By David Coombs
Looking back to the height of the global financial crisis in 2008, banks were in the eye of the storm.
Unprecedented bailouts led many people to think banks had got off without any repercussions. The reality is that they have had to overhaul their businesses and are still paying the price 12 years later in the form of solvency requirements and super taxes.
Going into the crisis, banks were stalwarts of the stock market – “growth” stocks that consistently delivered strong, and reliable levels of income and steady capital growth to investors.
Since the crisis, they have become “value” stocks – more risk-averse businesses that face significant challenges and have more conservative valuations and little to no dividends to match.
A similar fate has this year befallen the hospitality and leisure sectors. Covid-19 headwinds have battered the profitability, outlook and share prices of many companies in these sectors and made them hunting grounds for investment managers who love the unloved.
While not disputing the impact on hospitality and leisure, it is in fact healthcare that is in the eye of this storm this time around.
Healthcare systems in the Western world have not coped well with the pandemic. The blame does not fall on healthcare professionals themselves – those doctors and nurses who have done everything possible to help those who have contracted the virus.
Arguably, neither does it rest with today’s political leaders – Donald Trump in the US, Emmanuel Macron in France, Angela Merkel in Germany, or Boris Johnson in the UK. Johnson has served as Prime Minister for little over a year.
It is also not a question of public versus private health systems. Countries like the US and Germany that operate mainly private or hybrid systems have struggled alongside the UK.
The problems inherent in healthcare systems have been built up under various administrations over decades. The answer has hitherto been thought to lie in throwing more money at healthcare but this has so far proved insufficient.
The real answer is to make healthcare systems more efficient and the way to do that is through medical technology, or “medtech”.
The NHS has poor IT infrastructure and lacks a central database. Technology has the potential to improve everything from the basics of administration and record-keeping, to the efficiency of surgical operations through robotics.
British medical equipment manufacturer Smith & Nephew, for example, has developed robotics-assisted technology for knee and hip replacements, reducing the time it takes to perform such operations.
Medtech also has a role to play in early diagnosis and better testing, a trend that the pandemic will likely accelerate.
Scientific equipment and testing companies that we believe might benefit include America’s Thermo Fisher Scientific and Abbott Laboratories, and Luxembourg’s Eurofins Scientific.
We also own US-headquartered Dexcom, which makes continuous glucose monitoring systems for diabetes management. When we emerge from the crisis, it is global medtech players like these that will be able to create the necessary efficiencies and reduce costs.
There will be a ripple effect too. Disease prevention is far cheaper than treatment. Government-imposed tobacco and alcohol taxes have not had a huge impact on people’s propensity to smoke and drink.
While the intention is absolutely right, it is possible sugar taxes could face similar challenges.
Companies that promote better health and diet should prosper.
Denmark’s Christian Hansen develops natural solutions for the food, beverage, nutritional, pharmaceutical and agricultural industries, while producers of plant-based meat substitutes are gaining traction.
Saving healthcare costs, creating efficiencies and promoting healthier lifestyles are the solutions to the health crisis.
Different countries will reach the same conclusion at different rates and some of the companies that stand to benefit are not listed yet, making this a long-term theme.
We can expect a lot of activity over the next five years and a lot of opportunity for investors looking for the rainbow after this particular storm.
David Coombs is head of multi-asset investments at Rathbones
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