found in the technology sector - you just need to know where to look for it.
David Keir is a fund manager at Saracen.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here