4 ms·

> No serious recession is priced in really. That's not entirely true, the composition of the S&P500 has pretty dramatically changed in the last few months[1].

by bhupy 7y ago

> No serious recession is priced in really. That's not entirely true, the composition of the S&P500 has pretty dramatically changed in the last few months[1]. If you look at the linked chart most sectors are down — energy is -50%, consumer discretionary is -27%, financials are -22%. However, a few sectors are up — healthcare is +5%, consumer staples +6.5%, information technology is +8.5%. So with shelter-in-place and quarantine, it makes sense that the world's demand for oil and travel is at all time lows, and the stock prices reflect this. Instead, the demand is now almost entirely online, on the internet. Nearly every IT sector company is surging. Even real-estate is down, as expected (fewer moves happening, less commercial leasing), but it appears to have a high variance[2]. Why is that? There are actually a few real estate companies on the S&P that are doing really well: $SBAC (operates wireless infrastructure), $EQIX (specializes in datacenters), $AMT (wireless and broadcast communications infrastructure), and $CCI (shared communications infrastructure). So, many sectors of the economy are down, as are most companies. The current pandemic has pushed more capital to businesses which operate online. So the reason why the market cap of the S&P500 hasn't changed dramatically is because the distribution of the money underlying it has. The S&P500 is a capitalization-weighted index. > But at one point stock prices will need to get back in line with earnings. I don't really hear anyone talking about v-shaped recovery anymore. This week a lot of tech companies are reporting their earnings. Alphabet announced a 13% increase in revenue. If other tech, communication infrastructure, consumer staples, and personal health companies report similar earnings, then this whole thesis will be validated: the S&P500's current market value can largely be attributed to a flight-to-quality, where the "quality" is pandemic-proof stocks. [1] https://imgur.com/a/6ZOCbBI https://imgur.com/a/6ZOCbBI [2] https://imgur.com/a/JF3u463 https://imgur.com/a/JF3u463

IkmoIkmo 7y ago
> So the reason why the market cap of the S&P500 hasn't changed dramatically is because the distribution of the money underlying it has. The S&P500 is a capitalization-weighted index. That's super interesting and makes a lot of sense. However, could you elaborate a bit further? Suppose we have an S&P 5, if the top 5 companies remain the same, but they on average do worse, we'd see the S&P 5 go down. You seem to imply, if I understand correctly, that the S&P 5 is not down as much because 1 company did really well and stayed, 4 that did poorly left and got replaced by 4 companies that did really well, too. Thereby the S&P 5 changed its composition. And that makes some sense. However, that would mean that if you had an all-world or all-us stock indexes, which did not exclude any companies dropping out of a top 100 or top 500 or whatever, would have to see a large drop. And I'm not really seeing that. These stock indices track roughly the same shapes as the S&P500, with perhaps few percentage off, but nothing substantial.
- bhupy 7y ago
  > Suppose we have an S&P 5, if the top 5 companies remain the same, but they on average do worse, we'd see the S&P 5 go down. You seem to imply, if I understand correctly, that the S&P 5 is not down as much because 1 company did really well and stayed, 4 that did poorly left and got replaced by 4 companies that did really well, too. Thereby the S&P 5 changed its composition. No that's not what's happening. Think of S&P 500 index as a basket of stocks. What does that basket look like? If I buy one "unit" of this basket, does it include 500 shares of stock, across the 500 companies? NO. The distribution of the basket is weighted, and it's weighted by market capitalization. So if all stocks were worth the same, you would have a unit amount of every single stock. But if, say, 5 companies do really well and 5 companies do really poorly, 1 "unit" of the S&P500 basket will actually include more of the "really well" stocks, and less of the "really poorly" stocks. The capital is automatically reallocated based on the market capitalization. Because of this, the market value of the S&P500 has stayed relatively stable. > And that makes some sense. However, that would mean that if you had an all-world or all-us stock indexes, which did not exclude any companies dropping out of a top 100 or top 500 or whatever, would have to see a large drop. Again, that's only true if this index is naive enough to not apply any sort of weighting. Most indexes in the world are weighted indexes, in fact we are generally instructed that indexes that do not apply any sort of weighting are bad indexes.

by bhupy 7y ago

IkmoIkmo 7y ago

> So the reason why the market cap of the S&P500 hasn't changed dramatically is because the distribution of the money underlying it has. The S&P500 is a capitalization-weighted index. That's super interesting and makes a lot of sense. However, could you elaborate a bit further? Suppose we have an S&P 5, if the top 5 companies remain the same, but they on average do worse, we'd see the S&P 5 go down. You seem to imply, if I understand correctly, that the S&P 5 is not down as much because 1 company did really well and stayed, 4 that did poorly left and got replaced by 4 companies that did really well, too. Thereby the S&P 5 changed its composition. And that makes some sense. However, that would mean that if you had an all-world or all-us stock indexes, which did not exclude any companies dropping out of a top 100 or top 500 or whatever, would have to see a large drop. And I'm not really seeing that. These stock indices track roughly the same shapes as the S&P500, with perhaps few percentage off, but nothing substantial.

bhupy 7y ago
> Suppose we have an S&P 5, if the top 5 companies remain the same, but they on average do worse, we'd see the S&P 5 go down. You seem to imply, if I understand correctly, that the S&P 5 is not down as much because 1 company did really well and stayed, 4 that did poorly left and got replaced by 4 companies that did really well, too. Thereby the S&P 5 changed its composition. No that's not what's happening. Think of S&P 500 index as a basket of stocks. What does that basket look like? If I buy one "unit" of this basket, does it include 500 shares of stock, across the 500 companies? NO. The distribution of the basket is weighted, and it's weighted by market capitalization. So if all stocks were worth the same, you would have a unit amount of every single stock. But if, say, 5 companies do really well and 5 companies do really poorly, 1 "unit" of the S&P500 basket will actually include more of the "really well" stocks, and less of the "really poorly" stocks. The capital is automatically reallocated based on the market capitalization. Because of this, the market value of the S&P500 has stayed relatively stable. > And that makes some sense. However, that would mean that if you had an all-world or all-us stock indexes, which did not exclude any companies dropping out of a top 100 or top 500 or whatever, would have to see a large drop. Again, that's only true if this index is naive enough to not apply any sort of weighting. Most indexes in the world are weighted indexes, in fact we are generally instructed that indexes that do not apply any sort of weighting are bad indexes.