A disruption bubble?

When I look back, the final phases of the dotcom bubble of 1999/2000 and, separately, the financial bubble which peaked in 2007/8 were, unquestionably, the most educational periods of my career.

Both periods had very different characteristics from which specific lessons could be drawn. For example, the dotcom era taught that while investors can get very excited about a concept, a good story is not enough when confidence evaporates. Meanwhile the financial crisis demonstrated how superficial ‘sustainable’ profits could be. In the run up to that crisis, banks were involved in a virtuous circle of highly profitable lending, based on rising asset prices which formed the collateral for further lending, higher asset prices and, in turn, produced more ‘sustainable’ profit. This process lasted until the cycle turned vicious.

But the wider lessons I drew from these bubbles were not so much the specifics, for these will always be different the next time. Instead, the most interesting lessons were derived from how people behaved and the conclusions they drew as the bubble neared bursting point. It would appear that human nature doesn’t change which is perhaps why financial markets have always been plagued by booms and busts.

Almost 20 years ago, the market had an insatiable demand for stocks that would give investors exposure to the internet. Indeed, companies that merely added ‘.com’ to their name would see a positive price reaction. Noticing this, entrepreneurs and stock promoters began to rush new companies for ‘beauty parades’ with the intention to raise enough cash to justify a flotation.

As the callow junior analyst (this was before my time at The Scottish), I was frequently despatched to meet some of these potential newcomers. In my keenness, I went armed with questions, but it quickly became obvious that questions were neither wanted nor required. These ‘internet incubators’ did not really have credible plans, the founders became indignant when quizzed and there wasn’t really anything of value other than the prospective cash that would be raised. The main selling point was instead the dangled prospect of a substantial return to someone who backed the flotation as the share price was expected to spike higher (or ‘pop’) on the first day of dealings and would trade on a ‘multiple of cash’ (a valuation metric a bit like someone offering to value your bank balance at a multiple of what it actually is).

Now, if this sounds crazy, it’s because it was. But, shares in these companies sold like hot cakes. No doubt, some investors did believe in the long-term merits of these companies but the majority were merely confident that there was somebody behind them willing to pay more. Investors were able to successfully ‘flip’ several of these new businesses but, when the music stopped, the loss from a single flop more than offset the gains on the winners for many.

The reason I have dredged this anecdote from the depths of my memory is because conditions today make me draw parallels with that time. Today the buzzword is ‘disruption’, with an enthusiasm for privately held start-up companies valued at more than $1bn – known as ‘unicorns’ – that will achieve ‘profitability at scale.’ Perhaps some will, but many unicorns seem to have business models that rely on constant injections of cash which have been facilitated by an easy money environment and a high level of confidence in their long-term story.

Recently, there has been a rush to bring some of these companies to market, perhaps because the backers wish to exit while the going is still good. Watching one of the well-known business channels, I was surprised to see the guests discussing not the prospects of a grossly unprofitable business but instead the ‘pop’ in the share price that the investment bank would engineer on the first day of trading (ominously, the share price instead flopped).

All-in-all, it is hard not to see these unicorn flotations as the apex of a renewed case of unbridled enthusiasm for all things technology. While we have nothing invested directly in this area, the fact that this mentality exists and covers a large part of the market is a cause for concern.

In recent months, President Trump seems to have interpreted market levels as a real-time opinion poll on the competence of his administration. It’s easy to see where he is coming from – after all the mantra of President Clinton’s original campaign was ‘it’s the economy, stupid.’

The trouble is that overall market levels generally do not reflect the current fortunes of the economy. Market levels, in fact, better reflect the degree of confidence in the aforementioned ‘disruption’ bubble. As we expect this bubble to deflate, we think it is highly likely that President Trump’s vociferous campaign for the US Federal Reserve to cut interest rates and print more money will ultimately prove successful.

We expect our gold miners to be one of the principal beneficiaries of this shift in monetary policy. Whereas the value of paper currency is eroded by the unrestrained printing of new money, gold has historically maintained its purchasing power over long periods of time. We also see opportunities for long term investors in many areas overlooked in the current environment.

Alasdair McKinnon

*17 June 2019

Please remember that past performance may not be repeated and is not a guide for future performance. The value of shares and the income from them can go down as well as up as a result of market and currency fluctuations. You may not get back the amount you invest.

Please note that SIT Savings Ltd is not authorised to provide advice to individual investors and nothing in this promotion should be considered to be or relied upon as constituting investment advice. If you are unsure about the suitability of an investment, you should contact your financial advisor.