Outside of the top stocks, S&P 500 forward profits haven't grown in 3 years
insight-public.sgmarkets.com
insight-public.sgmarkets.com
I see it as an inflation of speculative worth of these companies. The value they are providing can in no way be proportional to the rate of growth of their stock. It is just a circulation of their own money being passed through each of those companies' services, and not anything of worth to the consumer.
Think about the classic economics fairy tale of why income redistribution is bad ("inefficient") and trickle-down economics is good.
Billionaire Bill buys his 10th yacht. Workers need to manufacture the yacht and all the different parts of it. He needs to hire staff to keep it clean, to maintain it, to operate it, and to stock the fridge; he needs to pay for satellite internet so he can do business on the yacht; and he needs to buy TVs for the kids. All of that stuff is produced by other businesses with their own employess and sometimes independent contractors. So all of this economic economic activity results in a flow of income to a large number of individuals. Those individuals then themselves all need to buy groceries, clothes, housing, transportation, etc. so all that income then continues to flow outward throughout the economy. The price system orchestrates everything so that the proceeds from Billionaire Bill's yacht are used to provide the goods and services of greatest value to everyone else.
That story of course is nonsense, but the question is: why? It seems correct. In fact it is broadly correct in the sense that the things described in the story do in fact happen in real life. So why isn't it a happy ending like in the fairy tale?
There are a few things going on here, but the one of importance here is where are those yacht-builder employees buying their goods and services from?
One missing aspect of the story is that they're paid a tiny amount compared to the top management of the yacht company and a few other specialists like the naval engineer, the captain, and the lead software developer. So they don't actually have a lot to spend. And what they do spend money on is largely provided by conglomerates controlled largely by Millionaire Mike and Trillionaire Todd, who of course are very close friends of Bill. Mike and Todd know ensure that their prices are as high as possible to capture as much of their customers' income as revenue. Mike and Todd then go buy golfing trips, yachts, mansions, etc. And the cycle continues.
The effect is that all the individual employees do in fact get some of Bill's billions of dollars in the form of income, but they only get enough to cover their essentials, and any profit from buying those essentials goes right back into the hands of another person just like Billionaire Bill. The income does in fact flow throughout the economy as in the bedtime story, but you can't understand the welfare of individuals within the economy by just looking at total flows.
You don't need to be a Marxist to see that this is how the economy works and has worked since the dawn of capitalism. It's a natural low-energy state that economies naturally tend towards, because humans are humans and there is always a minority that is willing and able to take avantage of others.
The only difference here is that the loop is tighter, where Bill Todd and Mike are all just buying each other's services directly.
The US has a lot of movers, not enough makers. Our GDP is essentially propped up by fake jobs that do nothing. Of course we are a service economy, but a lot of this isn't even services, it's just move thing A to thing B then move it back and make money doing that. It would make sense if we're physically moving stuff - but we're not. We're just moving money back and forth.
When reality comes to the table it isn't going to be pleasant.
Top holdings are CVS, Verizon and FedEx all at 0.8%. Basically normal companies.
It's amazing how traditional companies have done in comparison to the top of the S&P500 (or really the top S&P10). So I feel the need to buy the other stuff in case the top S&P10 is a bubble.
Though maybe I'm just unsophisticated. And it feels a little hopeless because there's no telling how long the smoke and mirrors will continue working, and whenever it stops, undoubtedly the rest of the economy is going to suffer, too. Bleh.
For the U.S. market portion I adopted a more complex strategy based on factor / smart-beta investing (making sure that none of the top holdings include AI-related companies).
$RSP is $SPY, but equal allocation across all 500 companies. So the top tech stocks are ~1.5% of your holding instead of ~20%.
I have a theory that Meta execs was so focused on the Metaverse that the Ai team succeeded thanks to the lack of supervision and interference from above - there was probably a board discussion between 2019 and 2022 about firing them all and just focusing up the Metaverse stuff becuase they were dead weight on the core mission of colonizing the Metaverse.
Turns out the Ai team was the lifeboat to save the drowning Metaverse.
There is an amazing team there that did the work, I am just saying it wasnt the visionaries vision that made that happen - and if it was they certainly wouldnt have let the Ai team publish or opensource their work.
A lot of wasted money but not 100B++
I had no idea that physical small businesses like that needed to spend so much on marketing just to be found.
The best plumbers spend $0 on advertising. They've got enough business through repeat customers and word of mouth to keep their small set of plumbers busy, and they're expanding slowly enough to properly train apprentices and ensure quality.
So if you have a zillion negative yelp reviews, which you have no idea where they came from, since there's more negative reviews than you've ever had customers, but they want your money to hide them. ;)
Macy with Morning Brew ?
Unfortunately, this doesn't mean too much without knowing the size of the business.
But, even if ads are a necessary evil, they are definitely overhead (in the sense that they don’t actually accomplish anything, just influence the decision as to what should be done). Maybe we can define some sort of ad-efficiency metric for an economy; what percentage of the money is spent influencing decisions, what percentage is spent actually implementing the decisions…
We already have the law as the meta norm. Let law enforcement do its job.
Is it public like Wikipedia? How do you decide which businesses are notable enough?
Is it the government? Of which country?
Can anyone submit without approval? It would get spammed to ruin.
Etc etc.
Are the a non-duplicate business selling something
>Is it the government? Of which country?
It doesn't matter
>Can anyone submit without approval?
As long as your submiting information about a non-duplicate business that's selling something.
>It would get spammed to ruin.
As long as its deduplicated no one would care.
Reels isn't powered by Transformers per se (likely more of a complex mix of ML techniques), but it is powered by honest-to-goodness SOTA AI/ML running on leading-edge Nvidia GPUs.
I think, because they're so impressive, people assume Transformers = AI/ML, when there's plenty of other hyperscale AI/ML products on the market today.
Stock price is related to the predicted total value of the company from now until eternity, not the current value it's providing.
The rest of the pack is feeding on the AI hype train, each supplying their services to pump up the story (analogy): Nvidia on chips (shovels), Microsoft and Amazon on cloud (gold storage), Meta and Google on ads (marketing).
If the former then duh! Top 10 stocks are top 10 because they were going up! You will see this for any index.
The latter would make sense but given the laconicity of the post, it's pointless to speculate.
> forward net income estimates
Its a backward looking chart, use actual profits or eps results (although that can be manipulated through accounting). If the point is that income expectations are low - then are those expectations bourne out in the earnings?
> 3 years
Why only show the chart of the last 3 years? Has it always been like this - text says this wasnt the pattern in the 1960's (and 70's btw) - but there is a 50 year window between then and now that isnt discussed.
this is basically just a normalised pe ratio for top 10 and rest of the index - use that instead.
Total Index is practically identical to S&P500 because Total Index is also market cap weighted.
I also felt overexposed to tech and about 80% of my stock portfolio was US total market or SP (basically the same)
I have been dollar-cost averaging slightly out of those positions and into other small-/mid-cap funds. I have decreased my stock allocation as well and moving toward bonds and CDs, which are returning around 4.5-5% guaranteed.
Interested to hear what others who speculate that SP overdue for correction might be doing
Fair point about dumping entire positions not being ideal. I got lucky with the timing since the market dropped shortly after I sold. Definitely got lucky on timing that
Long term, I'll likely reinvest in the S&P 500, but as a much smaller slice of my portfolio alongside other indices, bonds, individual stocks, etc. The plan is to avoid that level of concentration going forward regardless of how well it might perform
I've been slowly DCAing out into bonds, but I'm still over 80% stock total.
There are ETFs that consider fundamentals, such as book value, cash flow, and sales. In these fundamental-weighted ETFs, AI companies that burn large amounts of cash are rated much lower compared to their weighting in market cap-based ETFs.
If Tesla has a 200 P/E and MSFT has a 40 P/E, and the s&p has an average of 20, you'd have 1/10th the Tesla and 1/2 the MSFT shares as a traditional ETF.
Trading costs. A cap-weighted portfolio manages itself. Square root cap weighting is going to trade a lot, and that's expensive.
Nvidia, Microsoft, Apple, Alphabet/Google, Amazon, Meta/Facebook, Broadcom, Tesla, Berkshire Hathaway, and Walmart.
A commonality to most of them (and to a lesser extent all of them) is they write software.
If a company not on the list like Ford has an F-150 truck come off the assembly line, some of that $40,000 cost is in the capital expenditure for the plant, any automation it has, the software in the car and so on. But Ford has to pay for the aluminum, steel and glass for each truck. It has to pay for thousands of workers on the assembly line to attach and assemble parts for each truck.
Meanwhile, at Apple a team writes iOS 18, mostly based on iOS 17, and it ships with the devices. Once it is written that's it for what goes off on iPhone 16. There may be some additional tweaks up until iOS 18.6. The relatively small team working on iOS has it going out with tens of millions of units. Their work is not as connected to the process of production as the assembly line people attaching and assembling the F-150 truck. If some inessential feature is not done as a phone is being made, it will be punted to next release. This can't be done with an F-150 truck.
Software properly done is just much more profitable than non-software work. We can see this here. Yes, some of the latest boost is due to AI hype (which may or may not come to fruition in the near future), but these companies got to this position before all of that.
I was watching a speech by Gabe Newell talking about the (smaller) software industry of the 1990s, and the idea back then to outsource and try to save on salary costs. He said he and his partners went the other way and decided to look for the most expensive and best programmers they could find, and Valve has had great success with that. Over the past 2 1/2 years we've seen a lot of outsourcing to cheaper foreign labor, FAANG layoffs (including Microsoft's recent Xbox layoffs), and more recently attempts to lower costs by having software produced by less experienced vibe coders using "AI". I have seen myself at Fortune 100 companies, especially non-tech ones, that the lessons of the late 1960s NATO software engineering conferences, or the lessons learned by Fred Brooks while managing the OS/360 project in the 1960s haven't been learned. Software can be a very, very profitable enterprise, and it is sometimes done right, but companies are still often doing things in the same way they were attempting such projects in the early 1960s. Even attempts to fix things like agile and scrum get twisted around as window dressing to doing things in the old-fashioned corporate way.
Particularly in the latter part of the 20th century, the number of companies that choose to go public seems to have increased quite a bit—and, at the same time, there's been a huge wave of consolidation, meaning that even if there are fewer public companies than there would be without that, a higher share of the total economy is likely to be made up of public companies.
The average person would be unlikely to be able to stomach holding a contract as each one moves the same as holding ~$250,000 of the S&P500. You get this by putting ~$25k down. A 10% move down and you are wiped, a 10% move up and you double your money.
However they do offer micro contracts which are $25,000 of S&P500 for ~$2,500.
You can find the contract specs on the CME's website here [0]. The implicit leverage is actually a bit greater than the parent comment says. The contract notional value is defined as $50 x Index Value, which is currently around 6500. So the contract represents close to $325,000 and the exchange's margin requirement is around $21,000. Interactive Brokers seems to require similar margin [1]. The margin requirement is around 6.5% of the notional value, i.e. 15x leverage. So a 6.5% decrease in the S&P 500 would wipe out the account.
Not sure why the parent comment is downvoted, I suppose it has a moralizing tone?
[0] - https://www.cmegroup.com/markets/equities/sp/e-mini-sandp500...
[1] - https://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/trading/margin-futures...
So the concentration might be a lot less than it seems, just because a lot of the AI play might be as low risk as, say, when Meta sank so much money into VR, or Amazon decided that smart speakers were the future. A lot of profits are spent if it all fails, but the engine of the company is still sitting there, being the same money fountain it's been for the last decade. It's just that they are, in practice, investing on what would be a new company with the proceeds, instead of doing stock buybacks, providing massive dividends, or reinvest in the existing verticals.
Once you become large enough, your "commodities" become other companies that are growing, enabling you to simply purchase growth and income directly with your capital.
In game design we call this a snowball effect or a "winners win more" system. It necessarily disadvantages everyone who is not at the top.
Unfortunately, there seems to be little appetite for limiting the capacity of capital to accumulate in only a few winners.
During the last election I was shocked how most people seem to think it’s ok for somebody like Musk to try to influence a senate election and to intimidate other candidates if they don’t fall in line. This should not be acceptable in a democracy.
Soon we will have the first trillionaire. That person will probably be more powerful than a lot of countries or US states.
This is a terrible idea. You should pay for value, not reward hard work. Rewards are for kids.
Despite many peoples' attempts to say otherwise, this is pretty much the core point of capitalism.
It emerged out of mercantilism which was applying the same "winner takes all" aim, except to states rather than individuals.
Mass homelessness, the 10th republican president in a row mobilizing the army, purging the homeless from the streets, people cheering.
It’s gonna be a mood.
Already here
> the 10th republican president in a row mobilizing the army, purging the homeless from the streets, people cheering.
This is literally happening right now in Washington DC (it's the National Guard but still).