Recs

32

3 Stocks on Bubble Watch

Can you tell when a company's stock is about to implode? Few people, if any, have repeatedly and accurately predicted massive declines in companies. But I have five steps that might offer you some assistance.

History serves an important lesson
Back in 2000, investors were blinded by an Internet world that was growing at a phenomenal rate. Many experts jumped on the tech bandwagon, but Wharton professor and writer Dr. Jeremy Siegel was among a small, vocal minority that failed to hear the siren song.

Siegel openly critiqued many Internet companies and their overly generous valuations, including networking giant Cisco Systems. This stock went from a high of $82 in 2000 to lows of $10.39 two years later, turning an investment of $10,000 into a pittance of just $1,267. In fact, Cisco brought Siegel fame -- and perhaps infamy -- when he discussed the company on CNN's Moneyline:

It's a super company. I would probably buy it at 80 times earnings, but at 150 times earnings? We have six stocks in the top 20 (market value) over 100. We have had no history of this. Never have stocks been worth over a hundred times earnings once they've gotten to the size of these companies.

Remember when that happened?
The rest, as they say, is history -- with other giants such as Yahoo!, Oracle (Nasdaq: ORCL  ) , and Qualcomm shedding 80% or more. Siegel proved adept at identifying this dangerous trend and went on to write about it in The Future for Investors. While the book offers plenty of investing gems, I believe his five simple lessons for how to avoid losing money in a bubble are the most valuable:

  1. Valuations are critical.
  2. Never fall in love with your stocks.
  3. Beware large, little-known, or little-understood companies.
  4. Avoid triple-digit price-to-earnings ratios (P/Es).
  5. Never short sell in a bubble.

Three questionable calls
With an eye toward lessons three and four, here are three stocks that may have gotten ahead of themselves:

Company

Market Cap (Billions)

Trailing P/E

VMware (Nasdaq: VMW  )

$41.0

284

Microsemi (Nasdaq: MSCC  )

$2.2

270

VeriSign (Nasdaq: VRSN  )

$8.5

196

In what is perhaps a further sign of trouble (see lesson two), I expect to receive a number of emails from the good shareholders of VMware. This company is really hot right now and I'm sure nobody wants me to rain on their parade.

Look elsewhere
Siegel and other investing gurus suggest that investors find companies that don't carry rich valuations, have clear-cut business models, and offer more than just simple growth opportunities. But that's not all.

In his book, Siegel suggests that investors might want to look toward industries whose growth is below expectation, and whose existence is under the average investor's radar. Why? A successful company in an underperforming industry can also be explosively profitable, because it will "maximize productivity and keep costs as low as possible" while simultaneously outliving competition. This translates into significant bottom-line appreciation.

Examine three small-cap stocks that bested the market in relatively sleepy industries:

Company

Industry

Market Cap (in billions)

Trailing P/E

Steiner Leisure (Nasdaq: STNR  )

Spa Services

$0.77

17

Imperial Sugar (Nasdaq: IPSU  )

Sugar

$0.32

6

Kforce (Nasdaq: KFRC  )

Staffing

$0.52

14

Forget the hype
Chasing hot companies in hot industries will often leave you burned. In the long run, it's likely that a company's valuation will land squarely alongside its earnings capacity -- which is often unproven when a company sports a triple-digit P/E.

Instead, you'll be rewarded by buying shares of small companies in underfollowed industries that have demonstrated a real ability to make money. We follow this strategy in our Motley Fool Hidden Gems small-cap investing service, and our recommendations are beating the market average by more than 31 percentage points. In fact, Hidden Gems was the best-performing investment newsletter of the past 12 months, according to the independent Hulbert Financial Digest.

You can take a look at the stocks Hidden Gems is recommending today by joining the service free for 30 days. Click here for more information.

This article was originally published July 10, 2007. It has been updated.

Fool analyst Nick Kapur owns no shares of any company mentioned above. Yahoo! is a Stock Advisor recommendation. Steiner Leisure is a Rule Breakers recommendation. The Fool's disclosure policy keeps a level head.


Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On October 10, 2007, at 6:48 PM, MottledUser wrote:

    I don't think the use of Cisco, Oracle, Yahoo and Qualcomm during the period surrounding 2000-2002 can be considered a valid data set in itself. What tech growth company didn't see similar losses during that period? If you want to use one or two of those in your data set that's fine, but choose a few examples outside of a time period when there was a mass exodous of cash out of the market in general.

    You may be right with your bubble theory, I just don't think the argument in your article is being supported with very sound data.

    Should GOOG shareholders be worried about an 80% plummet in the near future?

  • Report this Comment On October 10, 2007, at 9:52 PM, FenshAdvisor wrote:

    It's a typical amateur behavior called "data mining", typically you pick a period of data to support your claim, totally ignore the remaining time.

    If readers look back long enough, you will easily find out the huge run Yahoo, Cisco, Qaulcomm and Oracle made in the 90s while they carried the so-called "absurd" P/E ratio. A person who bought any of these stocks in early 90s would have made huge gains before the market peaked in 2000.

    By the way, P/E is no longer the main ratio even for the regular Wall Street guys these days. This author needs to upgrade his knowledge before writing articles for Fool's subscribers. PEG is what you should pay attention to.

    That's why most time I read Fool's article for entertainment, no need to take it seriously..

    But I hope the author would do another annual report of VMW one year from now.

    Happy investing.

  • Report this Comment On October 11, 2007, at 11:38 AM, TexasLonghorns wrote:

    I bought into VMW on the IPO, I never thought it would shoot up THIS QUICK! But a true FOOL knows when a company is about to tumble over it's over valuation and the fact EMC owns 86% of VMW. I sold this morning, took the double and ran off happy. Still holding long EMC but VMW's run up can't last. PEG and everyting are too out of whack to sustain this valuation!

  • Report this Comment On October 11, 2007, at 2:22 PM, TMFFlightsuit wrote:

    As the author of this humble little article, I just wanted to reply to FrenshAdvisor and MottledUser.

    The reason why I chose Yahoo, Cisco, Oracle and Qualcomm was not to cherry pick data or to go "data mining"....as FrenshAdvisor suggests I so amatuerly am doing.

    Instead, I chose these companies because in "The Future For Investors" by Jeremy Siegel, these are exactly the companies that Siegel identified as dangerously over valued thanks to triple digit P/Es way back when. Reference page 79 for further reading--and I recommend referencing all pages because they are excellent.

    I could probably cherry pick a lot of data points from that era. Fortunately, Siegiel has already done the work for me--AND did it before the market realized these companies were tremendously overvalued. He deserves all the credit.

    Anyway, please use the article to serve as a larger point: occasionally excitement causes a company's stock to surge well ahead of its value.

    BarryRay, I'm not saying that VMW is going to crash this day or the next....but it seems possible given its current situation and the wise words of Siegel.

    Foolishly,

    Nick Kapur

    TMFFlightsuit

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 538315, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 5/27/2012 7:44:51 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated 1 day ago Sponsored by:
DOW 12,454.83 -74.92 -0.60%
S&P 500 1,317.82 -2.86 -0.22%
NASD 2,837.53 -1.85 -0.07%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

5/25/2012 4:00 PM
STNR $45.64 Up +0.80 +1.78%
Steiner Leisure Li… CAPS Rating: *****
VRSN $39.80 Up +0.56 +1.43%
VeriSign, Inc. CAPS Rating: **
ORCL $26.14 Up +0.02 +0.08%
Oracle Corp. CAPS Rating: ****
KFRC $13.82 Down -0.11 -0.79%
Kforce, Inc. CAPS Rating: *****
MSCC $18.35 Up +0.16 +0.88%
Microsemi Corp CAPS Rating: ***

Advertisement