Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 370

The 'Heady Hundred' case for unglamorous growth

Imagine you are at a cocktail party in May 2012. The conversation turns to the stock market, and your friend mentions that she bought Facebook at its initial public offering that month. Then you tell everyone that you just invested in a trucking business. While your friend instantly becomes the life of the party, you spend the rest of the evening staring into your drink.

Growth is not only about tech stocks

Your friend made a good call. Facebook’s share price has risen almost sevenfold since the IPO. But your investment in XPO Logistics was also pretty exciting. Its share price performance was even with Facebook’s as recently as January 2020, and both companies delivered similarly strong revenue per share growth through the end of 2019. Since then, the pandemic has been considerably more painful for XPO’s shares than Facebook’s, so you ‘only’ made about 400% overall. But both stocks trounced the S&P500’s 200% return.

The lesson here is that great investments come in many different shapes and sizes, and they may not always seem obvious. The obvious winners in today’s environment have been the so-called FANGAM stocks – Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google (Alphabet), Apple, and Microsoft. One can debate their valuations, but whatever your view of these giants, there is strong evidence of truly speculative froth elsewhere.

Recent research by Verdad showed that there are 500 stocks in the US – the ‘Bubble 500’ – that are both more expensive than the FANGAM shares and have worse fundamentals. The vast majority of the Bubble 500 are found in areas such as software, fintech, biotech, and healthcare equipment. It's the virtual happy hour stocks of the present day. A few may turn out to be future giants, but it’s extremely unlikely that all 500 will work out anywhere near that well.

A check on the worst of both worlds

Taking a global view, we ran a similar analysis of our own on the FTSE World Index. We looked for stocks with the worst of both worlds:

  • higher valuations than the FANGAM stocks
  • weaker margins and slower revenue growth.

We found almost 100 such companies, which we call the ‘Heady Hundred’.

Unsurprisingly, software, biotech, and healthcare equipment stocks are well represented, as is the US. As shown in the table below, these companies are about 50% more expensive than the FANGAMs on a price-to-revenue basis and about 30% richer on price-to-earnings multiples yet have delivered only half the revenue growth and with lower profitability.

Astonishingly, this group of stocks carries a market value of more than $3 trillion. To put that in perspective, the Heady Hundred are worth nearly as much as the entire Japanese stockmarket.

A preference for boring, overlooked, hated

Of course, some of these may turn out to be great investments. Prices can often race well ahead of fundamentals for rapidly growing businesses. Amazon has never once looked attractive on traditional valuation metrics, but that hasn’t stopped its shareholders from earning spectacular returns over its 23 years as a public company (Amazon’s recent run has been painful for us to watch, having owned it but sold it far too early.)

The problem is that prices also race well ahead of fundamentals for all the other ‘exciting’ businesses that go on to falter. For those who fail to live up to their Amazonian expectations, the punishment can be swift and severe.

As contrarians, we much prefer the idea of investing in businesses that are boring, overlooked, or even hated. Not only are their fundamentals usually underappreciated, but there is far less room for disappointment since there is so much less enthusiasm reflected in the price.

Besides XPO, other examples in the Orbis Funds include US health insurers, emerging market banks and conglomerates, Japanese drugstores, and even a manufacturer of farm equipment. These ‘boring’ businesses have delivered revenue growth in excess of 10% per annum and some can even hold their own with the FANGAMs.

Most importantly, you don’t need to pay a heady premium for it.

 

Jason Ciccolallo is Head of Distribution for Australia at Orbis Investments, a sponsor of Firstlinks. This report contains general information only and not personal financial or investment advice. It does not take into account the specific investment objectives, financial situation or individual needs of any particular person.

For more articles and papers from Orbis, please click here.

 

Video: Brett Moshal: Our job is to be uncomfortable

Summary points

  • The dramatic rebound in the second quarter has left equity markets much more nuanced and with fewer obvious bargains compared to late March.
  • Some “Growth” stocks appear attractive, while others have never been so expensive. On the other hand, some “Value” stocks appear unusually cheap, while others have been justifiably punished.
  • In Japan, we are finding good companies at great prices and with particularly attractive dividend yields.
  • Markets globally remain highly uncertain, but as always, our focus remains on avoiding the risk of permanent capital loss by being disciplined about the price we pay.

 

  •   12 August 2020
  • 1
  •      
  •   

RELATED ARTICLES

Why it's a frothy market but not a bubble

FANMAG: Because FAANGs are so yesterday

After 30 years of investing, I prefer to skip this party

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

How to minimise tax with a will

Inheritance tax implications in Australia may surprise some, as poor estate planning without proper wills or trusts can lead to costly tax bills and delays for beneficiaries.

Testamentary trusts post-budget: Estate planning, tax reform and the ‘death tax’ debate

Proposed Budget changes to taxation are casting new uncertainty over testamentary trusts, prompting closer scrutiny of estate planning structures and the real implications of reforms still taking shape.

Meg on SMSFs: The CGT changes don’t impact super but what about Div 296 tax decisions?

New CGT rules could tip the scales in the super vs non-super debate. For those facing the Division 296 tax, the case for withdrawing has gotten more complex. A "comparison rate" tool may help assess decisions.

High quality businesses are on sale

Beneath the dominance of the ASX's largest stocks, much of the market has been left behind. High-quality companies are now trading at levels rarely seen, offering opportunities for investors willing to look deeper.

The strange effect of the 30% minimum capital gains tax

The 30% minimum tax on capital gains sits at the heart of the budget's proposed reforms. Yet the mechanics reveal anomalies that introduce unexpected distortions that raise questions about its design.

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 667 with weekend update

The downfall of the giant and three lessons for investors.

  • 18 June 2026

Latest Updates

Latest from Morningstar

Ranking three common retirement strategies

The defining challenge of retirement isn't just about building wealth, it's about converting your lifetime savings into sustainable income. A holistic understanding of different strategies can improve long-term outcomes.

Economy

Was life really better in the good old days?

Are we worse off than previous generations? Lately, there seems to be a heightened level of angst that economic conditions are getting harder and that the two-party political system (and maybe democracy too) is failing voters.

Retirement

Australia has saved $4.5 trillion for retirement. Here's what matters more

Most Australians approaching retirement can tell you the exact dollar value of their super account. But success depends on more than a sizeable balance. Here's four key questions to ask yourself at the start of the financial year. 

Who gains in an AI-supercharged economy?

AI is already reshaping the economy, but companies building transformative technologies rarely capture the greatest long-term value. Instead, those benefits accrue to the users. We may well see this pattern reproduced. 

Taxation

Div 296's million-dollar reset worth $25,000

The 'cost base reset' for the new super tax is being sold as protection for pre-July gains. A worked example shows $1M of protection is worth about $25,000, and the real deadline has not passed.

Latest from Morningstar

The forecasting fix that Wall Street missed

Asking whether markets are overpriced may be the wrong question. New research suggests that traditional valuation metrics used to forecast returns may have been misread. Here are five takeaways for investors.

Investment strategies

Should a fund manager invest their own money differently?

Investors often like the idea that fund managers should invest client money exactly as they invest their own. But reality is more complicated. Unique circumstances make a different approach rational and, at times, beneficial.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2026 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.