AI bubble isnt near a peak. Its only at ‘base camp’: Jen – Crypto News

(The opinions expressed here are those of the author, the CEO and co-CIO of Eurizon SLJ asset management.)

LONDON, Oct 22 (Reuters) – Is the buoyant U.S. equity market near the peak scaled in the lead-up to the dotcom bubble? Rising market angst might suggest “yes”, but comparing current pricing with the late 1990s indicates that – far from reaching a summit – U.S. equities may only be at “base camp”.

Since 2011, U.S. stocks have rallied hard, with the aggregate market rising sevenfold in nominal terms and fivefold in real terms. Moreover, the tech sector has risen 16 times in nominal terms and 11 times in real terms. This has led many investors to fret about a repeat of the dotcom bubble burst in 2000.

However, even though the aggregate U.S. equity market is certainly not cheap today, tech stocks – which now account for 38% of the S&P 500 – actually do not look that expensive compared to the late 1990s, suggesting this rally could potentially still have a long way to go.

The “Magnificent 7” U.S. technology companies – Microsoft , Amazon, Apple, Alphabet, Meta, Tesla, and Nvidia – have been on a tear since the end of 2022, rallying by around 300%. Consequently, the unweighted average price-to-earnings ratio of the Mag-7 is currently around 70x, and the median PE is 36x, both above the historical averages for the S&P 500 and Nasdaq.

Still, while these figures may look high, they are nothing compared to the valuations of the top seven tech companies in 2000.

At the peak of the dotcom bubble, the unweighted average PE ratios across the seven biggest tech companies – Microsoft, Amazon, Cisco, Intel, Oracle, AOL and Yahoo! – was 276x, and the median PE was 120x.

One point to note, Amazon’s PE isn’t included in that average because, at the time, the company was reporting annual losses in excess of $1 billion, a far cry from how it’s performing today.

Another common investor fear is that today’s U.S. equity rally could be more dangerous than during the dotcom era because the current market has become so concentrated.

On its face, this point about concentration is true. Today’s Mag-7 companies account for 35% of the S&P 500. In contrast, the “Mag 7” companies in 2000 represented only 15% of the index.

But is concentration always dangerous? Not necessarily, especially when the leading companies have strong earnings – and all of today’s tech giants have ample, diversified earnings. Moreover, many of these companies also have plenty of cash and are thus in a strong position to invest and increase their earnings power.

Things looked far different in 2000. Back then, most of the seven top tech firms’ value was based on expected future earnings from businesses yet to be developed. And given that most of the companies were generating little, if any, cash, most of this investment needed to be funded by debt.

So what does all this say about the risk of another dotcom-style correction?

The pullback after 2000 was brutal. Microsoft’s share price fell as much as 65%, and Amazon lost almost all its value at its low point. Meanwhile Cisco, Intel and Oracle were down an average of 86%.

It took 17 and 7-1/2 years, respectively, for Microsoft and Amazon to regain their peak nominal prices, while the other three took an average of 20 years to recover.

We’re unlikely to see a repeat of this, based on my estimations. Today’s leading tech companies are more mature, have lower average valuations and, relatedly, much higher earnings.

On top of this, market structure is very different today, with more significant retail and private equity participation. Investors also now have a better historical perspective on many of these tech companies and would most likely have a huge appetite to “buy the dip” if and when a sell-off happens.

There’s good reason for this. Even though AOL and Yahoo! eventually met their demise, most of the other big tech companies of 2000 not only survived the crash but thrived and still dominate today.

I am not saying the current AI bubble is not a bubble. There are indeed many parallels between today’s market and the run-up to 2000. I am merely pointing out that the magnitude of the bubble was huge in 2000, measured both in terms of the equity price increases and PE ratios.

A correction will likely come at some point. But if we use the dotcom experience as a benchmark, the summit is quite far above where we are now, and even if we get there, the fall might be far less severe.

(The views expressed here are those of Stephen Jen, the CEO and co-CIO of Eurizon SLJ asset management).

Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis of everything from swap rates to soybeans. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, and X.

(Writing by Stephen Jen; Editing by Anna Szymanski and Jamie Freed)