Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 259

Have tech investors suckled for too long?

It’s natural for any parent to want more for their children than they had themselves, but one of the great challenges of any wealthy family is to imbue their kids with a drive to achieve. This is no easy task and often requires tough love. It’s precisely the opposite of what comes naturally.

Many tech companies will never make a profit

If central banks were parents, they have failed in their parental role and succumbed to the desire to see no harm come to their children. Under their tutelage, they have mollycoddled their economies, preventing their collapse or even struggle by breastfeeding way beyond an age that is considered acceptable or appropriate.

In return, the kids have exercised their sense of entitlement and misallocated their resources, often through private equity and VC funds, fuelling a band of companies that disrupt incumbents but can only exist with their parents’ ongoing generosity.

Many new age tech companies are managed and funded by millennials who have never experienced a recession. The companies exist, despite being unproductive and unprofitable, due to the financial teat being available for far too long.

Central banks have compromised real capital

Thanks to well-intentioned central bank parents, real capitalism - that which has been responsible not only for the prosperity of the western world but also its security - no longer exists. Central bank intervention and financial repression, such as the holding down of interest rates below inflation, has represented a tax on savers and a transfer of benefits from lenders to borrowers.

As is typical of wealthy parents, western central banks feared short-term pain for their offspring, and by withholding challenges they have passed the baton of long-term gain to nations that don’t prioritise human rights, meritocracy and the rule of law.

The fear of deflation (officially ‘feared’ as inflation below 2%) has meant that the US Federal Reserve has maintained a below-inflation interest rate setting many years after the recession of 2009 while simultaneously accumulating more than US$4 trillion on its balance sheet. Amid a fall of the US dollar and not wanting to be outcompeted by their own surging currencies, central banks from Japan to Europe engaged in quantitative easings of their own. Both western and emerging nation children have been breastfed for way too long.

The famous investor, Stan Druckenmiller, recently observed that:

“the most pernicious deflationary periods of the past century did not start because inflation was too close to zero. They were preceded by asset bubbles.”

Unsurprisingly, debt has soared, and the assessment of risk has been corrupted in almost all asset markets. Look no further than the oversubscription for 100-year Argentinian bonds, for a country almost guaranteed to default on its debt during the life of the bond.

In the corporate debt market, the vast majority of debt accumulated since 2010 has been used for financial engineering including share buybacks, special dividends and mergers and acquisitions. Precious little has been directed towards productive use and it is indiscernible from the wealthy teen, with little experience, being given the family fortune and asked to go start a company.

With the exception of retailing, bankruptcies have been minimal despite arguably one of the most disruptive periods the business world has ever experienced.

Low rate cash looking for a new home

Private equity and venture capital funds, flush with a tidal wave of money migrating from cash deposits paying punitive interest rates, have fuelled unprofitable companies that make no money for far longer than would have occurred at any other time in history. Only if the purse remains open can many of these companies continue to disrupt incumbents who themselves are shackled by the desire to make profits.

Only when we start descending the other side of this financial volcano will we see the consequences of misallocated resources and wasteful and ill-judged investments that have occurred over the last decade. Throughout history investors have routinely backed the newest, new thing from automobiles and televisions to photocopiers and commercial air travel. But more often than not they have been burnt as input costs fall, suppliers increase and declining retail prices benefit consumers at the expense of shareholders.

The current wave of enthusiasm is built on the premise that millennials have developed, or will develop, technology and business models that disrupt the hegemony of incumbent institutions and oligopolies, whether that be centralised manufacturing (3D printers), taxi companies (Uber), hotels (Airbnb), the oil oligarchs (electric cars) or even car manufacturing itself (car sharing). A concurrent investment fad is represented by the hope that technology will also enable a cleaner and greener world.

But we have to keep in mind that these hopes are only possible because of financial repression.

A closer look at Tesla

All of the above trends converge in Tesla. Perhaps more than any other company, Tesla symbolises the hopes and dreams behind the wave of exuberance fuelling the current boom in tech stocks. It is therefore the poster child of what is possible, and what is so wrong, with current monetary policy settings. Elon Musk has ridden the wave of enthusiasm surrounding new technology and business models, as well as the hopes surrounding a clean green future better than anyone else.

Tesla now sits on a market capitalisation of about US$50 billion (and US$10 billion of debt) despite only delivering about 100,000 vehicles last year and having frequently delayed a promised ramp up in production. Put another way, Tesla is currently worth $500,000 per 2017 vehicle produced. By way of comparison, Ford sits on a market cap of about US$45 billion and sold about 6.6 million vehicles in 2017. Ford is worth about $6,800 per 2017 vehicle produced.

It cannot last. Either Tesla’s car production needs to rise rapidly, or its share price must fall rapidly.

Meanwhile almost every automotive brand has announced plans to offer either an electric version of their current models or an entirely electric fleet within a few years. By way of example, Volkswagen announced at the recent Beijing Motorshow the construction of six dedicated electric vehicle manufacturing plants in China by 2022.

Elsewhere and looking completely different than any other car in its line-up, Porsche has launched a four-door, four-seat car that showcases a raft of new technology including a super-fast charging 800-volt battery system and eye-tracking driver heads-up display.

There is little question that the Tesla changed the world of electric vehicles. Before Tesla’s Model S, nobody wanted to drive an electric vehicle. But the Model S is nearly seven years old and while it is still an attractive car, the subsequent Model X achieved only lukewarm sales and the Model 3 has significant quality issues. Meanwhile everyone else has caught up. That is the basic thesis for why we recently shorted Tesla in our global long/short funds.

And don’t forget a conga-line of senior execs at Tesla have left and a takeover by another manufacturer is probably ruled out by the company’s debt and market cap.

Of course, while funding is cheap, nobody cares about the bad news. It won’t be until the teenagers acknowledge the problem that parents will be forced to deliver some tough love.


Roger Montgomery is Chairman and Chief Investment Officer at Montgomery Investment Management. This article is in the nature of general information and does not consider the circumstances of any individual.


How to invest in early-stage tech businesses

Is your portfolio too heavy on technology stocks?

Why tech companies trade at a premium


Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

Coles no longer happy with the status quo

It used to be Down, Down for prices but the new status quo is Down Down for emissions. Until now, the realm of ESG has been mainly fund managers as 'responsible investors', but companies are now pushing credentials.

Latest Updates


The 'Contrast Principle' used by super fund test failures

Rather than compare results against APRA's benchmark, large super funds which failed the YFYS performance test are using another measure such as a CPI+ target, with more favourable results to show their members.


RBA switched rate priority on house prices versus jobs

RBA Governor, Philip Lowe, says that surging house prices are not as important as full employment, but a previous Governor, Glenn Stevens, had other priorities, putting the "elevated level of house prices" first.

Investment strategies

Disruptive innovation and the Tesla valuation debate

Two prominent fund managers with strongly opposing views and techniques. Cathie Wood thinks Tesla is going to US$3,000, Rob Arnott says it's already a bubble at US$750. They debate valuing growth and disruption.


4 key materials for batteries and 9 companies that will benefit

Four key materials are required for battery production as we head towards 30X the number of electric cars. It opens exciting opportunities for Australian companies as the country aims to become a regional hub.


Why valuation multiples fail in an exponential world

Estimating the value of a company based on a multiple of earnings is a common investment analysis technique, but it is often useless. Multiples do a poor job of valuing the best growth businesses, like Microsoft.


Five value chains driving the ‘transition winners’

The ability to adapt to change makes a company more likely to sustain today’s profitability. There are five value chains plus a focus on cashflow and asset growth that the 'transition winners' are adopting.


Halving super drawdowns helps wealthy retirees most

At the start of COVID, the Government allowed early access to super, but in a strange twist, others were permitted to leave money in tax-advantaged super for another year. It helped the wealthy and should not be repeated.



© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.