Musings on Markets Note

Musings on Markets

Aswath Damodaran is a financial services professional who blogs to offer investment insights and methods for evaluating financial securities. His website has a vast library of articles, models, spreadsheets, and teaching materials related to finance. He advocates for identifying intrinsic value rather than market price in investing, suggesting that this will be the foundation for picking stocks successfully. Damodaran also emphasizes the importance of patience in the face of market volatility, stating that time is a valuable tool in the fight against short-term highs and lows. Additionally, the site contains information about different asset classes, including options and other derivatives. It also examines various valuation techniques, such as discounted cash flow, earnings, and asset-based approaches. There is also discussion on the role of risk in investments, how to mitigate it, and the cost of capital. The material provided on the site targets both students of finance as well as experienced investors. It aims to provide an approach that is both grounded in theory and in practical application. Through his blog, Damodaran hopes to simplify the complexities of finance for his audience.

Thread Of Notes

Recent discussions have focused on the potential IPOs of major companies like SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI, and their significant valuations. This has also ignited a debate about index inclusion criteria, specifically for these large, potentially trillion-dollar companies joining indexes such as the S&P 500. Opponents of inclusion often cite hidden agendas or misguided investment views. Some active investors see inclusion as a threat to passive investing, while academics and experts warn of risks for retail investors and retirees due to the companies' current unprofitability. Politicians express concern about rewarding billionaires through government pension funds. The article aims to clarify index construction, their market roles, and the impact of including these new tech giants on the active versus passive investing discussion. Indices are defined by their constituents, determined by factors like market capitalization, listing age, liquidity, and profitability. Companies are weighted within an index through equal weighting, price weighting, or market capitalization weighting, with the latter being the most common. Index levels are calculated by converting constituent market prices into a single value, and these levels are updated to reflect market changes. Inclusion and exclusion of companies from an index can occur due to acquisitions, bankruptcies, new listings, or shifts in market capitalization, requiring adjustments to index mechanics. Ultimately, while the index level may remain unchanged during a company's addition, its fundamental characteristics, such as risk and earnings potential, will be altered going forward.
The author re-evaluates SpaceX's valuation after reviewing its IPO prospectus, comparing it to their previous estimates based on limited data. The prospectus, while lengthy and filled with images, provided crucial financial data that replaced earlier estimations. SpaceX's revenue figures for launch and connectivity were close to the author's prior guesses, but xAI revenues were significantly underestimated. The company reported substantial net losses due to high research and development and interest expenses.The prospectus revealed SpaceX's cash and debt figures, with a significant increase in book equity primarily due to the xAI acquisition. Despite substantial debt, SpaceX's large cash reserves meant its net debt was negative, minimizing its impact on the overall valuation. The author's initial share count estimate was significantly lower than the prospectus figure, which also provided details on the planned use of proceeds for infrastructure investments.Governance concerns were highlighted, with Elon Musk retaining over 85% of voting rights through Class B shares. The author notes that the prospectus confirmed SpaceX as a money-losing, cash-burning company heavily influenced by Elon Musk. The company's value is driven by its future business evolution, with target revenues, operating margins, and reinvestment as key drivers.The prospectus offered historical revenue growth data, showing connectivity as the leading business in 2025, with AI expected to boost revenues significantly through its compute center lease. The author finds the prospectus's total addressable market (TAM) estimates, particularly for AI, to be unrealistically high, following a trend seen in other tech IPOs. Consequently, the author moderates their growth expectations for space launch and connectivity while doubling their target revenues for AI, acknowledging its immense capital requirements.Profitability analysis from the prospectus shows the space business having the highest gross margin due to reusable rocket technology, with operating losses stemming from R&D expenses. The connectivity business also shows improving gross margins.
In March 2026, a Middle Eastern war triggered market volatility, starting with soaring oil prices and declining stocks. Uncertainty surrounding the conflict's duration, oil price impact, and governmental responses dominated investor concerns. Market behavior revealed a narrative focused on these unfolding events, with experts offering diverse, often biased, forecasts. Oil prices, particularly Brent and WTI crude, surged significantly, with a notable divergence due to US production resilience and Strait of Hormuz traffic issues. Oil futures suggested the market viewed supply disruptions as temporary, though a lasting impact was acknowledged. Rising interest rates, especially on longer-term treasuries, indicated market expectations of persistent inflation, complicating the Federal Reserve's policy outlook. Global interest rates also increased, except for the Yuan, pointing to cross-border inflation concerns. Despite economic fatigue, the market cautiously assessed the oil shock's potential to tip the economy into recession. The price of risk, measured by equity risk premiums and bond default spreads, saw modest increases, suggesting concerns were not driven by widespread panic. Volatility, as indicated by the VIX, also rose but less dramatically than in previous crises. Collectibles like gold declined, while bitcoin saw a modest gain, defying typical crisis behavior. Geographically, Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe/Russia showed the smallest market cap decreases, benefiting from higher oil prices. Sovereign credit default swap spreads, a market measure of default risk, rose significantly in the war zone, indicating the market's sensitivity to elevated risks.
The core purpose of any business is profit generation for survival and success. While noble social missions are commendable, they cannot sustain a business without profitability. Attempts to broaden business objectives beyond profit to include social good have proven detrimental to both businesses and society. Milton Friedman's 1970 assertion that a business's primary responsibility is to increase profits remains a strong argument. Critics have challenged this view, initially by suggesting a focus on cash flows and long-term profits, and later by advocating for incorporating broader social and environmental responsibilities. Concepts like stakeholder wealth maximization, ESG, and sustainability have emerged, but the author argues they have failed to deliver on their promises. These initiatives are criticized for prioritizing virtue over business sense, lacking clear definitions, and falsely suggesting that good deeds can be achieved without sacrifice. The author believes Friedman was right and that focusing on how businesses, as profit-seekers, can advance social good and curb externalities is the more effective approach. Profitability metrics, though imperfect accounting substitutes for economic profits, are crucial for assessing business success. Analyzing profit margins across different sectors and industries reveals significant disparities driven by unit economics, economies of scale, and leverage. The technology sector, despite its high overall operating margins, demonstrates a wide range of profitability among its companies. Financial services are excluded from typical margin analysis due to the unique nature of their revenue reporting. Ultimately, consumers and voters shape the businesses they get through their purchasing decisions and political choices.
The concept of risk is central to investing and corporate finance, yet there is significant divergence among finance experts and academics on its definition and measurement. A commonly cited definition of risk is volatility or standard deviation, but the author prefers a definition that captures the duality of risk, including both danger and opportunity. The Chinese symbol for crisis or big risk is often cited as a representation of this duality, with one symbol representing danger and the other representing opportunity. When measuring risk, there are several choices to be made, including whether to focus on upside or downside outcomes, whether to use price-based or accounting-based measures, and whether to consider total or non-diversifiable risk. The author notes that the choice of risk measure will depend on whether the marginal investors are diversified or not, and what is believed about financial markets and accounting data. The sample includes 48,156 publicly traded firms, and the author examines accounting-based measures of risk, including earnings volatility and debt burden. The author also explores price-based measures of risk, including the range of prices and the frequency of loss-making. The results show significant variations in risk across companies and sectors, with utilities and financials generally being less risky than energy and technology firms. The author concludes that the choice of risk measure is critical, and that different measures can yield different conclusions about the riskiness of a company or sector. The analysis highlights the importance of considering multiple perspectives and measures when evaluating risk, and the need for a nuanced understanding of the complex and multifaceted nature of risk.
In 1996, Alan Greenspan's "irrational exuberance" comment sparked debate about central bankers' market timing abilities. Current Fed chair Jerome Powell's assessment of the market as "fairly highly valued" echoes this sentiment, suggesting a richly priced stock market. Despite economic headwinds like tariffs, wars, and politics, US equities, particularly tech stocks, have significantly rebounded in 2025 after a weak first quarter. The NASDAQ and S&P 500, after initial declines, showed strong recovery in the second and third quarters. Technology and communication services have been the leading sectors, with Alphabet and Meta being key drivers. The "Mag Seven" group of companies has disproportionately contributed to market capitalization growth. This year, small-cap stocks have also outperformed large-cap stocks, reversing a long-term trend. Value stocks have seen some improvement, and momentum investing has maintained its strength. Treasury rates have remained relatively stable throughout 2025, showing little volatility despite news of inflation and economic growth. Even a Moody's downgrade of US credit rating had only a transient impact on treasury rates. Corporate default spreads have also displayed minimal movement, indicating market resilience. Globally, equities have performed well, with international markets slightly outperforming the US in the first nine months of 2025. However, US equities regained their lead in subsequent quarters. Emerging markets like India, Africa, and the Middle East have experienced weaker performance this year.
The decision of how much cash a business can return to its owners should be the simplest of the three corporate finance decisions, but in practice, it is often dysfunctional due to deeply held and misguided views of what returning cash to shareholders does to a business. In a utopian world, dividends should represent the end effect of all choices, with companies starting with their cash flows from operations, supplementing them with debt, investing in good projects, and returning the leftover cash as dividends or buybacks. However, in reality, dividends are often sticky, with companies hesitant to change them, and this stickiness has created several consequences, including firms being cautious in initiating dividends and companies that start paying sizable dividends but cannot bring themselves to cut them even when their businesses deteriorate.The choice between paying dividends and buying back stock has shifted in recent years, with companies, especially in the United States, moving away from a policy of returning cash almost entirely in dividends to one where the bulk of the cash is returned in buybacks. This shift is partly due to tax benefits to investors, the rise of management options, and shifting tastes among institutional investors, but primarily because sticky dividends have outlived their usefulness in a business age where fewer and fewer companies feel secure about their earning power.In 2024, companies across the globe returned $4.09 trillion in cash to their shareholders, with $2.56 trillion in dividends and $1.53 trillion in stock buybacks. The bulk of this cash was returned by money-making firms, with financial service firms being the largest dividend payers, and technology companies leading the sectors in buybacks. The United States accounted for a large segment of cash returned by all companies, with $1.5 trillion in dividends and buybacks.The cash return decision is interconnected with investment, financing, and dividend decisions, and companies should compute potential dividends by looking at cash flow elements, including depreciation, non-cash charges, investment needs, and cash flow from debt. However, in practice, companies often deviate from this rational policy, and the cash return decision is often driven by inertia and me-tooism.The shift away from dividends to buybacks is not just a US phenomenon, and it is likely to be seen across the world as companies face increasing earnings variability and unpredictability. Buybacks have the potential to transfer wealth from one group of shareholders to another, but they do not create or destroy value.
The author discusses the concept of a hurdle rate, a required return for business and investment decisions, and its importance in corporate finance and valuation. A hurdle rate is determined by various factors, including the business's industry, debt burden, and geographies of operation. The author explains that the cost of capital, a key component of the hurdle rate, is composed of the cost of equity and the cost of debt. The cost of capital is used in various aspects of corporate finance, including business investing, financing, and dividend decisions. The author also notes that the cost of capital morphs depending on its use, and that an investor may attach a different cost of capital to a company than the company itself.The author breaks down the cost of capital into its components, including the risk-free rate, equity risk premium, and default spreads. The author also discusses the importance of company-specific factors, such as relative equity risk, corporate default risk, and operating geographies. The author estimates the costs of equity, debt, and capital for nearly 48,000 firms, using various assumptions and approximations. The results show that the cost of capital varies widely across sectors and industries, with technology companies facing the highest costs of capital and financials the lowest.The author also examines the relationship between risk and market capitalization, finding that small cap companies do not necessarily face higher hurdle rates than large cap companies. The author concludes that the cost of capital is a dynamic and subjective concept, and that its estimation requires careful consideration of various factors. The author also notes that the cost of capital is a valuable tool for businesses and investors, providing insights into the risks and opportunities associated with different investments.
The author reflects on the iconic Disney ride, "It's a Small World," and how it relates to their analysis of global market data in 2024. The author begins by discussing the performance of various indices in 2024, with the Merval index being the best performer, up over 170%. However, the author notes that comparing returns in indices can be problematic due to differences in construction, local currencies, and inflation.To address these issues, the author computes returns using a different approach, including all publicly traded stocks in each market, converting market capitalizations to US dollars, and aggregating market capitalizations at the end of 2023 and 2024. The results show that the aggregate market cap globally was up 12.17%, with the US equity market being a significant contributor to this growth.The author also examines the impact of currency movements on returns, noting that the US dollar strengthened against emerging market currencies in 2024. This led to a divergence in returns between local indices and dollar returns in some parts of the world.The author then discusses the challenges of estimating risk-free rates in different currencies, particularly in countries with high inflation or default risk. They propose a method for estimating risk-free rates using government bond rates and expected inflation rates.The author also explores the concept of country risk and how it affects expected returns. They estimate equity risk premiums by country, using a combination of local currency sovereign ratings and default spreads. The results show significant variations in equity risk premiums across countries and regions.Finally, the author emphasizes the importance of pricing in investing, noting that even the safest markets can be bad investments if the price is wrong. They discuss the use of multiples, such as price-earnings ratios and enterprise value-to-sales multiples, to assess pricing in markets.
The author discusses the sudden emergence of DeepSeek, a Chinese AI company, and its potential to disrupt the AI narrative and impact companies that have benefited from the AI hype. The AI story began to take shape in 2022 with the launch of ChatGPT, and since then, companies like Nvidia, Microsoft, and Amazon have seen significant increases in their market capitalization. The AI story is built on the convergence of computing power and data, with companies like Nvidia, Microsoft, and Amazon benefiting from building the AI architecture. The big tech companies have invested heavily in AI architecture, expecting to profit from developing and selling AI products and services. However, the author notes that there are parts of the story that are still unproven, especially on the AI product and service side. DeepSeek's entry into the AI conversation has the potential to change the narrative, as it has developed an AI system that can work with less powerful chips and less data, making it a cheaper alternative to existing players. DeepSeek's system has been praised for its performance, but the author notes that it is unlikely to concede the entire AI product and service market to DeepSeek. The author also raises questions about the true cost of DeepSeek's development and the potential political implications of a Chinese company entering the AI market. The emergence of DeepSeek has already led to a market shakeup, with investors reevaluating their investments in AI companies. The author concludes that the AI story is still evolving, and DeepSeek's entry has added a new layer of complexity to the narrative.
The US Department of Justice is considering breaking up Alphabet and pushing for the company to share its data with competitors. This move is part of a larger debate about the power of big tech companies and what should be done about it. The Sherman Anti-trust Act of 1890 was passed to regulate interstate commerce and break up trusts that were monopolizing businesses. The law was initially vague, but the Supreme Court added the constraint that it only forbade competitive restraints that were "unreasonable." The Clayton Act of 1914 clarified and expanded the Sherman Act, covering activities such as mergers, predatory pricing, and sales ties.The effectiveness of anti-trust laws depends on how they are enforced, and enforcement has ebbed and flowed over the years. The Federal Trade Commission was created to enforce anti-trust laws, and its mission is to protect the public from deceptive or unfair business practices. The enforcement of anti-trust laws has been influenced by changing administrations and court judgments. There is a divide between those who believe the central objective of anti-trust laws is to enhance competition and those who believe it is to protect consumers.The government has the power to stop or change a company's behavior if it believes it will stymie competition. This can include stopping mergers, requiring companies to divest certain assets, or changing their pricing practices. The government can also challenge companies' operating practices, such as product bundling or corporate governance. The remedies available to the government range from stopping certain activities to breaking up companies.The debate about anti-trust laws and their enforcement continues, with some arguing that the laws need to be retooled to rein in platform-based companies. The appointment of Lina Khan as the head of the FTC was seen as a signal of change in focus, but the effects have been modest so far. The government has been more aggressive in challenging high-profile mergers, but the results have been mixed.
This text examines the challenges faced by three well-known companies: Intel, Walgreens, and Starbucks. Despite their differing industries, all three have experienced market downturns and business model disruptions. Intel, once a tech giant, has seen its growth stagnate and market capitalization shrink, lagging behind competitors like Nvidia. The company's heavy investments in chip manufacturing and AI chips have yet to yield positive results, leaving investors questioning its future prospects. Walgreens, a pharmacy chain, is grappling with a declining pharmacy business and slim profit margins. Despite acquisitions and new leadership, the company's efforts to reignite growth have largely failed, resulting in a significant market capitalization drop. Starbucks, while showing more resilience than the other two, faces investor concern over its ability to maintain growth. The company's success relies heavily on expansion in markets like China and India, where it faces stiff competition. Despite maintaining robust revenue growth and improving profit margins, Starbucks' future hinges on navigating these challenging markets. The author argues that these three companies illustrate the challenges of maintaining growth and adapting to changing market dynamics. While Intel and Walgreens appear to be grappling with decline, Starbucks' future remains uncertain, contingent on its ability to succeed in emerging markets. The author concludes that investors need to carefully analyze companies' performance and future prospects, avoiding simplistic narratives of either imminent collapse or guaranteed rebound. Instead, a nuanced understanding of each company's challenges and opportunities is crucial for making informed investment decisions.