Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 213

Passive investing and other disruptive themes

There is an accelerating trend towards low-cost index or passive investing. The father of low-cost index investing, Jack Bogle, deserves the investment equivalent of a sainthood as he has commoditised buying the market index at a very low cost. Bogle is a hero of mine for the service he has done for society by lowering the cost negligible levels of accessing the market index. I have named the office adjacent to my desk (open plan) the ‘Bogle Room’ in honour of Jack. It serves to remind me that we are here to serve our clients and, as active managers, we must do something fundamentally different, rather than closely follow the market index.

What’s actually in an index?

Investors must understand what they are buying when they invest in an index fund. They are buying all the constituent companies in the index. If, for example, investors buy an S&P500 Index fund, they are gaining an exposure to 500 of the largest US companies, which represent about 80% of the market capitalisation of all companies listed in the US. Over time, the S&P500 Index, on average, will produce a return approximately equal to the underlying earnings growth of all companies in the index, plus the dividends paid by all companies in the index, less the negative return of companies that fail, less the fees charged by the index provider.

To earn reliable absolute returns from tracking a market index, the following factors must hold:

 

  • Over the long term, the long-term price/earnings multiple remains fairly constant for the vast majority of companies in the index, and

 

 

  • The failure rate of companies in the index remains fairly static.

 

 

Historically, these premises have held for the major market indices and investors have achieved satisfactory returns from index investing.

There is a material risk that technological advances and business-model disruptions over the next 10 to 20 years will reduce the value of many companies in the major market indices. This will be driven by lower future earnings and lower price/earnings multiples.

More businesses will fail in future

We believe a meaningful proportion of companies will cease to exist over the next 20 years as the inherent failure rate of businesses increases. The more obvious examples of businesses that face possible extinction include car manufacturers, automotive suppliers, oil and gas companies, coal miners, many retailers, media and cable companies and shipping companies.

Additionally, a large proportion of businesses could have their business models fundamentally disrupted. Many large consumer brand companies could be vulnerable. I often dwell on the long-term prospects of a consumer stalwart like Procter & Gamble (P&G).

P&G is the world’s leading household products company. Its portfolio of consumer brands appears formidable. Its brands include Tide, Fairy, Dawn, Gillette, Pampers, Pantene, Head & Shoulders, Herbal Essences, Tampax, Always, Crest, Oral B, Vicks, Old Spice, Olay, Bounty and Charmin. A fundamental reason for the strength of P&G’s economic moat has been the power of the brand-based business model, which combines traditional advertising with conventional retailing.

As the world’s largest advertiser, P&G has the largest share of shoppers’ minds. Owning the number one or two brands in core categories gives P&G the preeminent shelf space with traditional retailers such as Walmart and Tesco. This business model has resulted in a virtuous circle for brand owners such as P&G.

New advertising and distribution models driven by businesses such as Facebook, Google, YouTube, Amazon and China’s Alibaba are slowly breaking apart the business models of some of the dominant consumer brands. Facebook, Google and YouTube are eroding the barriers to entry in advertising, and emerging brands can quickly gain enormous exposure. More importantly, the large consumer platform businesses such as Amazon and Alibaba are likely to seek to disintermediate consumer brands.

For many of P&G brands (like cleaning agents Tide, Fairy, Dawn, and for products like paper towels (Bounty) and toilet paper (Charmin)), it will be relatively easy for consumer platforms to disintermediate these products and replace them with, say, Amazon-branded products. Many of these products are less likely to be purchased in traditional retail outlets but rather be restocked automatically via a platform. These platforms will be integrated with the Internet of Things (connected devices like washing machines) and powered by voice-operated digital assistants such as Amazon’s Alexa. We can see a future where regular household items are automatically replenished by services such as the ‘Fulfillment by Amazon’ programme.

How a digital order might be placed

It is not far-fetched for the following interaction to occur in the near future:

Alexa digital assistant: “Good morning, Hamish. I am going to place the order for the weekly shop today.”

Hamish: “Oh, good. What are you ordering?”

Alexa: “I will order regular items that are running low. If you don’t mind, I have a few ideas that should save you $20 this week and hundreds of dollars per year. I notice that you have regularly ordered Tide washing detergent, Fairy dishwashing tablets and Charmin toilet paper. I would like you to try some great Amazon products to replace these brands.”

Hamish: “I am not sure I want to do this. I have been using these brands for years.”

Alexa: “Look Hamish, I don’t want to offend you but you have been overpaying for these products as you have been paying for all the advertising on these brands. I can assure you the Amazon product quality is exceptional. If you are not 100% happy, please return any of these products at any time and I will provide a full refund.”

Hamish: “I am a little unsure but will give these products a go.”

Alexa: “Good to hear, Hamish. I know you won’t look back. You are on your way to saving hundreds of dollars per year with these few changes. I would hate to see a person with such a strong Scottish name not taking advantage of substantial savings. You had better run as you have a meeting at work in 30 minutes.”

Hamish: “Oh, I am running late. Please order me an Uber.”

Alexa: “Done. Uber will be here in five minutes. Have a great day.”

I believe the preceding dialogue will prove realistic enough and shows the power of platforms such as Amazon to disintermediate major consumer brands in the future. Once a product has been switched for an Amazon brand, it is unlikely that you will be shown the branded good again.

Other product categories such as hair, skin care, razors and toothpaste, while harder to displace with an Amazon brand, are likely to become more competitive as the platform companies reduce the barriers to entry for newcomers.

If P&G’s brands are disintermediated, their earnings will decline as volumes and margins recede and investors will reassess the long-term price-earnings multiple that they are prepared to pay for P&G. P&G’s price-earnings multiple has averaged 20 times over the past 20 years. This multiple could fall materially. We refer to this as the terminal value risk.

The investment problem is that it is impossible to know when the market will reassess the long-term prospects of businesses like P&G and the price-earnings multiple that the market will apply in the future. Our caution is that a reassessment could occur rapidly and brutally, and well before P&G’s brands are meaningfully disrupted.

June 2017 was an historic turning point

Friday 16 June 2017 is likely to be an historic ‘Black Friday’ for many retailers and possibly also manufacturers of branded household and food products. This is the day that Amazon announced that it intended to acquire the US fresh foods retailer, Whole Foods, for about US$14 billion. In our view, this is central to Amazon’s strategy to be the fulfilment company for the regular weekly shopping needs for the majority of US households. This role is currently undertaken by the grocery chains, with online retailers having a minimal presence.

To break into the weekly shopping habits of consumers, it appears that Amazon has concluded it needs a compelling ‘fresh’ offering and a well-positioned network of stores. It will need to transform Whole Foods from an upmarket and expensive offering into a compelling fresh offering at great prices. Amazon could then use the network of 460 stores to fulfill the fresh needs of Amazon customers in store and leverage the store network as collection points for regular shopping items. It is likely that Amazon could loss-lead on the ‘fresh’ offering to make it compelling for customers to do their weekly shop with Amazon.

The integration of Amazon’s fulfilment centres, Amazon Prime offering, data analytics, technology and now a physical network of stores with a compelling fresh offering potentially puts Amazon at the centre of US shopping habits. The pace and scale of disruption is accelerating.

Looking in the rear vision mirror will tell you little about which businesses will do well in the future. It is more important than ever to look out the windshield and think about how technological changes could alter business models in the future.

Why Uber is unlikely to survive long term

Picking winners from technological disruption may be less obvious than it appears. Take the example of Uber, the world’s leading car-hailing app. Uber is one of the most valuable start-up companies, having a private market value above US$60 billion. Uber has apparently attracted some of the world’s most renowned investors to fund its business. I find this perplexing because the Uber business model is risky and has a high probability of failure. Its business reportedly uses a lot of cash, thereby requiring ‘cash injections’, and the funding model to attract these injections requires an ever-increasing ‘valuation’ to encourage the next investor to provide cash on the expectation that the value at the next funding round will increase. Without access to more funding, the business may not survive.

Uber’s business model is a classic network business that requires a large local pool of owner-drivers and a larger number of users. Uber is spending billions of dollars per year in building its network of owner-drivers. The risk with the Uber business model is the likely emergence of autonomous driving. If autonomous driving becomes a reality, one side of Uber’s network will collapse. A network of owner-drivers is a high-cost solution compared with a fleet of autonomous vehicles. Uber’s huge number of users could be replicated rapidly by another company that had a vast fleet of autonomous vehicles. To prosper in an autonomous driving world, Uber needs two things: access to exceptionally safe autonomous-driving software, and access to a lot of capital to roll out a vast fleet of autonomous cars. We question whether Uber has either of these.

We assess that there are other companies that have materially stronger competitive advantages in autonomous driving. A critical test for autonomous-driving software is how far an autonomous vehicle can travel before the human ‘safety driver’ in the vehicle has to take control to avoid an accident, in what is known as a disengagement. Recent data indicates that Waymo (Alphabet’s autonomous driving unit) has driven over 600,000 miles in California with an average ‘disengagement’ rate of slightly over 5,000 miles.

In March 2017, Uber’s autonomous vehicles were able to drive just 0.8 miles before a safety driver needed to assume control for any reason. In California, Tesla is averaging around three miles per disengagement, Mercedes-Benz two miles, BMW 638 miles and Ford 196 miles. These results suggest Uber has the least advanced autonomous-driving technology among the major players. Only a few autonomous-driving operating systems will prevail in the longer term and the winners are likely to have the best safety records. Waymo appears to have a commanding lead and Uber appears to be a laggard.

An investment in Uber may be a bet that autonomous vehicles will not be adopted. Given the quantum of investment and advances in autonomous-driving technology, this appears unlikely.

 

Hamish Douglass is CEO, CIO and Lead Portfolio Manager at Magellan Financial Group. This article is for general information and does not consider the circumstances of any individual.

4 Comments
Matt
August 09, 2017

Albert, buying companies that disappear is not a good investment strategy, whether or not it's in a passive form. If you believe that some very large cap companies are going to no longer exist, it defies logic to invest in a passive vehicle that must own them today. As the new companies emerge that you refer to that index will hold hardly any of them in any size as they have no foresight by definition. Major transitions, such as that which you acknowledge to be occurring are poor environments for passive investing.

Vishal Teckchandani
August 06, 2017

Great article Hamish! Very valid points regarding technology's ability to disrupt business models. A few questions though about the disintermediation of consumer products in particular:

1) Would the economics make sense for Amazon to develop/distribute its own brand of household items? I know anything is possible but this would, in my opinion, seem to be as likely as mankind reaching Pluto anytime soon given a) the margins on these products (I'd think Amazon would go after phones and watches first) and b) the massive storage space Amazon would require to stock boxes of its namesake branded detergent and make up etc.

2) Even if Amazon was to sell its own brand of household goods, wouldn't it be the P&Gs, Colgates etc. of the world supplying Amazon given they have the factories and IP to develop them to the scale and quality required? I would think this would benefit P&G as it would be mean less expenditure on advertising while maintaining fairly robust margins.

3) Couldn't consumer goods companies opt to sell directly via Amazon as Nike has done?

I also just wonder how effectively Amazon would be able to convince consumers about replacing the use of brands which have built (via their big marketing budgets) phenomenal levels of awareness and trust among most people on this planet? Nobody has managed to break Coca-Cola, Neutrogena or H&S yet!

Chris Jankowski
August 04, 2017

Yes, the progress in autonomous vehicles is nothing short of amazing.

It is worth remembering the very first DARPA challenge was in 2004 over a fixed 150 miles route known to the competitors in advance. Nevertheless, none of the competitors got anywhere near the finish. The furthest went Red Team's vehicle - just 7.4 miles before it got stuck on an embankment.

Now we have vastly superior computer power and sensors. Really serious money entered. The progress may only further accelerate.

Albert Quo
August 04, 2017

'There is a material risk that technological advances and business-model disruptions over the next 10 to 20 years will reduce the value of many companies in the major market indices. This will be driven by lower future earnings and lower price/earnings multiples.'
THE DISRUPTED WILL DRIFT TO LOWER PEs BUT THE DISRUPTORS WILL BE LISTED AND ATTRACT HIGH PEs . THIS THE NATURE OF THE MARKETS. THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE PE OF THE WHOLE MARKET TO DROP.

'We believe a meaningful proportion of companies will cease to exist over the next 20 years as the inherent failure rate of businesses increases.'
YES WE ALL BELIEVE THIS BUT NEW COMPANIES WILL EMERGE AS SERVICES AND GOODS ARE STILL REQUIRED BY GROWING POPULATIONS DEMANDING AN EVER HIGHER STANDARD OF LIVING.

The case for index investing is still intact.


 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Business model disruption has barely begun

Why the four tech giants are not expensive

Business model disruption - Part 2

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

10 undervalued stocks if you're worried about volatility

Amid the coronavirus-induced turmoil, many quality names are trading at a discount to fair value, according to Morningstar analysts. A smaller list of companies also screen for earnings certainty.

Baseline outlook for economic recovery is too optimistic

We cannot throw our hands up in the air and say 'this time around, it's simply too hard'. Having no macro view is unhelpful, but many of the baseline scenarios are overly optimistic, says the former CEO of Westpac and now Chairman of Chi-X Australia.

What will stop the market returning to its highs?

Despite signs of optimism, market valuations are stretched and recovery is fuelled by government support. Some companies are doing well but stimulus cannot continue to prop up consumers for too long.

The most amazing investing lesson of all

If you had to choose one concept to explain to a young person setting out on an investment journey, it should be compounding. While the results are not as spectacular, it's especially relevant when returns are lower.

Will our government embrace these three reforms?

COVID-19 is an opportunity for a crucial policy reset, but what does that really mean? Business is hoping for three big reforms, but there are massive barriers to be overcome.

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 357

There is a remarkable concentration similarity between the Australian and US stock markets that has delivered poor results for Australians and great results for Americans (and global investors). As the share prices of five Australian banks have tanked, the prices of five US technology companies have surged. Each group now represents 20% of their respective indexes, but the journey has been a disaster for many Australians.

  • 13 May 2020

Latest Updates

Strategy

Is it a myth that 'purpose' can drive corporate profits?

If ESG, ethical investing, philanthropy and CSR aren’t creating the magnitude of change needed, is there an alternative way of bridging the gap between profit growth and social benefit?

Investing

The most amazing investing lesson of all

If you had to choose one concept to explain to a young person setting out on an investment journey, it should be compounding. While the results are not as spectacular, it's especially relevant when returns are lower.

Economy

What will stop the market returning to its highs?

Despite signs of optimism, market valuations are stretched and recovery is fuelled by government support. Some companies are doing well but stimulus cannot continue to prop up consumers for too long.

Shares

Value is under pressure again - but its day will come

The key to investment success from here is the ability to ignore the crowd and the hot stocks. We will then face a once-in-a-lifetime chance to buy cyclical and industrial stocks with significant upside.

Investment strategies

10 undervalued stocks if you're worried about volatility

Amid the coronavirus-induced turmoil, many quality names are trading at a discount to fair value, according to Morningstar analysts. A smaller list of companies also screen for earnings certainty.

Gold

6 questions SMSF trustees are asking about gold

SMSF trustees are concerned about stock market volatility and low interest rates, and they asked six important questions during this seminar on whether gold has a role in their portfolios.

Exchange traded products

LIC fees banned but other doors remain open

Treasury has finally banned commissions paid to brokers and advisers on LICs and LITs but the exemption from FoFA rules remains for other listed products in the 'real' economy, whatever that is.

SMSF strategies

Is it the end of cash for SMSFs?

The simple message to diversify is not new, but thousands of SMSF trustees focus only on equities and dividends. COVID-19 is encouraging SMSFs to consider different investment strategies.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2020 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 class service prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, has been prepared by without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. Refer to our Financial Services Guide (FSG) for more information. 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.