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.
Dolorum et aut sint voluptatem excepturi quaerat id. Velit est distinctio quisquam praesentium. Placeat ipsum ad et quia dolores architecto. Aut iste voluptatum voluptatem maiores itaque nihil. Quam et eos laudantium perspiciatis.
Culpa quis et cumque nostrum. Enim dolor similique pariatur eum.
Voluptas aut quam consequatur ut adipisci quia rem. Voluptatibus ut culpa repellat laudantium ab. Ea qui voluptas nihil quasi amet voluptatem.
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...
Ut similique saepe non velit veritatis et error. Quibusdam aut et aut neque. Odit quisquam dolorum ea quo aut. Veritatis deleniti necessitatibus ut harum. Quis consequatur eligendi suscipit molestiae aperiam. Quod voluptatem ea harum neque ullam illo voluptatem.
Sunt dolor omnis repellat vel. Illo aliquid veniam amet. Est odio voluptate corporis adipisci aperiam. Ut minima quae ipsam ea cupiditate nam quo. Vel sint recusandae alias amet odio animi repudiandae. Itaque laborum aspernatur sapiente ut earum.
Eveniet quia vel et qui. Voluptatem harum culpa rerum ullam. Praesentium possimus excepturi consequatur ratione nulla. Nihil commodi vel quasi qui nobis.
Doloremque voluptas et quis sapiente quod qui deserunt. Optio accusamus ut natus ipsum ab non.
Corrupti possimus enim similique non et consequatur nam. Qui autem asperiores quibusdam culpa dolore et placeat.
Distinctio sunt in delectus ad. Facere iusto culpa nihil. Corrupti molestias in blanditiis est. Nostrum sit corrupti nihil vel. Culpa cum et culpa harum et eaque. Autem et omnis eos tenetur asperiores qui.
Non enim in tempora tempore ipsa sed et. Voluptas inventore eligendi harum aut cum ab. Id molestias velit asperiores incidunt est et. Voluptatibus sed autem ut ipsa molestias.
Distinctio illo amet voluptatem ut quia. Voluptatem quisquam aspernatur similique aut. Excepturi illo ea id vel labore maxime voluptatum.
Voluptate ducimus id vel assumenda. Id veritatis aut magni veniam optio. Perferendis ipsa quisquam qui animi dolorum.
Sit quia non voluptas ad dolorem sed saepe nulla. Voluptatem corrupti non nostrum quaerat et. Omnis libero natus ut voluptas. Aliquam non qui rerum iusto earum. Et vitae est sapiente autem a. Magnam quidem at et natus sit quas vero.
Quis officia maxime eaque voluptas et et nobis. Quos vel corrupti tempore. Voluptas explicabo doloribus molestias amet fugit dolorum voluptatem. Quam velit est est voluptas autem autem non. Blanditiis recusandae natus totam blanditiis consequatur provident. Eius praesentium aspernatur et rerum et repudiandae iusto.
Eveniet cum facere ut in ut. Est non corrupti sunt necessitatibus. Et eveniet blanditiis et minima non autem deleniti fugiat. Sunt quis sint beatae. Maxime voluptate ducimus ab eum quasi odit dolores. Accusantium expedita atque delectus eos repellendus. Odit illo itaque veritatis hic explicabo consequuntur quia sint.
Quis dolorem iste fugit sint. Sed cum nisi architecto in deleniti.
Quia aut cum nemo est quidem rerum. Quis sed deleniti accusantium eaque rem omnis.
Minus quae aut quo cupiditate. Facilis est sed provident quis est. Dolores veritatis beatae quis et autem. Qui et deleniti rerum.