저자: ColinOverweg · 외국인
요약 보기
Burry의 닷컴 버블 경고에 반박. S&P500 PER(약 31~32배)은 높지만 선행 PER 약 20.9배로 버블 수준은 아니며, 1분기 이익성장률 12.6%가 뒷받침. 나스닥100 미수익 기업 비중은 닷컴 당시 21%에서 현재 약 1%로 낮음. 과거 1999~2000 고점 매수 투자자도 연 8% 수익. 젊은 투자자는 적립 지속, 은퇴자는 채권·현금 분산 권고.
다듬은 글
Michael Burry, who famously predicted the housing bubble in 2008, is now saying that today's market feels a lot like the '99 to 2000 bubble. Burry is saying that stocks are not going up because of jobs or consumer sentiment or fundamentals. He's just saying that stocks are going up because, well, stocks are going up and it gives a lot of that bubble feeling.
And then on top of that, if we look at the size and concentration of the market, the top 10 companies in the S&P 500 over the last few decades has never been higher. So, not only do we have maybe the bubble evaluation concerns, but also lack of diversification potentially. So, let's go ahead and take a look at the data and talk about some things that you could potentially do in your portfolio.
Investors are starting to claim bubble territory a lot of times by pointing to the S&P 500's price-to-earnings ratio, which is currently hovering around 31 or 32 times. And with a historical average closer to 16, one might think, yeah, the market is actually overvalued. And just to give you a quick math lesson about price-to-earnings ratio, I like to think about it in terms of real estate.
It just seems to click for my brain. If you were to pay $320,000 for a rental property that paid you $20,000 a year in rent, it would take technically 16 years for you to get your money back. So, that's kind of a way you can think about the market trading at 16 times. Where if the market was trading at 31 times, you would now have to pay $620,000 for the same rental property that is paying you $20,000 per year.
But if we scroll down to the dot-com bubble, you can see that evaluations got as high as 46 times. So, just to put that in reference, yes, we are definitely today above and beyond historical averages, but the dot-com bubble was extraordinarily higher in terms of price-to-PE ratio or price to earnings ratio rather.
So going back to our example, who in their right mind would pay $620,000 for a real estate property if the rent was 20 grand and it took you 31 years to get your money back? The answer simply is you wouldn't. You see the S&P 500 reported first quarter earning growth of 12.6%, which is the sixth consecutive consecutive quarter of the market is saying, "Yeah, I'm happy to pay that big price because I know that the earnings are continuing to grow and there's no way I'm going to have to wait that long in order to recoup my money." JPMorgan with a team of smart people agree.
JPMorgan is making estimates of what those earnings might be and they call it a forward PE ratio and are evaluating the S&P to be closer to 20.9 times earnings. Still relatively high, but probably not bubble territory. And to continue the side-by-side analysis of today's market versus the '99-2000 bubble, Mark Marex, CFA, head of research at Nasdaq did a great deep dive on this.
Mark points out that back in '99, over 21% of the Nasdaq 100 was unprofitable, whereas today about 1% of the Nasdaq 100, basically the largest tech companies in the US, are actually profitable. And yes, there may be some concentration risk with the largest companies being such a high percentage of the total market, but these are not your grandfather's railroad companies.
These have revenues in tons and tons of different products and services. So really, there's a lot of diversification within each one of these large tech companies. And what makes me feel even more comfortable is that the return profile of these companies are not identical. You can see in the last quarter of 2025 that Alphabet or Google is doing really, really well.
Meanwhile, the other six are lagging behind or maybe even negative. And then just a year prior, you can see that Google's doing poorly, well, the others, Tesla for in this example, is doing great. Even if today is going to be the next 99-2000 bubble, what do the returns look like if they're going to be similar for the next 10, 15, 20 years?
We know that the historically the S&P averages around 9 to 10%. Well, if you had bought in in December of '99 up until today, you have actually still averaged an 8% annualized rate of return. And if you're a young person who's actually still making contributions and today is the dot-com bubble, then you're actually kind of in for a treat.
You get to buy stocks at a lower rate and could have and could have appreciate an 11% annualized rate of return over that same time period. Now, I certainly can cannot dismiss the scariness of the lost decade where there was a 10-year period in which you actually had a negative rate of return. A $10,000 investment 10 years later, you would have $9,500.
That is extremely scary and something that a retiree needs to think about when building out their portfolio, which is exactly why when you're working with a professional, they're probably going to be recommending a plethora of bonds or maybe even some cash to help weather those years. And in fact, actually, if you were in 0% stocks, 100% bonds over that same time frame, you would have experienced a 6 and 1/2% rate of return, completely different story.
I certainly don't want to dismiss the claims that the market is overvalued or maybe even into bubble territory, but from a price-to-earnings ratio, I'm just not seeing it. And actually, the fundamentals, contrary to what Burry is saying, are growing. So, I do believe that there is some understanding as to why that high price could actually make sense.
And if you're a young person, I would be more concerned about just making sure that you can maintain your job, maintain your income, and continue buying and saving into the market. And if this does end up being a dot com bubble, then this could actually be a fantastic investing opportunity. And for retirees starting to use that portfolio as passive income in retirement, well, then we really need to consider getting out of 100% stocks.
That might be a fuzz too aggressive. It's important to stay globally diversified, not just within the US, and also make sure that we have some backbone of some bonds to kind of help weather the storm, and maybe even some cash to get us through those short-term those short-term hiccups in the market. Overall, stick to your plan, and happy building wealth.
Comments 0