Learn To Invest
Stocks Special Reports LICs Credit Funds ETFs Tools SMSFs
Video Archive Article Archive
News Stocks Special Reports Funds ETFs Features SMSFs Learn


Why buying bubbles isn't always a bad idea

John Rekenthaler  |  30 May 2019Text size  Decrease  Increase  |  
Email to Friend

In early 2017, Bloomberg editor Joe Wiesenthal tweeted, “A good ETF would be to take companies/markets that journalists say are in a bubble and then to go long them.” A portfolio manager at the investment firm GAM, Paul McNamara, took up the challenge, and created a hypothetical portfolio of oft-derided securities. Among them were Tesla and Netflix, a bitcoin fund, long bonds, a Chinese real estate trust, and an exchange-traded note that shorted U.S. stock volatility.

The Bubble Portfolio gained 80 per cent for the rest of 2017, dropped 23 per cent the following year (its short-volatility note liquidated after losing more than 90 per cent of its value), and has rebounded to gain 17 per cent so far this year.

That makes for a 25 per cent-plus annualised return (I can’t state precisely, as I don’t have the portfolio’s official start date), albeit with some significant variability.

Ink-stained wretches

The media, cannibals that they are, did not miss the opportunity to consume their own. CCN’s Mark Emem wrote, “If the bubble portfolio serves any useful purpose, it is to prove that the mainstream media gets it mostly wrong when it comes to picking overvalued assets.” ForexTV.com stated, “Here’s what happens when you buy assets that journalists warn are in a bubble.” Bloomberg’s Matt Levine asked, “What on earth do journalists, no offense, have to recommend them?”

No offense taken, Matt. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

However, the trail is false. This tale is about investment professionals, not the media. Because journalists, by and large, aren’t inventing these arguments. (They certainly aren’t building spreadsheets of Chinese real estate transactions.) These “bubbles” come courtesy of traders and portfolio managers. Confesses the Bubble Index’s creator, McNamara, “You’d be nuts to buy any of this stuff here.”

Long-term malaise

Which leads to the question: Is there money to be made from inverting the professional consensus?

Investing Compass
Listen to Morningstar Australia's Investing Compass podcast
Take a deep dive into investing concepts, with practical explanations to help you invest confidently.
Investing Compass

Not, it would seem, by buying and holding. Over the past 30 years, these have been the most-heralded bubbles:

  1. Japan, 1980s
  2. The New Era, 1990s
  3. Long bonds, 2010s

(Real estate, 2000s, was also lamented, but almost entirely after the fact. Cryptocurrencies could perhaps be placed on this list--but the skeptics mostly arrived in late 2017, when bitcoin traded, roughly speaking, at its current level.)

Japanese stocks have been a monumental, four-decade failure. The New Era stocks cratered at the start of the New Millennium. While they subsequently rebounded, they required another 15 years to catch back up with the rest of the U.S. equity market. Long bonds have so far resisted their predicted implosion, but they haven’t minted money, either.

Buying the professionals’ biggest sells flopped as a strategy because the obvious bubbles are, in fact, obviously unappealing acquisitions, to those who abide by the numbers. At a price/earnings ratio of 60, Japan’s national telephone utility figured, at best, to tread water. It wasn’t going to grow rapidly, and it already traded at an earnings yield of less than 2 per cent. Also uninspiring were relatively mature New Era companies carrying price/earnings ratios above 100, or Treasury bonds yielding 2.5%.

There is, however, a difference between unappealing and imminently dangerous. It’s one thing to recognize that paying steep prices for assets with moderate-to-nonexistent growth rates is unsound. It is quite another to predict doom. No alleged bubble, in my experience, has been so glaring and self-evident that it must inevitably lead to collapse. (This is why I have yet to publish a “This is a bubble” column, and likely never will.) The most that we can state about the investment is that it is best avoided.

Short-term health?

That advice may differ for bubble-related trading strategies. Investors in 1986 who bought Japanese stocks for the long term fared poorly. But those who purchased them for 12 months, with the plan on keeping their position if the market stayed strong but exiting if it slumped, would have soared for four years, been clocked with a huge loss in the fifth, and closed out their trade with a tidy 12.7 per cent annualised return. Using a similar tactic with New Era stocks would have been more profitable yet.

This finding is not surprising. “Bubble,” after all, is but another way of saying “investments with positive price momentum”--and investments with positive price momentum enjoy a long, long history of success. The broadest study ever conducted on investment behavior, spanning more than 200 years across 68 asset classes and 16 countries, concluded that price momentum was the strongest of the 24 factors that the authors evaluated. It had the greatest persistence, over time, asset types, and nations.

Thus, there is reason to believe that trading “bubble” investments might be effective. Whether it would improve upon other momentum strategies is another matter. It surely would be more volatile. It could be that those extra jolts accompany extra returns. Or maybe not.

Ultimately, it may not be possible to tell. McNamara writes that his Bubble Index comes from the back of a metaphorical envelope, as opposed to being an “actual investment methodology.” Putting rigor into the concept, so that unambiguous rules create the portfolios, would be a difficult task--perhaps too difficult ever to be accomplished.


Both parties, in their own way, are correct. The mainstream investment community--as voiced by their messengers, journalists--does well at identifying those unusual instances when, to use McNamara’s term, market valuations are determined by “passionate idiots” rather than dispassionate math. However, in calling those valuations “bubbles,” the community implies that it knows more than it actually does. The critics are correct that these bubbles may not deflate immediately, or indeed ever at all.

Perhaps profits even can be made the label of “bubble,” by riding the coattails of price momentum. If such a fund existed, I would not buy it. But neither would I condemn such an approach, for those who understood the logic behind the investment and who were in position to accept its considerable risk. I have not heard many stranger ideas than buying into investment bubbles--but I have heard worse.

is vice president of research for Morningstar.

© 2022 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved. Neither Morningstar, its affiliates, nor the content providers guarantee the data or content contained herein to be accurate, complete or timely nor will they have any liability for its use or distribution. This information is to be used for personal, non-commercial purposes only. No reproduction is permitted without the prior written consent of Morningstar. Any general advice or 'regulated financial advice' under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), or its Authorised Representatives, and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information, refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). Our publications, ratings and products should be viewed as an additional investment resource, not as your sole source of information. Morningstar’s full research reports are the source of any Morningstar Ratings and are available from Morningstar or your adviser. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product's future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a licensed financial adviser. Some material is copyright and published under licence from ASX Operations Pty Ltd ACN 004 523 782. The article is current as at date of publication.

Email To Friend