Magnificent Ignorance about the Magnificent Seven
Joe Biden is running for re-election in 2024. Never before in U.S. history has any president won a second term. The last time it was attempted, in 2020, incumbent Donald Trump (the youngest president in U.S. history) was defeated. Historians believe this pattern reflects the fact that all U.S. presidents have been from either Delaware or New York City.
I hope you looked at that paragraph and immediately thought “this is total nonsense written by a complete idiot.” Now, if you want to be a weasel, you could define “U.S. history” to mean “the period since 2016,” in which case the above paragraph is technically correct. But weasel words aside, I hope you reacted with scorn, or perhaps pity, to the above paragraph.
You should react similarly to most stories about the Magnificent Seven stocks.1 Consider this one:
The S&P 500 has never been this top-heavy.
The “Magnificent Seven” tech stocks — Apple (AAPL), Alphabet (GOOGL, GOOG), Microsoft (MSFT), Amazon (AMZN), Meta (META), Tesla (TSLA), and Nvidia (NVDA) — make up 29% of the S&P 500’s market cap.
And a chart in Goldman Sachs’ 2024 US Equity Outlook shows that’s the largest portion of S&P 500 market cap ever dominated by just seven stocks.2
Exhibit 22 in the Goldman Sachs report shows a graph with the top seven S&P stocks at an “all-time high” of 29%, with the graph starting at 1980 with a weight of about 24%, falling to around 14%, and then rising to around 28% since 2020.3
Now, if you define “never” as “never since 1980” and “time” to be “the period after 1980,” then it is true that the stock market has never been this concentrated and we are at all-time highs, and these statements are technically correct. But those would be weasel arguments made to justify foolish assertions.
The truth is that the U.S. stock market was far more concentrated in the 1950s and 1960s. Looking at Schlingemann and Stulz (2022), for example, we see that:4
In the mid-1950s, just three stocks accounted for about 28% of the market cap of the whole market (Figure 8). Obviously, this implies the market then was much more concentrated than seven stocks being 29% of the S&P 500 today.
For many decades, the biggest stock in the market was always one of the following three: IBM, AT&T, or GM (Figure 6).
A single stock (AT&T) was 13% of the whole market in 1960 (Table 5), as opposed to today where our largest stock (Apple) is a mere 7% of the S&P 500.
In terms of employment, concentration was also far higher previously. The authors write, “For 1953, GM is the top firm in market capitalization. It employs 1.39% of non-farm employees. In 2019, Apple’s employment contribution is 0.11% (or less than one twelfth GM’s employment contribution in 1953).”
With these facts in mind, let us review some absurd claims you might encounter:
“Due to the Magnificent Seven, low-volatility strategies will not work.” No. Low vol worked fine back when a handful of stocks dominated the U.S. stock market. Concentration by itself is perfectly consistent with low vol working.
“The existence of the Magnificent Seven proves indexing is distorting our markets.” No, we had higher concentration before the invention of indexing.
“The Magnificent Seven is part of a troubling trend of inequality in our winner-take-all society.” No. The 1950s and 1960s were a supposed golden age of income equality of U.S. citizens, and that is when stock market concentration was higher.
“Systematic investing cannot work in a concentrated stock market.” Nonsense. Systematic strategies are typically backtested including data before 1980.
“The market itself takes idiosyncratic bets on big firms, defying the concept of diversification.” Well, portfolio analysis and the CAPM were invented in the 1950s and 1960s, and Markowitz, Sharpe, and the whole gang did not seem troubled by high concentration.
Where does the term “Magnificent Seven” come from? Well, it refers to the 1960 film of the same name (later remade in 2016), which was based on the 1954 film The Seven Samurai. But let’s discuss a different film from 1954, Magnificent Obsession. It involves a series of melodramatic events that result in the beautiful widow (played by Jane Wyman, a.k.a. Mrs. Ronald Reagan #1) becoming blind. At the end of the movie, the hero (played by Rock Hudson) has become a doctor and is able to perform brain surgery to restore the widow’s sight.
The Magnificent Obsession with the Magnificent Seven is Magnificently Ignorant. While I hope brain surgery won’t be necessary, market participants need to open their eyes and look at stock market history.
Legal Disclaimer
These materials provided herein may contain material, non-public information within the meaning of the United States Federal Securities Laws with respect to Acadian Asset Management LLC, BrightSphere Investment Group Inc. and/or their respective subsidiaries and affiliated entities. The recipient of these materials agrees that it will not use any confidential information that may be contained herein to execute or recommend transactions in securities. The recipient further acknowledges that it is aware that United States Federal and State securities laws prohibit any person or entity who has material, non-public information about a publicly-traded company from purchasing or selling securities of such company, or from communicating such information to any other person or entity under circumstances in which it is reasonably foreseeable that such person or entity is likely to sell or purchase such securities.
Acadian provides this material as a general overview of the firm, our processes and our investment capabilities. It has been provided for informational purposes only. It does not constitute or form part of any offer to issue or sell, or any solicitation of any offer to subscribe or to purchase, shares, units or other interests in investments that may be referred to herein and must not be construed as investment or financial product advice. Acadian has not considered any reader's financial situation, objective or needs in providing the relevant information.
The value of investments may fall as well as rise and you may not get back your original investment. Past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance or returns. Acadian has taken all reasonable care to ensure that the information contained in this material is accurate at the time of its distribution, no representation or warranty, express or implied, is made as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of such information.
This material contains privileged and confidential information and is intended only for the recipient/s. Any distribution, reproduction or other use of this presentation by recipients is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and this presentation has been sent or passed on to you in error, please contact us immediately. Confidentiality and privilege are not lost by this presentation having been sent or passed on to you in error.
Acadian’s quantitative investment process is supported by extensive proprietary computer code. Acadian’s researchers, software developers, and IT teams follow a structured design, development, testing, change control, and review processes during the development of its systems and the implementation within our investment process. These controls and their effectiveness are subject to regular internal reviews, at least annual independent review by our SOC1 auditor. However, despite these extensive controls it is possible that errors may occur in coding and within the investment process, as is the case with any complex software or data-driven model, and no guarantee or warranty can be provided that any quantitative investment model is completely free of errors. Any such errors could have a negative impact on investment results. We have in place control systems and processes which are intended to identify in a timely manner any such errors which would have a material impact on the investment process.
Acadian Asset Management LLC has wholly owned affiliates located in London, Singapore, and Sydney. Pursuant to the terms of service level agreements with each affiliate, employees of Acadian Asset Management LLC may provide certain services on behalf of each affiliate and employees of each affiliate may provide certain administrative services, including marketing and client service, on behalf of Acadian Asset Management LLC.
Acadian Asset Management LLC is registered as an investment adviser with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Registration of an investment adviser does not imply any level of skill or training.
Acadian Asset Management (Singapore) Pte Ltd, (Registration Number: 199902125D) is licensed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. It is also registered as an investment adviser with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Acadian Asset Management (Australia) Limited (ABN 41 114 200 127) is the holder of Australian financial services license number 291872 ("AFSL"). It is also registered as an investment adviser with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Under the terms of its AFSL, Acadian Asset Management (Australia) Limited is limited to providing the financial services under its license to wholesale clients only. This marketing material is not to be provided to retail clients.
Acadian Asset Management (UK) Limited is authorized and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority ('the FCA') and is a limited liability company incorporated in England and Wales with company number 05644066. Acadian Asset Management (UK) Limited will only make this material available to Professional Clients and Eligible Counterparties as defined by the FCA under the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive, or to Qualified Investors in Switzerland as defined in the Collective Investment Schemes Act, as applicable.
Introducing Owen Lamont
