Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 313

Insane prices as private equity quits market

Recently, sitting at lunch among reputable, intelligent and enormously-successful fund managers, there was one thing we all agreed on. Prices for many listed and unlisted companies have reached insane levels.

I listed the worst offenders:

  • Wisetech, on the same market cap as Qantas of $8.5 billion but earning 2% of Qantas’s revenue.
  • At 60 times earnings, Appen must have the smartest AI shareholders in the world because Appen’s US-based and private equity-owned competitor, Lionbridge, wants to list here too.
  • The printed circuit board (PCB) software designer, Altium, is on a PE of 57 times, putting it on the same market cap as JB Hi-Fi, Metcash or Air New Zealand. But while the latter three each earn revenue of between $4 billion and $14 billion, Altium earns $177 million.
  • After 12 years of operations, Xero has finally achieved cashflow break-even. In 2021 it is expected to earn a little over $20 million in profit too. It just has to be worth over $8.5 billion or 370 times forecast profits!

This will end badly, but when?

At that table, a lot of fundie experience with stock market corrections agreed that this ends badly. What we could not agree on, however, was how it ends, nor when.

But perhaps that latter question has an answer and in this article I’ll highlight a possible stumbling block for a continuation of heady valuations of profitless tech companies.

The calendar year 2019 is shaping up to be the busiest for new tech stock listings since 2000. I was working at Merrill Lynch in 1999 when analysts were concocting new ratios to justify billion dollar market valuations for companies (nay ‘projects’) with no revenue. Analysts told investors that the ability of these companies to transform e-commerce, for example, meant that almost ‘any price’ should be paid to acquire a piece of the action.

So far this year, 25 tech companies have IPO’d in the US raising US$19 billion. At the time of writing, the average gain on listing has been 34% according to Dealogic. The picture was a little different in 1999, when the first day gain for IPOs on the Nasdaq was closer to 90%. Perhaps conditions aren’t as crazy now.

But does that really matter? That would be like suggesting one patient in the asylum is slightly less insane than another. Neither of them should fly a passenger jet nor should they be put near an equity portfolio.

Most new listings are questionable quality

Of the 25 companies that have IPO’d this year, less than half can be classed as ‘major tech companies’. They are: Beyond Meat, which is up over 500% since listing, Zoom Video (+170%), PagerDuty (+120%), CrowdStrike (+110%), Pinterest (+45%), Chewy (+47%), Fiverr (+30%), Slack (+27%), Fastly (+10%) and Uber and Lyft (both negative).

Share price performance, however, doesn’t really matter. It cannot tell you what will happen next.

Aneet Chachra, is a Portfolio Manager at Janus Henderson Group. Chachra studied the history of 220 US technology IPOs from January 1, 2010 to March 31, 2018, focussing only on those with a 12-month trading history. Chachra observed:

“Statistically, if you can get into a tech IPO at the deal price, you are going to do well.”

Presumably he was referring to the final funding round deal price before IPO. Pitchbook’s 2018 study reaches a similar conclusion. Pre-IPO investors do better from the IPO ‘step-up’ than investors who buy on the first day of public trading.

This makes sense. PE investors will want to price their IPO so that all existing shareholders make money at the time of listing, and they will time the IPO to give their investors the best chance of achieving that outcome. In a 10-year bull market fueled by historically low rates that caused investors to spurn cash and migrate to anything and everything that might go up, including private equity, the study’s findings should not be surprising.

Two glaring issues for investors

The first is that if 10 years of declining interest rates has encouraged or forced high-net-worth and ultra-high-net worth investors to buy private equity and invest pre-IPO, who will be left to buy these stocks after they list?

Chachra’s and Pitchbook’s findings may reflect the fact that the exponential growth in the number of private equity firms globally since 2009 has attracted most of the money of high-net-worth investors leaving only ‘Mom & Pop’ investors to pick up the scraps.

Second, of the largest tech stocks that have listed this year, only 10% to 15% of their scrip has been available to trade. A 180-day lock up (escrow) period for founders and backers means 85-90% of scrip is still waiting to be sold.

This overhang could easily become selling pressure if PE investors who have been locked in for a decade, such as with Uber, decide they want out. It’s the marginal seller that determines the price for everyone. If the Uber investors who bought in 2010 at much lower prices decide they want to sell, their trading will impact the market capitalisation for everyone.

And this transmission mechanism is perhaps another explanation for the poor post-IPO performance of the average tech float.

Beyond Meat will see an additional 86% of its scrip released for possible sale in November 2019. CrowdStrike will see 92% of its scrip released in December, Fiverr (85% in December), Lyft (90% September), PagerDuty (88% October), Pinterest (86% October), Uber (90% November) and Zoom (93% November). And a record number of IPOs this year will ensure the pressure doesn’t let up until next year.

Tech IPO investors in Australia won’t be immune from the impact of the 2019 US private equity exit.

 

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

 

6 Comments
Wayne
July 08, 2019

Roger, what are you saying won't appen? (pun intended)

Are you suggesting that these insane valuations have more legs in them yet?.... I guess this is your whole point though - that people with cash are chasing returns, and assuming this continues (contrary to Chris's comment), at some point someone will be left holding the can.

Roger Montgomery
July 08, 2019

Thanks Carlos, yes, the implication is that investors have caused the 'offence'. And Chris, I know that if there are too many sitting on the sidelines waiting, it probably won't happen.

Dudley
July 09, 2019

"investors have caused the ‘offence’":

Not a runaway positive feedback where reducing interest rates pushes money away from cash to speculative capital gains; amplified by central banks pushing cash into markets in a partially successful attempt to increase labour participation but also resulting in increased labour replacing / displacing capital investment?

Carlos
July 04, 2019

calling those stocks "worst offenders" is unfair wording as the companies themselves have done nothing wrong. It's the market's fault their prices are so high. The companies themselves are being very well run.

Chris
July 04, 2019

Bring it on, I say. Nothing quite like a good market crash to clear the detritus out. I'm waiting with cash and lines of credit to go and press the buy order button, but not right now. Things are too expensive in the USA and the time isn't right.

SMSF Trustee
July 09, 2019

Chris, I don't think Roger is talking about a 'market crash', but simply an issue with a sub-set of the market.

He can't be talking about 'insane prices' for the whole market. The All Ordinaries PE is just under 17 with the index at 6,730. 17 is a little on the high side, but can't be thought of as 'insane'.

The long run growth of earnings in Australia has been 4.7%. If you grow the current level of earnings by that into the future, then the implied discount rate to get us to 6,730 is about 11%. That seems to be a pretty hefty risk premium over the ten year bond rate of 1.25% that's factored in.

Interested in Roger's thoughts, but the word 'insane' is stock specific, not applicable to the whole market. (Haven't done the same maths for the US market though.)

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Why August company reporting season was poor

How we have invested during COVID-19

It’s the large stocks driving fund misery

banner

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.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Latest Updates

Strategy

$1 billion and counting: how consultants maximise fees

Despite cutbacks in public service staff, we are spending over a billion dollars a year with five consulting firms. There is little public scrutiny on the value for money. How do consultants decide what to charge?

Investment strategies

Two strong themes and companies that will benefit

There are reasons to believe inflation will stay under control, and although we may see a slowing in the global economy, two companies should benefit from the themes of 'Stable Compounders' and 'Structural Winners'.

Financial planning

Reducing the $5,300 upfront cost of financial advice

Many financial advisers have left the industry because it costs more to produce advice than is charged as an up-front fee. Advisers are valued by those who use them while the unadvised don’t see the need to pay.

Strategy

Many people misunderstand what life expectancy means

Life expectancy numbers are often interpreted as the likely maximum age of a person but that is incorrect. Here are three reasons why the odds are in favor of people outliving life expectancy estimates.

Investment strategies

Slowing global trade not the threat investors fear

Investors ask whether global supply chains were stretched too far and too complex, and following COVID, is globalisation dead? New research suggests the impact on investment returns will not be as great as feared.

Investment strategies

Wealth doesn’t equal wisdom for 'sophisticated' investors

'Sophisticated' investors can be offered securities without the usual disclosure requirements given to everyday investors, but far more people now qualify than was ever intended. Many are far from sophisticated.

Investment strategies

Is the golden era for active fund managers ending?

Most active fund managers are the beneficiaries of a confluence of favourable events. As future strong returns look challenging, passive is rising and new investors do their own thing, a golden age may be closing.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
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.