Commentaries

The Envestnet Edge, June 2017

FANG, FAAMG: Too Big a Bite of the Market?

Download the full PDF

Are FANG valuations bloated or an ongoing opportunity? Investors of a certain age might recall the implosion of the “Nifty Fifty” in the 1970s, which brought the stock market to its knees. This month, we talk FANG and FAAMG stocks to determine whether these thriving businesses have staying power.

With the S&P 500 up nearly 10% for the year through mid-June, many investors are nervous about what lies ahead. Even more nerve-wracking is that an outsized portion of the total returns have been generated by just a few stocks. A few mega-technology companies have, in fact, been driving returns on and off for the past three years: the FANG stocks (Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google) which have recently been modified with a new, mouth-crunching acronym, the FAAMG stocks (Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft and Google). Depending on which lovely acronym you use, between 33% to 40% of returns are attributable to those stocks alone (and more than 50% of Nasdaq’s returns year-to-date), even though they represent barely 10% of total market capitalization.

The question then is whether this is a good thing—a stable basis of market performance, or a bad thing—too much concentration, too much weight, too little diversification, and too many investors piling in just cause. The short answer? Aspects of momentum trading may be propelling these names, and they may be ripe for volatility, but at their core, these names are surging disproportionately because they are disproportionately benefiting from the continued disruptions in our economy. These stocks are soaring because their businesses are thriving.

Too much, too fast? Or just right?

There’s no doubt that the strength of these names has attracted scrutiny. On June 9, the group was slammed, with Apple down more than 5%, after several Wall Street investment banks issued client notes warning of overvaluation and overconcentration in the sector. Goldman Sachs issued a note asking, “Is FANG Mispriced?” Others flagged the fact that the FAAMG names had added more than $600 billion in market capitalization in 2017 alone, and that many of the shares appear to be owned by individual investors, which can be taken as a sign of momentum buying without due consideration of fundamentals.

The selling continued into the following week before the names bounced a bit. That sell-off seemed to prove the point: that these names have been surging on momentum and mindless buying, which makes them vulnerable to exactly the pullback that they then demonstrated.

Yet even those reports, warning as they did of potential pitfalls, were not negative about the underlying fundamentals. And how could they be? These mega-cap companies have impressive earnings growth and continue to generate more revenue each year. Even Apple, which is in many ways a mature company that should be long past its “growth” stage, has shown modest revenue growth on nearly $300 billion in sales. In 2016, Apple had a slight decline in total sales, and its shares lagged (which is one reason why is it was not included as part of that initial FANG group), but this year it has returned to modest single-digit revenue and earnings growth. And it is the laggard among that mega-tech group.

Amazon recently announced its bid to purchase Whole Foods Market for $13 billion, thereby continuing CEO and founder Jeff Bezos’ quest to make Amazon “the everything store.” He has ignored Wall Street’s demands for years, and rather than act like an established company focused on earnings has instead plowed almost all revenue back into growth and expanding into new areas, such as web and hosting services, drones, and now groceries. After years of skepticism, financial markets have fallen in love with Bezos and his ambitions, as have tens of millions of consumers.

And then there is Google, now Alphabet, which dominates search and on-line ads along with Facebook, and is spending billions on skunk-work projects ranging from literal moonshots to self-driving cars. Alphabet has yet to discover a cash-stream to offset the market risk of deriving so much of its income from search, but it remains absurdly profitable. The same can be said of Facebook. Facebook and Google together account for nearly all of the growth in the multi-billion dollars on-line advertising industry, making them a duopoly. Their dominance is growing, not waning.

Microsoft, meanwhile, written off as a moribund dinosaur only a few years ago, is benefiting from an energetic new CEO, Satya Nadella, and a push into integrated software and hardware that is starting to yield results. And it still has the default platform for office software and home computers. Netflix, which is the baby in the group, is turning itself into a 21st century movie studio that controls not only its own content but also its distribution, which recalls the monopolistic Hollywood ecosystem of the early part of the 20th century, with all the attendant profits.

That all of these companies are going gangbusters is, of course, no indication of sustained success. Nor does it mean that their current stock price and valuation accurately gauge either the future health of their franchises or future investor sentiment about what these businesses are worth.

The concentration of gains also raises legitimate concerns about the lessons of the late 1960s and 1970s, a peak time for the so-called Nifty Fifty, the “it” stocks of their day. The Nifty Fifty were seen as solid investments in the companies leading America’s economy, names such as Kodak, IBM, and McDonald’s. They soared in the 1960s, and by 1972, they commanded a valuation of more than twice the S&P 500. Then they crashed and brought the market down with them. Many of the same arguments made about those stocks then are made about these dominant tech companies today.

Past patterns are useful and important, but as they say, past performance is no guarantee of future results. The collapse of the Nifty Fifty in the 1970s was part of a larger economic malaise of double-digit inflation and low growth, along with political turmoil and a crisis of national confidence.

Some of those elements may be in play today, of course, but the ongoing digital revolution appears to be still in its middle rather than late stages. In addition, unlike the 1970s Nifty Fifty, today’s tech giants can thrive even as significant parts of the overall economy suffer. They are not proxies for “the economy;” they are the change agents disrupting the old economy and reaping disproportionate rewards from the new.

In addition, these new names have not gone straight up. 2016 was a lagging year for them, Apple in particular, while Google also barely budged. They represented a high proportion of gains in 2015 and now in 2017, but they were back and forth in 2016, as investors paused to evaluate. Valuations may be excessive, or not, but investors are hardly mindlessly pouring into these names.

Some bite left…

In general, therefore, there seem to be solid fundamental reasons why these names are leading the market on and off over the past few years. Valuation, of course, is always tricky to gauge. On rare occasions, names trade at extreme lows or extreme highs. One could make the case that both Amazon and Netflix have had very high multiples, and that expectations for future returns are unrealistic. But both have proven able to remake themselves and create entirely new markets, and both are plowing ahead in that direction.

If you are invested in an index fund that tracks the S&P 500 or the Nasdaq, you are, of course, invested in these names along with others. Single-stock investing is usually riskier than asset allocation, and many retail investors may indeed be over-doing it if they are putting large percentages of retirement savings into FANG or FAAMG or any limited numbers of names. The larger point is that many are quick to call market tops, announce that we are in a bubble or that one is forming, and warn that current gains are unsustainable. Then when pullbacks do occur, and such pullbacks are close to inevitable, they pounce and say, “I told you so.” And often, those pullbacks were the time to invest. Amazon has gone up almost a hundred-fold since 2002, for instance, but it has crashed and sold-off numerous times through the years. Yes, it is far easier in retrospect to say those were the times investors should have bought more, but that bears remembering. While a diversified market where gains are widely dispersed is certainly preferable to a concentrated one, in this case, at least the concentration is in names that are creating new economies. They may be volatile, and investors should be cautious as always, but the fact that they have done so well has solid justification.

June Takeaway:

The rise and dominance of today’s FANG stocks is often compared with the trajectory of the Nifty Fifty in the 1970s. They soared and then plummeted. But past isn’t always prologue. Back then, record inflation, slow growth, and political crises constituted a general economic malaise. Now, economic disruptions and the digital revolution are transforming consumers’ way of life and the businesses that support it. Each of the FANG (or FAAMG) stocks is a leader, and valuations are propelled by hefty revenue and earnings growth. Although the group may be vulnerable to a short-term pullback (as witnessed recently), they show no signs of slowing.

The information, analysis, and opinions expressed herein are for general and educational purposes only. Nothing contained in this commentary is intended to constitute legal, tax, accounting, securities, or investment advice, nor an opinion regarding the appropriateness of any investment, nor a solicitation of any type. All investments carry a certain risk, and there is no assurance that an investment will provide positive performance over any period of time. An investor may experience loss of principal. Investment decisions should always be made based on the investor’s specific financial needs and objectives, goals, time horizon, and risk tolerance. The asset classes and/or investment strategies described may not be suitable for all investors and investors should consult with an investment advisor to determine the appropriate investment strategy. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Indices are unmanaged and their returns assume reinvestment of dividends and do not reflect any fees or expenses. It is not possible to invest directly in an index.

Information obtained from third-party sources is believed to be reliable but not guaranteed. Envestnet | PMC™ makes no representation regarding the accuracy or completeness of information provided herein. All opinions and views constitute our judgments as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice.

Neither Envestnet, Envestnet | PMC™ nor its representatives render tax, accounting or legal advice. Any tax statements contained herein are not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding U.S. federal, state, or local tax penalties. Taxpayers should always seek advice based on their own particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.

Featuring

Zachary Karabell
Head of Global Strategies, Envestnet, Inc., Consultant to Investment Committee*

Articles By This Author

The Envestnet Edge, June 2017 Video: FANG, FAAMG: Too Big a Bite of the Market? The Envestnet Edge, May 2017 Video: Invest "As If" The Envestnet Edge, April 2017 Video: What To Do In Quiet Markets The Envestnet Edge, March 2017 Video: Bull Or Bear: Should Investors Still Care? PMC Weekly Review - March 10, 2017 The Envestnet Edge, February 2017 Video: Separating markets from politics, is it really a "Trump rally"? The Envestnet Edge, January 2017 Video: Investing in Trump’s Economy? Proceed With Caution The Envestnet Edge, December 2016 Video: Have We Only Just Begun? The Envestnet Edge, November 2016 Video: Rotations, Reversals, Rising Rates: A Time to Reposition Post-Election, Will Markets and Portfolios Emerge Winners or Losers? Webinar Replay: Post-Election Winners and Losers The Envestnet Edge, October 2016 Video: In a 2-2-2 world, look for modest economic growth and expansion PMC Weekly Review - September 16, 2016 The Envestnet Edge, September 2016 Video: Diversification is working in 2016 (so far) The Envestnet Edge, July/August 2016 Video: Valuations: it's all relative Brexit: Plunging into the Unknown? The Envestnet Edge, June 2016 Video: Equity valuations and bond yields: reach no further PMC Weekly Review - June 17, 2016 The Envestnet Edge, May 2016 Video: Hitting singles: a measured approach for this investing season The Envestnet Edge, April 2016 Video: Investing with impact: increasingly a matter-of-fact Video: In this election cycle, will investors be winners or losers? The Envestnet Edge, March 2016 PMC Weekly Review - March 11, 2016 Video: In a low-growth world, less could be more The Envestnet Edge, February 2016 The Envestnet Edge, January 2016 Video: Markets are a mess, but don't jump to conclusions yet A Most Challenging Year Video: Interest Rates and Energy: The Highs and Lows of Year-End The Envestnet Edge, December 2015 The Envestnet Edge, November 2015 Video: We'll always have Paris The Envestnet Edge, October 2015 Video: Politics and the markets: déjà vu all over again? Video: China, Commodities, and Crisis: What's Next for Emerging Markets? The Envestnet Edge, September 2015 PMC Weekly Review - September 11, 2015 Is This The Big One (Financially Speaking)? Probably Not. The Envestnet Edge, August 2015 Video: In a "meh" market, look again at U.S. stocks The Envestnet Edge, July 2015 Video: Is this the Big One? What to do in a financial crisis Don't Worry About China Don’t Believe the Hype About Greece The Greek Catastrophe Is Finally Here (Unless It Isn’t) The Envestnet Edge, May/June 2015 Video: When Following the Herd is Risky, Where is the Safety? The Envestnet Edge, April 2015 Video: The End of Short-Termism is Long Overdue PMC Weekly Review - April 24, 2015 The Envestnet Edge, March 2015 Video: Keep Your Friends Close and Your Robo-Advisor Closer The Envestnet Edge, February 2015 Video: The Return of the Comeback: Is 2015 the Year for International Stocks? PMC Weekly Review - February 13, 2015 Why the Jobs Report Means Diddly Don’t Turn America Into Europe PMC Weekly Review - January 23, 2015 Video: Active and Passive: The Yin and Yang of Investing The Envestnet Edge, January 2015 PMC Weekly Review - January 9, 2015 Will Politics in 2015 Catch Up with the Economy? Video: Our Perspective on 2015: Maintain Yours The Envestnet Edge, December 2014 PMC Market Commentary: December 12, 2014 No, This Is NOT the '90s Economy Again PMC Market Commentary: November 14, 2014 Video: 2014 U.S. Midterms: A Win for Stocks? The Envestnet Edge, November 2014 Whose Economy Will It Be in 2016? PMC Market Commentary: October 17, 2014 Video: Special Video Commentary: Market Volatility and Fundamentals The Envestnet Edge, October 2014 Video: You Know What’s Not Sustainable? Ignoring the Opportunity in Impact Investing Don’t Panic! PMC Market Commentary: October 10, 2014 Greenberg’s Folly Naomi Klein Is Wrong PMC Market Commentary: September 26, 2014 Subprime Loans Are Back! Video: When it Comes to Interest Rates, Who Says What Comes Down Must Go Up? The Envestnet Edge, September 2014 PMC Market Commentary: September 12, 2014 Why Indie Bookstores Are on the Rise Again The Fed Is Not As Powerful As We Think PMC Market Commentary: August 22, 2014 Americans' Sour Mood on the Economy Doesn't Square with the Fact The Envestnet Edge, August 2014 Video: The World is in Crisis... the Markets are not PMC Market Commentary: August 8, 2014 PMC Market Commentary: July 25, 2014 Punitive Damages Video: Market Valuations and The Theory of Relativity The Envestnet Edge, July 2014 Don’t Kill the Export-Import Bank. Clone It. How India’s Economic Rise Could Bolster America’s Economy Video: Separating Risk from Reality PMC Market Commentary: June 27, 2014 No Sex Please, We're French PMC Market Commentary: June 13, 2014 The Envestnet Edge, June 2014 PMC Weekly Market Review, May 23, 2014 The Envestnet Edge, May 2014 Don't Bet on Rising Wages PMC Market Commentary: May 9, 2014 The Sharing Economy: Why Are So Many So Afraid? PMC Market Commentary: April 25, 2014 The Obsession with CEO Pay Won't Help the Middle Class PMC Market Commentary: April 11, 2014 Time to Face Reality: Our Unemployment Problems Are Structural PMC Market Commentary: March 28, 2014 In Defense of Relentless Optimism The "Made in China" Fallacy Forget GDP - Use Big Data