Owning high quality but expensive stocks is great when multiples are rising. High returns & low biz risk - what's not to like? The Q is, how will investors react/behave if multiples start to decline and stocks go sideways/down for years. How long before ppl get tired of owing em?
Patience is in short supply in markets - due to both investor temperament and performance pressure. Most are unwilling/unable to hold stocks going nowhere/underperforming for years. People's perceptions & attitudes towards these stocks will change when multiples stop rising.
2-3yrs in, after years of stagnation, investors will start to see these stocks as dull/dead money, and start looking for cheaper stocks that have the opportunity for larger gains. Trends like this are self-reinforcing. This is how 10yr+ multiple derate cycles in quality happen.
The other issue is, the more time goes by, the more risk there is of unfavourable change. While you're suffering years of poor returns, risks also increase.

Case in point- GE. Ultimate 1990s quality stock. 1990-2000 multiple re-rate. 2000-16 de-rate. 2016-20 unfavourable change.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Lyall Taylor

Lyall Taylor Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @LT3000Lyall

24 Mar
It's amazing what absurd things ppl will believe/argue when they emotionally want to be bullish. On Kuaishou below:
*User coverage is 90% but there is "room for platforms to increase user base". Infants perhaps? To not see saturation here is glass is half full in extreme.
(1/2) Image
*Average time spent is 67min per DAU, but this "could rise to 110min by 2025". It could also fall. There are only 24 hours in a day, and there will be more not less competition for our entertainment time in the future.

Really nutty stuff.

(2/2)
PS (3/3)
*Tiktok & Kuaishou have formed a duopoly, "although WeChat may muscle in". Just a casual remark in passing that "oh, and by the way it might not remain a duopoly, and might get a lot more competitive". But no need to worry, because there is no need to worry.
Read 5 tweets
17 Mar
A bunch of German municipalities have lost a significant portion of their deposits, which they parked with Greensill's now-insolvent bank. They did so because they wanted to avoid paying negative rates on deposits, & signed up for Greenshill's 0.1%.

wsj.com/articles/green…
Reaching for yield has always been dangerous/a problem. However, central banks have now created a situation where people/institutions are desperate for any means of avoiding their savings being whittled away. It would be surprising if this did not lead to negative consequences.
We actually now have a historically-unprecedented situation where the cost of capital is negative. Sitting on cash guarantees significant losses over time - nominal as well as real. It should not be a surprise that anything that generates a positive yield is in high demand.
Read 4 tweets
16 Mar
Great thread on banks. Agree with all/most. It is important that banks/financials/lending businesses are run by thoughtful risk managers, not growthy/marketing people. Many fintechs make me nervous for this reason. The former stand the test of time, the latter usually don't.
One of the repeating cycles you see is that after a bust where all the go-go aggressive banks/financials get wiped out, you'll eventually see a new cohort emerge arguing trad banks are too conservative/bureaucratic/slow moving; are leaving lending opportunities underserviced etc.
The actual truth is that those segments are usually underserviced because they blew up the last cycle's go-go cohort. And long term success in a leveraged biz like banking *requires* that you be conservative/bureaucratic/slow moving to make sure you don't make any big mistakes.
Read 5 tweets
6 Mar
Here is a a look at the NASDAQ's earnings trend. Interestingly, earnings have been falling since 2018 and are actually (1) down about 25% from their 2018 peak; and (2) currently slightly below 2016 levels.
This is actually not atypical late in a boom/bubble. The flood of capital into an industry usually drives down returns. Often that's ignored because people are focusing on the growth narrative/top line instead of earnings & returns on capital. Eventually earnings matter though.
It goes without saying that the consensus earnings estimates shown in light shade are likely to prove fairly delusional. I think we are most likely to see a continuing downward trend in earnings from here until we have a 2000-style bust & resultant industry capital rationing.
Read 5 tweets
6 Mar
Near the top (in time, not necessarily price), you'll often see very violent swings, as investors try to determine if it really is game over. Retracements are brutal & fast, but if a bubble survives such a pullback/market test, it will often quickly catapult back to new highs.
In speculative markets the price action is path dependent. People sell because the market is going down & fear more, and buy because it's going up & worry they'll miss a run up. Demand and supply becomes primarily a function of the price action itself.
George Soros talked a lot about this. Bubbles face "tests". If they survive the test, they catapult to new highs. Usually they survive multiple tests on the way up. But at some stage the tests fail and the markets breaks catastrophically down and doesn't come back.
Read 4 tweets
6 Mar
A great article on an important issue I've warned about in past.

"This is counter-opinion masquerading as fact checking."

"FB's fact checkers are presenting their opinions as fact and seeking to silence other scientists whose views challenge their own."

wsj.com/articles/fact-…
It is concerning, but highly predictable, that "fact checkers" would not recognize the difference between reasonable differences in opinion/interpretation on complex issues, and demonstrably false facts. Everyone thinks their own opinion is right, or they wouldn't hold it.
Human judgment is fallible and is subject to a serious risk of confirmation bias. "Fact checkers" that see articles that make arguments they instinctively/ideologically disagree with are very quick to use that confirmation bias to find evidence that supports their view.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!