Stock market looks expensive? Blame the giants
Global markets look expensive—but it’s mostly the biggest companies driving that. The rest of the market is priced closer to normal.
The global stock market looks stretched at first glance—but the story is more nuanced once you dig beneath the surface. The perception of lofty valuations is being driven almost entirely by the very largest companies, while much of the rest of the market is priced closer to historical norms.
Why the Market Looks Expensive
Headline market valuations, particularly when measured by forward price-to-earnings (P/E) ratios, suggest that stocks are expensive. However, when we separate companies into groups based on their size, it becomes clear that the top names—typically high-growth, mega-cap technology and consumer firms—are disproportionately pulling averages higher.
These giants command premium multiples that skew weighted averages upward, making the entire market look pricier than it really is.
First, a quick definition. I'm looking at the top 1,500 developed market stocks globally - about 80% of the market capitalisation of all stock markets. Then, I've created 4 buckets of stocks:
When you look at it this way, the problem seems like it is limited to just a handful of stocks:
And if you want to get fancy with stats, you can see that there are more stocks with a low ratio (12x forward price/earnings) today than there were in a more moderately priced 2016, or before bubbles burst in 1999 or 2006:
Could there be an alternative narrative?
Even in a rational world, the stocks that are expected to grow faster should have a higher price/earnings ratio.
What would a world look like if it just happened that the largest stocks also came from higher price/earnings sectors, and had the best growth outlook?
The answer: a lot like it does today...
Which doesn't say the valuations are right, but it does colour the lens through which we should be looking at them.
Sector Composition Matters
Some of the difference is just the sectors. There are some sectors which are traditionally low price/earnings because the earnings are more risky or the leverage is much higher. Banks and resources usually fall into that camp.
Some sectors are traditionally higher price/earnings. Usually because of more stable earnings, lower capital expenditure or lower leverage. Consumer, services or technology stocks often fall into this category.
To put it another way, if the top 2% of stocks (by size) had lots of financials, then you would expect a lower P/E than if they were all services or tech stocks. Which largely correlates with valuation moves.
If you ignore size and just look at medians, most sectors do not look expensive:
Growth Expectations: Reality vs. Hype
So, is the difference just that the largest stocks also happen to be the highest growth?
Certainly, according to forecasts, that is the case. But not by that much:
A rational case for today's valuations
Say the US goes into a reasonably sized economic slowdown:
- Stocks exposed to the consumer get hit, and most "moderately priced" sectors that are not tech see earnings downgrades. Stock prices also fall.
- The Fed cuts interest rates
- The tech sector keeps spending on AI and data centers, funded by lower interest rates and fear of falling behind competitors. The slow down in other sectors reduces the competition for construction resources.
- Capital markets stay open, we see a rash of AI IPOs, most of which gets plowed back into buying stuff from other tech companies
- Under Trump there is little anti-trust activity in the AI sector, most of the benefits accrue to the largest companies
- Large tech sector earnings increase
Let us talk valuation. What would the growth differential need to be to justify paying 28x today for a large tech stock vs 16x for other companies?
Say we are talking net present value in broad terms. A discount rate of 11%, ten years of tech stocks growing faster than other stocks, then long term earnings growth of 5% for all stocks.
The answer? About 9%. i.e. if tech stocks can grow at say 12% p.a. while the rest of the market does 3% for 10 years then it would be rational to pay 28x for large tech stocks vs 16x for other stocks.
Maybe you value the low debt levels, high and stable margins that the tech sector brings. Then, you could easily argue that a 5-6% difference in growth would be enough.
Net Effect
Stock markets are not cheap at an aggregate level. But, within the sectors and growth profiles there might be more rationality in the pricing than might first appear.
It might look safer in the lower-priced sectors, but there is a lot more earnings risk in those stocks from tariffs and general Trump driven-disruption.
Tech stocks are not cheap. But for most of the largest ones, the earnings are high quality, not volatile and margins are wide.
I'm not entirely convinced. But I'm enough convinced to be mostly invested at the moment. And I am convinced that the right lens is to consider how much AI stock earnings will exceed non-AI stocks, and then work out how much more should you pay for that growth.
These findings were originally featured on Episode 389 of Nucleus Investment Insights, where we took a look into the disparage of stock prices in the global market.
The discussion continues in the next episode, where we dug deeper into what these stretched valuations could mean for markets in the months ahead—and how investors can position accordingly. In the same episode, we also unpacked the issue of housing affordability that's currently under threat by rising prices — an equally interesting topic to watch.
Take us on your daily commute! Nucleus Investment Insights is available in Podcast form on iTunes and all major Android Podcast Platforms, including Spotify.
Be sure to subscribe to our channel on YouTube to get notified whenever we're going live.
Never miss an update
Enjoy this wire? Hit the ‘like’ button to let us know.
Stay up to date with my current content by
following me below and you’ll be notified every time I post a wire
Damien runs asset allocation and global stock portfolios for Nucleus Super, Nucleus Ethical and Nucleus Wealth. His 25 year+ career includes Global Quant at Schroders, Strategy at Wilson HTM & co-founder of Aegis.
........
The information on this blog contains general information and does not take into account your personal objectives, financial situation or needs. Past performance is not an indication of future performance. Damien Klassen is an authorised representative of Nucleus Wealth Management, a Corporate Authorised Representative of Nucleus Advice Pty Ltd - AFSL 515796.
Never miss an update
Get the latest insights from me in your inbox when they’re published.
4 topics
Damien runs asset allocation and global stock portfolios for Nucleus Super, Nucleus Ethical and Nucleus Wealth. His 25 year+ career includes Global Quant at Schroders, Strategy at Wilson HTM & co-founder of Aegis.
Expertise
Damien runs asset allocation and global stock portfolios for Nucleus Super, Nucleus Ethical and Nucleus Wealth. His 25 year+ career includes Global Quant at Schroders, Strategy at Wilson HTM & co-founder of Aegis.
Expertise
Comments
Comments
Sign In or Join Free to comment
most popular
Equities
What a 40% year taught us: 4 lessons from the past 12 months (and 3 new stocks to buy)
Seneca Financial Solutions