the whole story

The Barron’s cover story by Ben Levisohn this weekend is “Yes, It’s a Stock Market Bubble. That Doesn’t Mean Trouble for Investors Just Yet.” Ben does a good job of capturing the storytelling that’s led to one of the greatest stock booms we’ve ever seen:

The story began easily enough, if not with “once upon a time.” A virus forced the country to shut down and accelerated the gains in a select few technology stocks that are uniquely capable of thriving with everyone stuck at home. A central bank took quick action to prevent financial markets from seizing up, pushing interest rates about as low as they could go. That helped lift the stocks of companies that are growing, including chiefly the aforementioned tech stocks, even if some have no profits. These stocks were among the first to rally once the stock market bottomed in March.

It’s a good article, but I hate this chart so much. Because while it’s technically accurate, it’s absent the most important information to give readers the correct context…

So, I’m just going to add my own chart below to complete the story. Here’s revenue growth over the same time frame, in dollars, for the top ten holdings in the Nasdaq 100:

So, you can call it a stock bubble, but then you’ll also have to acknowledge the fact that it’s a business bubble too…? And there’s no such thing as a business bubble. People are either buying and consuming products / services or they aren’t. And they clearly are. With all due respect, show the fundamentals too. That’s the whole story.

Maybe instead of calling the 2000 dot com bubble a “dress rehearsal”, why don’t we simply say that investors in the year 2000 were precisely right about the impact that the internet would have on the world, but they were ten to fifteen years too early, betting on some of the wrong companies and business models in the early days and paying valuations that were unjustified at the time.

With the exceptions of Sun Microsystems, Oracle, Intel, Microsoft and Cisco, there really wasn’t any revenue (or revenue growth) to back up the skyrocketing Nasdaq 100 at the turn of the millennium.

Now, it’s just the opposite – there has been nothing but revenue growth in the names comprising this index – and so much of it seems to be secular (non-cyclical) that you almost get the sense that it’s all been immune to any semblance of a traditional business cycle. That immunity probably can’t last forever, as these companies gradually begin hitting their heads on the Law of Large Numbers ceiling, but where is that ceiling exactly as the global economy digitizes? Two years away or twenty?

So yes, the Nasdaq 100 has now done significantly better than the S&P 500 over the last few years. But this time, it absolutely should have.

This content, which contains security-related opinions and/or information, is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in any manner as professional advice, or an endorsement of any practices, products or services. There can be no guarantees or assurances that the views expressed here will be applicable for any particular facts or circumstances, and should not be relied upon in any manner. You should consult your own advisers as to legal, business, tax, and other related matters concerning any investment.

The commentary in this “post” (including any related blog, podcasts, videos, and social media) reflects the personal opinions, viewpoints, and analyses of the Ritholtz Wealth Management employees providing such comments, and should not be regarded the views of Ritholtz Wealth Management LLC. or its respective affiliates or as a description of advisory services provided by Ritholtz Wealth Management or performance returns of any Ritholtz Wealth Management Investments client.

References to any securities or digital assets, or performance data, are for illustrative purposes only and do not constitute an investment recommendation or offer to provide investment advisory services. Charts and graphs provided within are for informational purposes solely and should not be relied upon when making any investment decision. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The content speaks only as of the date indicated. Any projections, estimates, forecasts, targets, prospects, and/or opinions expressed in these materials are subject to change without notice and may differ or be contrary to opinions expressed by others.

Wealthcast Media, an affiliate of Ritholtz Wealth Management, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. Investments in securities involve the risk of loss. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here:

Please see disclosures here.