Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 528

Investment opportunities in markets priced at extremes

Global equities feature three key ingredients at the moment: a concentrated market, wide valuation dispersions and different cyclical and structural opportunities. Investors have gone through a tough interest rate tightening cycle but monetary policy acts with a lag, and the delayed reaction is coming through in leading indicators. But at the same time, we have the US Treasury and politicians expanding the fiscal deficit, which is one reason why inflation is staying sticky.

Market valuations and policy variations

Factors are working against each other with a lot of policy volatility and variations in nominal GDP growth. What happens to market multiples in that environment? In the 1970s, the Price/Earnings ratio averaged around 11 times in US broad equities. That wasn't just because the discount rate was higher because we had inflation. It was because of this volatility and it derated equities (that is, lowered P/Es). Today, the P/E multiple is 30 times. The takeaway is that US equities are offering a narrow margin of error based on valuations today and the inflation and rate regime that we've shifted into.

Let's talk factors. In the chart, the yellow line is what many investors think about as the value factor. We refer to it as valuation dispersion between value and growth. The yellow line is tracking the multiple paid for the lowest P/E stocks in the market by quintile versus the highest. It's been trending down for a dozen years, so there's a lot of valuation dispersion in the market today.

Owning quality or growth is more expensive than normal. While we know investors should pay a higher multiple for those characteristics, they are paying a very high multiple today. Is it durable growth and durable quality?

Multiple dispersion is wide and value stocks are cheap

Market cap concentrations

Another observation is that market cap concentration is going through a crazy period that will not last. We’ve seen it before, from 1990 in Japanese equities, 2000 in US tech stocks and today, it's concentrated in the Magnificent Seven. The average is P/E multiple is about 36 times, with Tesla on a really high multiple and Meta and Alphabet on much lower multiples. But we're seeing a concentration of profit in the economy in a small number of companies.

Market capitalisation concentration also high

Everything else is on a lower multiple and the more we move away from the US, the lower that multiple goes. So, arguably, there are many sectors in many regions that are already pricing in a relatively hard landing.

Why have the Magnificent Seven re-rated? Will Alphabet or Meta sell more digital ads in a recession than they do today? Will Tesla sell more cars in a recession? Investors must be very certain that the high multiple is justified and we argue conditions will be tougher. Now, we also have companies in that group that are arguably more defensive, such as Microsoft. It's got a great business and AI is giving it more pricing power.

Past winners often fall behind

So is it rational to play defense in some of these companies that are maturing, that are becoming more economically sensitive? Let's do a history lesson. In 1980, the number 1 company in the world was IBM, effectively the inventor of the PC. But IBM was famously dependent on two other companies, Intel for chips and Microsoft for the operating system. It saw those two companies as suppliers.

Now let's go to 1990. The biggest company in the world was NTT, a very boring company. It's the Japanese equivalent of Telstra. Then by 2000, IBM has been disrupted by its two suppliers. Microsoft and Intel which have taken all of that profit pool in personal computing. Then coming out of the GFC, China delivered a massive stimulus and companies exposed to China became the largest companies in the world. Today, Apple has brought desktop computing power to our fingertips on a mobile device.

Investors should expect a reshuffling of winners

The point of this history lesson is the top 10 companies are constantly turning over because of the competitive dynamic in the market. Investors need to navigate structural and cyclical change, avoid the cyclicals that become value traps and miss the growth stocks that become growth traps as they mature, with an eye on socio and macroeconomic change.

In our portfolios there are four pillars:

  1. Lower-growth companies have a role at multiples where they're attractive investments.
  2. Companies that are transitioning into strong structural growth.
  3. Defensive or secular growth companies that are benefiting from structural growth but are still mispriced relative to that growth.
  4. In our long-short fund, single stock shorts and tail risk hedges that are mispriced.

Here are some examples.

It is hard to find anyone who has a positive case for China, but valuations are at record lows and there are opportunities in really high-quality companies. For example, Alibaba today and its equivalents like Baidu, which are Chinese versions of the Magnificent Seven, are trading at 10 to 12 times earnings. They are very strong businesses, they're hard to break, they are run for shareholders, and they are priced for an extraordinarily high level of geopolitical risk and a very bad economic outcome. There's a significant margin of safety and we think there are opportunities in these companies.

In our second example, a structural transition story is Total, an oil company, but it is an oil company that has been biasing its investments towards natural gas as a transition fuel, as well as renewables. More than half of its investment is going into those areas. There has not been the supply response to higher oil prices that we've had in the past. At a 15% free cash flow yield, there is a lot of value in Total.

And then, a third area of structural change, and AI adoption is a very long-term trend. The companies that we think are in the best position to benefit from AI adoption are those ones who can monetise it with their business customers. We think it will be hard to make money out of selling AI services to consumers, but we think there is a big productivity gain for companies like Microsoft. We don't think it is priced in for Oracle, Microsoft, SAP.

The bottom line

There is a massive amount of concentration in the market, valuation dispersion is high and value as a factor is cheap. These will lead to opportunities.

Investors should avoid paying yesterday's prices to solve for tomorrow's uncertainty. Crowding into some of the Magnificent Seven is not a defensive move, and investors should be wary of the potential for economic sensitivity in some of those names.

 

Jacob Mitchell is Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Antipodes Partners, managing over $10 billion and an affiliate manager of Pinnacle Investment Management. Pinnacle is a sponsor of Firstlinks. Jacob spent 14 years at Platinum Asset Management before starting Antipodes in 2015.

This article is for general information purposes only and does not consider any person’s objectives, financial situation or needs, and because of that, reliance should not be placed on this information as the basis for making an investment, financial or other decision.

For more articles and papers from Pinnacle Investment Management and affiliate managers, click here.

 

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Australian house prices close in on world record

Sydney is set to become the world’s most expensive city for housing over the next 12 months, a new report shows. Our other major cities aren’t far behind unless there are major changes to improve housing affordability.

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

7 examples of how the new super tax will be calculated

You've no doubt heard about Division 296. These case studies show what people at various levels above the $3 million threshold might need to pay the ATO, with examples ranging from under $500 to more than $35,000.

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Latest Updates

Planning

Will young Australians be better off than their parents?

For much of Australia’s history, each new generation has been better off than the last: better jobs and incomes as well as improved living standards. A new report assesses whether this time may be different.

Superannuation

The rubbery numbers behind super tax concessions

In selling the super tax, Labor has repeated Treasury claims of there being $50 billion in super tax concessions annually, mostly flowing to high-income earners. This figure is vastly overstated.

Investment strategies

A steady road to getting rich

The latest lists of Australia’s wealthiest individuals show that while overall wealth has continued to rise, gains by individuals haven't been uniform. Many might have been better off adopting a simpler investment strategy.

Economy

Would a corporate tax cut boost productivity in Australia?

As inflation eases, the Albanese government is switching its focus to lifting Australia’s sluggish productivity. Can corporate tax cuts reboot growth - or are we chasing a theory that doesn’t quite work here?

Are V-shaped market recoveries becoming more frequent?

April’s sharp rebound may feel familiar, but are V-shaped recoveries really more common in the post-COVID world? A look at market history suggests otherwise and hints that a common bias might be skewing perceptions.

Investment strategies

Asset allocation in a world of riskier developed markets

Old distinctions between developed and emerging market bonds no longer hold true. At a time where true diversification matters more than ever, this has big ramifications for the way that portfolios should be constructed.

Investment strategies

Top 5 investment reads

As the July school holiday break nears, here are some investment classics to put onto your reading list. The books offer lessons in investment strategy, financial disasters, and mergers and acquisitions.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 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. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. 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.