Post New

I sense a majority (61% per Google) of employed or retired US citizens are investing in markets. So when there is some type of real turbulence/recession it seems the Fed and the political system will likely “have investors’ backs” (and their own)as well. Where else is one going to invest their savings, have a comfortable retirement and attempt to combat inflation?

There seems to be few other ready reasonable options imo for most every day Americans. Back in the ‘60s and ‘70s, I sensed people were more anxious and suspicious of the equity markets, but now it seems a majority of employed folks in their 20’s and beyond are invested and seem to have a sense of comfort it seems. US stock markets I believe represent $51 trillion.

Occasionally reflect back on the “lost decade” from 2000-2010. Am I reaching here for extra peace of mind, and do other shrewds see these governmental “backstops” legitimate during times of real turbulence over the next couple decades based on the last 2-3 decades? Thanks

There seems to be few other ready reasonable options imo for most every day Americans. Back in the ‘60s and ‘70s, I sensed people were more anxious and suspicious of the equity markets, but now it seems a majority of employed folks in their 20’s and beyond are invested and seem to have a sense of comfort it seems.

I wonder if the equity risk premium has changed because of this? People are more comfortable with stocks so perhaps they are willing to accept higher multiples.

I wonder if the equity risk premium has changed because of this? People are more comfortable with stocks so perhaps they are willing to accept higher multiples.

There are plenty of industrial companies you can find today at low earnings multiples, just like you'd find in the old days. Here are a few:

Company     P/E Ratio
AT&T           6.8
Altria         8.2
Verizon        8.0
Exxon          9.6
Bristol-Myers 12.7
Pfizer        15.4

They pay some big dividends, too.

The high earnings multiples you're referring to are being given to the software-driven megacaps like Microsoft, Apple, Google and Amazon that have created massive, global platforms, from which they are generating billions in revenue at fat gross margins that the industrials can only dream of. Those are a whole different ball game. They're not being given higher multiples because investors are comfortable that the "Fed has their back".

The higher P/E ratios for software companies compared to industrial companies can be attributed to several key factors:

Growth Potential:

Software companies generally have much higher growth potential than industrial companies. Their products and services can be easily scaled up and replicated at minimal cost, and they can reach a global audience through the internet. This potential for exponential growth makes investors willing to pay a premium for their shares, reflected in the higher P/E ratio.

Industrial companies, on the other hand, are often mature businesses with limited growth prospects. Their products may be expensive to manufacture and distribute, and they may face intense competition in established markets. This translates to slower earnings growth and a lower P/E ratio.

Intangible Assets:

Software companies' value is driven largely by intangible assets like intellectual property, brand recognition, and customer loyalty. These assets are difficult to quantify but can be extremely valuable, particularly in a knowledge-based economy. Investors recognize this value by assigning a higher premium to the stock price, contributing to the higher P/E ratio.
Industrial companies, in contrast, rely more on tangible assets like factories, equipment, and inventory. While these assets can be valuable, they are easier to depreciate and replicate, leading to a lower perceived value per share and a lower P/E ratio.

Market Sentiment:

Tech stocks, including software companies, are often popular investments during periods of optimism and risk tolerance in the market. This can lead to investors being willing to pay higher prices for these stocks, further inflating their P/E ratios.
Industrial stocks may be viewed as safer investments during economic downturns or periods of market uncertainty. However, this can also lead to lower valuations and P/E ratios as investors prioritize stability over growth.

Accounting Differences:

Certain accounting practices specific to the software industry can also contribute to higher P/E ratios. For example, research and development (R&D) expenses for software companies are often treated as investments rather than expenses, which can artificially inflate earnings per share and further boost the P/E ratio.

Industrial companies may have higher depreciation expenses due to their reliance on tangible assets. This can lower their reported earnings and contribute to a lower P/E ratio.

It's important to remember that a higher P/E ratio doesn't necessarily mean a stock is overvalued or undervalued. It simply indicates that investors are expecting higher future growth for software companies compared to industrial companies. Carefully analyzing the fundamentals of each company and comparing P/E ratios within respective industries is crucial before making investment decisions.

Thanks, that's a wonderful breakdown.

Certain accounting practices specific to the software industry can also contribute to higher P/E ratios. For example, research and development (R&D) expenses for software companies are often treated as investments rather than expenses, which can artificially inflate earnings per share and further boost the P/E ratio.

I think R&D is treated as an expense which lowers earnings. This is a reason why software companies can support a higher PE.
If the R&D was treated as an investment, then the software company earnings would be higher, and for a given stock price the PE would be lower. Example, price $10, earnings before R&D $5, after subtraction of R&D as expense, earnings $4. PE 2.5.
If R&D treated as investment, Price $10, earnings before R&D $5, no subtraction of R&D. Earnings = $5 PE 2.

One of the reasons that it is difficult to compare historical PE ratios for the SP500 as the weighting of different industries within the SP500 has changed over time.

https://einvestingforbeginners.com/rd-spending-as-...

XOM has about $1B R&D and $25B capital expenditure, so earnings are reduced by $1B R&D and reduced for some depreciation
GOOG has about $39B R&D and $31B capital expenditure, so earnings are reduced by $39B R&D and reduced for some depreciation

Another factor for difficulty in comparing historical SP500 PEs is that stock holdings of companies such as BRK are now valued at mark to market pricing, so earnings are much more variable which means the PE ratio is much more variable

Craig

Post New

Mechanical Investing FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.