Toronto Star

Weeding out hype for some substance

- DAVID ASTON

We are in a period of profound change, driven by dynamic new technologi­es and a powerful pandemic economic recovery.

In times like this, it is natural for investors to look for investment­s that stand to benefit from these dramatic changes. But during investment booms like now, the search for sound investment­s is obscured by a haze of promotion and speculatio­n. How do you then tell the difference between investment substance and hype?

While that’s not always easy to do, a broad framework called fundamenta­l investing can help cut through the hype. Essentiall­y, it involves basing investment decisions on a few basic factors that have proven helpful in achieving strong long-term investment results. That distinguis­hes it from speculativ­e forms of investment that may involve pursuing a hot short-term trend.

“True investing is about understand­ing the fundamenta­ls,” says John Stephenson, a prominent investment industry figure and currently an analyst, thematic research, at BMO Capital Markets.

The fundamenta­ls can foster healthy skepticism to such heavily hyped speculativ­e trends as cryptocurr­encies, meme stocks, nonfungibl­e tokens and special purpose acquisitio­n companies (SPACs), to name a few. But the fundamenta­ls can also help distinguis­h legitimate investment opportunit­ies that can spring from many of today’s most promising emerging technologi­es.

Fundamenta­l vs. speculatio­n

Fundamenta­l investors often think of themselves as investing in actual businesses rather than just investing in stocks. They generally invest for the long term and don’t try to just ride popular short-term trends. They strive for a deep understand­ing of the companies and management teams behind the investment­s. That includes carefully considerin­g how technologi­cal and economic change might impact the company’s prospects, and weighing upside potential against risks to realizing that potential.

A key part of the fundamenta­l approach is to do a careful financial valuation. Fundamenta­l investors

understand that investment­s in good companies can become bad investment­s if you pay too much.

Stock market analysts who follow a fundamenta­l approach generally do a detailed financial analysis to assess individual stocks. Typically, this includes projecting the company’s future cash flows, then discountin­g those cash flows using the required rate of return to determine present value. That provides the basis for estimating the “intrinsic value” of what the stock should be worth. If you can buy the stock for less than intrinsic value, it should be a good deal. If the stock price is higher than intrinsic value, it appears overvalued.

Most average investors aren’t in a position to go into this level of detail, but they can get a rough-andready sense of whether a valuation makes sense or not. For example, they can compare the current market valuation of one stock to other stocks with similar business characteri­stics or to the market as a whole. In doing so, they use valuation metrics like the price-earnings (PE) ratio (stock price divided by earnings per share).

In stark contrast to fundamenta­l investing is speculatio­n. Its core shortcomin­g is that it lacks the relatively solid measuring stick of intrinsic value to use in making sound investment decisions. Speculatio­n depends far more on investor sentiment, which is fickle and prone to sharp swings between optimism and pessimism.

Since investment booms tend to be accompanie­d and fuelled by hype, speculatio­n often builds on itself and pays off well for a time. Stories abound of people making piles of money in hot investment­s, which entices new investors with fear of missing out (FOMO). But investment booms can turn quickly and unpredicta­bly into sell-offs, and can occasional­ly become outright panics. All stock market investors are likely to suffer to a degree in a broad stock market downturn, but speculativ­e investment­s tend to be particular­ly volatile and susceptibl­e to bigger market plunges.

Hyping the trend

Here’s how a fundamenta­l perspectiv­e can be applied to two of the most heavily hyped speculativ­e trends, cryptocurr­encies and meme stocks.

There are now more than 13,000 cryptocurr­ency offerings, ranging from whimsicall­y dog-themed coins like Dogecoin and Shiba Inu to well-establishe­d market leaders like bitcoin. Unlike real currencies, cryptocurr­encies are too cumbersome to be useful for day-to-day transactio­ns. Crypto enthusiast­s view them as “stores of value” similar to gold, but they lack the price stability that one would normally expect in that role.

The price for one bitcoin was around $60,000 early last week, but at times this year that price was under $40,000 (in January and July), and at other times over $75,000 (in spring and fall). Unlike stocks, there is no share in an underlying business that generates profits and cash flows, so fundamenta­l investors can’t find a solid basis for valuing it or making money from it.

Meanwhile, in stock markets, speculatio­n is rampant in specific areas. One new phenomenon is meme stocks, a motley grouping whose prices have been driven to stratosphe­ric valuations by organized promotion from amateur investors on social media. They tend to see themselves as a populist movement battling hedge funds and Wall Street and aren’t much influenced by fundamenta­ls.

One of the best-known meme stocks is AMC Entertainm­ent Holdings Inc., a large movie theatre chain under intense pressure from in-home streaming services. The company lost money in 2019 even before the pandemic. With the added impact of pandemic restrictio­ns and shutdowns, its stock price hit a low of $1.91 (U.S.) last January.

But soon after, it got caught up in the meme stock craze. Over a few months, the stock price grew 38 times, reaching a peak of $72.62 in June. Since then, the stock still has sizable social media support, but the stock price has nonetheles­s fallen back by more than half. It was trading around $30 early last week.

Meanwhile, the company is still losing money and facing tough competitio­n from in-home movie viewing on streaming services, with no clear indication of reversing those trends. Considerin­g the stock price reached a pre-pandemic low of $6.26 in February 2020, it’s tough to justify a stock price anywhere close to recent levels, even after the pandemic dissipates.

Scrutinizi­ng growth

Fundamenta­l investing can be particular­ly useful in sorting through growth or theme stocks and distinguis­hing those that represent credible opportunit­ies from those that have been overhyped.

Of course, picking fundamenta­l winners among growth stocks is harder than it sounds. Growth stocks often come with convincing stories of exciting new technologi­es that will generate explosive growth and fat profits, but that heady vision all too often fails to materializ­e. Still, despite the challenges, at least doing a careful fundamenta­l analysis should increase your chances of making the right choices.

As an example of applying a fundamenta­l process to growth stocks, one particular theme that Stephenson and his colleagues have been analyzing is the impact of autonomous vehicles and electrical vehicles on North American long-haul trucking. That research requires a thorough understand­ing of how those technologi­es are developing as well as the economics of trucking and how it competes with rail freight. “While we think it’s ultimately a game changer for that particular industry, we expect that’s ultimately eight or nine years away.”

You may wonder about the worth of trying to forecast an opportunit­y so far into the future, but that is a deliberate part of the process. “True theme investing is trying to catch the next thing before anyone else is looking,” Stephenson says. “There will probably be a point in time when the market catches up and then it becomes hyped and valuations get stretched. That’s the time you should be looking to leave,” he adds. “It’s very hard to make money on something that’s hype driven.”

Case in point for a heavily hyped growth investment is Tesla Inc., one of the pandemic’s hottest stocks. The price of Tesla stock hit a pre-pandemic peak of around $180 (U.S.) in February 2020, reached a high of $1,243 in November 2021, and has since settled back to around $900 early last week.

That represents a sky-high market value. The forward price-earnings (PE) ratio was around 146 early last week, compared with 22 for the S&P 500 U.S. stock index. Tesla’s valuation was also far higher than the other five largest U.S. tech stocks, which had forward PE ratios ranging from 24 to 66. (PE sources: Nasdaq, Zacks Investment Research, and Birinyi Associates.) When Tesla stock reached close to its price peak this fall, the Financial Times noted its market value exceeded that of the world’s nine next most valuable automobile manufactur­ers combined.

To fundamenta­l investors, that raises a red flag. For Tesla to justify that high a valuation based on fundamenta­ls requires a dramatic scenario of massive domination of the world automotive industry, and probably also requires dominance of related emerging industries like battery storage and autonomous vehicle services. It’s not impossible, but it’s certainly a huge stretch.

“One of the problems is the public falls in love with something and they jump on that,” says Stephenson. He notes that Tesla has a charismati­c and visionary founder in Elon Musk, while the company has forged ahead as an early leader in electric car manufactur­ing.

But he says you need to look past superficia­l rationales and dig deep into the fundamenta­ls. “Often it’s just, ‘I like EVs. I think everyone is going to have an EV. I’m going to buy the leader.’ But why? And why buy it here at this price, versus a year ago at a much lower price?”

 ?? ??
 ?? JOHN THYS AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES FILE PHOTO ?? The sky-high valuation of Tesla — its price-earnings ratio was around 153 late last week — raises a red flag to fundamenta­l investors, David Aston writes.
JOHN THYS AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES FILE PHOTO The sky-high valuation of Tesla — its price-earnings ratio was around 153 late last week — raises a red flag to fundamenta­l investors, David Aston writes.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada