Demasiado grande para subir?

Reglas del Foro
Por favor procura que tus comentarios estén relacionados con la entrada y no pongas enlaces no relevantes. Intenta también respetar a los demás, los comentarios promocionales, ofensivos o ilegales serán editados y borrados. La información o los datos presentes en la web se suministran únicamente a título informativo. Por tanto, corresponde a cada usuario verificar esta información antes de tomar ninguna decisión basada en ella. El usuario es el único responsable del uso que haga de los datos y la información provenientes de la web.
Avatar de Usuario
Dalamar
Site Admin
Mensajes: 8872
Registrado: 09 May 2012 01:38

Demasiado grande para subir?

Mensajepor Dalamar » 02 Abr 2013 06:35

Before the recent downturn, Apple’s market cap approached a level equal to 5 percent of the total value of the S&P 500. As Barron’s has pointed out, when a company approaches that level, it seems to work as an inhibitor to further valuation growth. Indeed, “General Electric and [Exxon, now ExxonMobil] neared the 5% level in the third quarter of 2000 and the first quarter of 2009, respectively, before dropping back. IBM got as high as 6% at the end of 1985. That preceded a long down period in terms of its percentage of the S&P’s market value.”

We can also look at valuation in terms of market cap alone. Some (even West) have suggested that $500 billion in market cap is or might be a general size barrier, and there is intuitive appeal to that idea given the inability of any company to retain a value above that level. Five companies reached the $500 billion level prior to Apple. In chronological order they were Microsoft, General Electric, Cisco, Intel and Exxon. None of them retained their half-trillion dollar valuations for very long. Exxon crossed the $500 billion mark in July of 2007. By early 2008, it was back below $500 billion for good. Cisco, Intel and Microsoft all reached the $500 billion level during the dot-com boom back in late 1999 and early 2000. When the bubble famously burst, each of these techs came tumbling back to earth. Today their combined valuation is roughly $130 billion less than Apple’s record-setting market cap. General Electric’s $500 billion valuation also occurred around the turn of the century and its decline has mirrored Microsoft’s.

Cisco lost 20%, or nearly $1 billion in market cap, about a month after reaching the $500 billion plateau.

Entities with sub-linear scaling are ultimately doomed. Unbounded growth requires increasing cycles of innovation to support further growth and avoid collapse. Companies aspire to the latter but usually resemble the former. Note too that these cycles must be repeated at a faster and faster rate for unbounded growth to continue.
¿Te ha gustado este hilo? Compartelo en las redes sociales para que se sume mas gente a la conversacion!

Avatar de Usuario
Dalamar
Site Admin
Mensajes: 8872
Registrado: 09 May 2012 01:38

Re: Demasiado grande para subir?

Mensajepor Dalamar » 02 Abr 2013 06:44

Over the period from 1927-2010, the smallest decile of U.S. stocks outperformed the largest decile by 10.4 percent annually.

The standard explanation for this premium is that small-cap stocks are inherently riskier.

The research shows (it is also described in a recent Scientific American article) that with every doubling of city population, each inhabitant is, on average, 15 percent wealthier, 15 percent more productive, 15 percent more innovative, 15 percent more likely to contract infectious disease and 15 percent more likely to be victimized by violent crime regardless of the time period and regardless of location or the particularities of any given city.

The data also demonstrates that cities’ use of resources follows a similar, though inverted, law. When the size of a city doubles, its material infrastructure — anything from the number of gas stations to the total length of its pipes, roads or electrical wires — does not. A city of ten million typically needs 15 percent less of the same infrastructure than do two cities of five million each. On average, the bigger the city, the more efficient its use of infrastructure, leading to important savings in materials, energy and emissions. Again, these patterns of increased productivity and decreased costs (economies of scale) hold true across nations with very different levels of development, technology and wealth.

Subsequently extended the scope of his research some more and discovered that companies scale too. At first glance, cities and companies seem quite similar. They are large combinations of people interacting in a well-defined physical space utilizing infrastructure and human capital. However, cities almost never die, while companies fail all the time. The modern corporation has an average lifespan of something like 40-50 years.

West examined growth curves for thousands of companies across a variety of variables including valuation, assets, revenue, profits and employees as a function of time. Almost across the board, the generic behavior is a sub-linear, much more like biology than cities. Using data from all companies publicly traded in the U.S., West saw that sales increased linearly with company size (one-to-one). However, profits and most other measures increased sub-linearly by an exponent of about one-eighth, with fluctuations proportional to the size of the company. Thus profits decrease relative to sales, for example. Indeed, as companies increase in size from 100 to 1,000,000 employees, their net income, assets and 23 other metrics per person increase only at a 4/5 ratio.

Accordingly, by most measures, we should expect companies to grow quickly for a while before slowing and then eventually declining and finally failing. Like animals and cities they can grow more efficient with size, but unlike cities, their innovation cannot keep pace as their systems gradually decay, requiring ever more costly repair until a crisis of some sort sinks them. Like animals, companies are sub-linear and doomed to die.

Companies are the infrastructure of economies. Accordingly, they scale sub-linearly. The danger, West says, is that the inevitable decline in profit per employee makes large companies increasingly fragile and thus vulnerable to any number of potential disruptions, including market volatility. As they become more and more complex they thus become more and more unstable. Since huge companies have to support multiple business lines and risks together with a huge infrastructure — overhead costs increase with size — even a minor disturbance can lead to significant or even catastrophic losses.

So perhaps the small-cap premium isn’t (or isn’t just) a function of risk. The inherent inefficiencies of large companies — inefficiencies that grow as companies grow (which may also help to explain why mergers so often fail) – are a drag on productivity and profits. As West puts it, “Companies are killed by their need to keep on getting bigger.”


Fuente: http://rpseawright.wordpress.com/2013/0 ... p-premium/
¿Te ha gustado este hilo? Compartelo en las redes sociales para que se sume mas gente a la conversacion!

Stopford
Iniciandose
Mensajes: 5
Registrado: 26 Abr 2013 16:28

Re: Demasiado grande para subir?

Mensajepor Stopford » 26 Abr 2013 21:38

Si, esto de too big ya lo había leido en otros artículos pero también tiene una parte positiva, es una acción dificil de manipular :D :D :D

Avatar de Usuario
Dalamar
Site Admin
Mensajes: 8872
Registrado: 09 May 2012 01:38

Re: Demasiado grande para subir?

Mensajepor Dalamar » 27 Abr 2013 10:01

Bienvenido al foro!

Que manipule una accion es bueno, si lo hacen a tu favor! :lol:

Si compras una buena empresa a buen precio, no te importa que manipulen o no, todo depende de tu horizonte temporal, aunque yo no creo que se manipule tanto como se cree, manipular no es gratis y tiene muchos riesgos.
¿Te ha gustado este hilo? Compartelo en las redes sociales para que se sume mas gente a la conversacion!


Volver a “Renta variable”

cron

Ingresar