The Aging of the Tech Sector: The Pricing Divergence of Young and Old Tech Companies
As the NASDAQ approaches historic highs, Apple’s market cap exceeds that of the Bovespa (the Brazilian equity index) and young social media companies like Snapchat have nosebleed valuations, there is talk of a tech bubble again. It is human nature to group or classify individuals or entities and assign common characteristics to the group and we tend to do the same, when investing. Specifically, we categorize stocks into sectors or groups and assume that many or most stocks in each group share commonalities. Thus, we assume that utility stocks have little growth and pay large dividends and commodity and cyclical stocks have volatile earnings largely because of macroeconomic factors. With “tech” stocks, the common characteristics that come to mind for many investors are high growth, high risk and low cash payout. While that would have been true for the typical tech stock in the 1980s, is it still true? More specifically, what does the typical tech company look like, how is it priced and is its pricing put it in a bubble? As I hope to argue in the section below, the answers depend upon which segment of the tech sector you look at.
A Short History of Tech Stocks
Market Capitalization at the end of each year (S&P Capital IQ) |
There are two things to note in this graph.
- The first is that technology as a percentage of the market has remained stable since 2009, which calls into question the notion that technology stocks have powered the bull market of the last five years.
- The second is that technology is now the largest single slice of the equity market in the United States and close to the second largest in the global market. So what? Just as growth becomes more difficult for a company as it gets larger and becomes a larger part of the economy, technology collectively is running into a scaling problem, where its growth rate is converging on the growth rate for the economy. While this convergence is sometimes obscured by the focus on earnings per share growth, the growth rate in revenues at technology companies collectively has been moving towards the growth rate of the economy.
The Diversity of Technology
Age: Number of years from founding of company to 2015 |
Note that 341 technology companies have been in existence for more than 35 years and an additional 427 firms have been in existence between 25 and 35 years, and they collectively comprise about 41% of the firms that we had founding years available in the database. While being in existence more than 25 years may sound unexceptional, given that there are manufacturing and consumer product companies that have been around a century or longer, tech companies age in dog years, as the life cycles tend to be more intense and compressed. Put differently, IBM may not be as old as Coca Cola in calendar time but it is a corporate Methuselah, in tech years.
The Pricing of Technology
Pricing as of February 2015, Trailing 12 month values for earnings and book value |
To adjust for the fact that cash holdings at some companies are substantial, I computed a non-cash PE, by netting cash out of the market capitalization and the income from cash holdings from the net income. While it is true that the youngest tech companies look highly priced, the pricing becomes more reasonable, as you look across the age scale. For instance, while the youngest companies in the tech sector trade at 4.34 times revenues (based upon enterprise value), the oldest companies trade at 2.44 times revenues.
Based on February 2015 Pricing & Trailing 12 month numbers: 2807 US technology and 6076 non-technology companies. |
The assessment depends upon what part of the technology sector you are focused on. While the youngest tech companies trade at much higher multiples of revenues, earnings and book value than the rest of the market, the oldest tech companies actually look under priced (rather than over priced) relative to both the rest of the market and to the oldest non-tech companies. In fact, even focusing just on the youngest companies, it is interesting that while young tech companies trade at higher multiples of earnings (EBITDA, for instance) than young non-tech companies, the difference is negligible if you add back R&D, an expense that accountants mis-categorize as an operating expense.
Does this mean that you should be selling your young tech companies and buying old tech companies? I am not quite ready to make that leap yet, because the differences in these pricing multiples can be partially or fully explained by differences in fundamentals, i.e., young tech companies may be highly priced because they have high growth and old tech companies may trade at lower multiples because they have more risk and tech companies collectively may differ fundamentally from non-tech companies.
There are three key fundamentals that determine value: the cash flows that you generate from your existing assets, the value generated by expected growth in these cash flows and the risk in these cash flows. Again, rather than look at tech stocks collectively, I will break them down by age and compare them to non-tech stocks.
a. Cash Flows and Profitability
b. Growth – Level and Quality
c. Risk – Financial and Market
d. Cash Return – Dividends, Buybacks and FCFE
FCFE = Cash left over after taxes, debt payments and reinvestment; Firm value = Market Cap + Total Debt; Cash Return = Dividends + Buybacks - Stock Issues |
Note that both young tech and young non-tech companies have raised more new equity than they return in the form of dividends and buybacks, giving them a negative cash return yield. Old tech companies return more cash to stockholders both in dividends and collectively, with buybacks, than old non-tech companies. Finally, notwithstanding the attention paid to Apple's cash balance, old tech companies hold less cash than old non-tech companies do.
In summary, here is what the numbers are saying. Young technology companies are less profitable, have higher growth, higher price risk and are priced more richly than the young non-tech companies. Old technology companies are more profitable, have less top line growth and are priced more reasonably than old non-tech companies.
The size of the technology sector and the diversity of companies in the sector makes it difficult to categorize the entire sector. In my view, the data suggests that we should be doing the following:
- Truth in labeling: We are far too casual in our classifications of companies as being in technology. In my book, Tesla is an automobile company, Uber is a car service (or transportation) company and The Lending Club is a financial services company, and none of them should be categorized as technology companies. The fact that these firms use technology innovatively or to their advantage cannot be used as justification for treating them as technology companies, since technology is now part and parcel of even the most mundane businesses. Both companies and investors are complicit in this loose labeling, companies because they like the “technology” label, since it seems to release them from the obligation of explaining how much they need to invest to scale up, and investors, because it allows them to pay multiples of revenues or earnings that would be difficult (if not impossible) to justify in the actual businesses that these firms are in.
- Age classes: We should start classifying technology companies by age, perhaps in four groups: baby tech (start up), young tech (product/service generating revenues but not profits), middle-aged tech (profits generated on significant revenues) and old tech (low top line growth, though sometimes accompanied by high profitability), without any negative connotations to any of these groupings. If we want to point to mispricing, we should be specific about which group the mispricing is occurring. In this market, for instance, if there is a finger to be pointed towards a group, it is not technology collectively that looks like it is richly priced, but baby and young technology companies. By the same token, if you follow rigid value investing advice, where you are told to stay away from technology on the grounds that it is high growth, high risk and highly priced, that may have been solid advice in 1985 but you will be missing your best “value” opportunities, if you follow it now.
- Youth or Sector: When we think of start-ups and young firms, we tend to assume that they are technology-based and that presumption, for the most part, is backed up by the numbers. However, there are start-ups in other businesses as well, and it is worth examining when mispricing occurs, whether it is sector or age-driven. It is true that young social media companies have gone public to rapturous responses over the last few years but Shake Shack, which is definitely not a technology company (unless you can have a virtual burger and an online shake) also saw its stock price double on its offering day and biotechnology companies had their moment in the limelight in 2014, as well.
- Life Cycle dynamics: I have talked about the corporate life cycles in prior posts and as I have noted in this one, there is evidence that the life cycle for a technology company may be both shorter and more intense than the life cycle for a non-technology company. That has implications for how we value and price these companies. In valuation, we may have to revisit the assumptions we make about long lives (perpetual) and positive growth that we routinely attach in discounted cash flow models to arrive at terminal value, when valuing technology companies, and perhaps replace them with finite period, negative growth terminal value models for fading technologies. In pricing, we should expect to see a much quicker drop off in the multiples of earnings that we are willing to pay, as tech companies age, relative to non-tech companies. I will save that for a future post.
Ut beatae vero aut autem dicta ullam. Reiciendis veritatis neque ut aut quo. Vitae aut autem quaerat adipisci provident itaque occaecati. In debitis et in illum iste dolor sint.
Aut repellendus soluta distinctio occaecati vel voluptas. Error qui et dicta consequatur veritatis unde.
Aspernatur aut molestiae ex impedit cumque quae. Sequi necessitatibus repellat repellendus delectus iusto. Consequuntur corrupti asperiores reiciendis iusto et a. Enim vero cupiditate et libero dolorem facere molestias.
Perferendis magnam natus mollitia repellendus nihil earum et. Distinctio temporibus sed neque eius officia ad ut eius. Laudantium quia sit placeat molestias aliquid facilis. Ab doloribus occaecati animi esse quia et. Voluptatibus consequatur velit tempora qui molestias occaecati labore. Autem tenetur sunt doloribus eos consequatur architecto non.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Quisquam vero doloremque laborum vitae porro iusto. Deserunt corporis voluptate blanditiis sint. Pariatur cumque dolor repudiandae dolorem hic deleniti.
Quos veritatis reprehenderit aut consequatur est. Perferendis ipsa rerum expedita itaque aliquam maxime. Aut excepturi nostrum placeat quasi. Est quia possimus ipsum facere quaerat. Ut et laudantium impedit qui vitae commodi sit. Rerum ullam blanditiis excepturi.
Voluptate et minus rerum non placeat deserunt consequatur. Totam dolor illum esse eos debitis. Deleniti maxime architecto est ut voluptas temporibus illo ut. Suscipit id nisi inventore ut. Maxime qui qui numquam.
Perferendis culpa et aliquam et sint rem est. Quod quam corrupti eos quia ut et ea fugit. Veniam consequatur deserunt eos neque neque facere ea et.
Quos porro ut praesentium pariatur molestiae aliquid hic veniam. Modi exercitationem tempora ipsum et distinctio eum.
Dolor labore non minima. Et quo quisquam non autem. Mollitia aut qui quibusdam animi.
Tempore minus quibusdam recusandae praesentium. Tempora vel molestiae blanditiis iusto nihil vel.
Magnam libero ratione optio error et. Saepe praesentium tempora natus sed facere hic a. Aut nostrum ea minima et aut quod. Voluptatem autem dignissimos placeat facere soluta.
Voluptates exercitationem saepe itaque. Ipsa ut ut perferendis. Quam quasi doloremque odit aliquam dolorum blanditiis enim fugiat. Rem totam officiis placeat. Dolores veritatis similique harum temporibus dicta velit qui.
Ratione ab ea nulla et. Ullam consequatur aut qui quis et qui. Possimus molestiae enim eligendi odit ullam doloribus. Possimus repudiandae molestiae perferendis atque. Numquam provident nobis quam quibusdam minus eum ea beatae.
Voluptas dolorem sit est tenetur. Possimus sed voluptatibus velit necessitatibus. Rerum consectetur voluptatem sed eum. Vel quo eos rerum dignissimos.
In odio doloribus qui molestiae dignissimos. Nemo eius ab illum aperiam deserunt. Modi ea explicabo odio accusantium eos. Aut eaque omnis amet tempore laudantium reprehenderit.
Est debitis rerum aliquam occaecati dolorem nostrum sed. Id nam vero ea voluptatum. Est esse hic eius velit iusto at. Qui ea occaecati aspernatur.
Ut et necessitatibus sit corporis magni doloribus. Quos porro id ratione occaecati voluptates molestiae laboriosam. Corporis expedita consequuntur quia laboriosam numquam aut aliquam. Et qui laborum repellat. Nihil necessitatibus quam voluptatem hic.
Nesciunt id rerum nihil at similique. Eos sit inventore autem aut. Vel ducimus fugit corporis quaerat vitae eos. Quae quia pariatur enim unde eaque maxime nemo. Reiciendis officia nobis facilis aut perferendis blanditiis.
Distinctio est esse autem. Sint animi at eligendi iste a mollitia velit corporis. Sunt ea vel perspiciatis debitis.