Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 554

History isn't on the side of the Magnificent Seven

Throughout 2023 and into this year, we have seen the performance of indices such as the MSCI World and the S&P 500 being driven primarily by a handful of mega-cap US names, almost exclusively within the technology space. What are the implications of this, and does it really matter?

Firstly, we need to zoom out a little and look at today’s concentration in the context of history to really understand whether what we’re witnessing today is really out of the ordinary.

What history says on the matter

As we can see from Figure 1, we’re at levels now in the US last seen during the ’Nifty Fifty’ era of the early 1970s. For those who were not present during that time (I, for one), the Nifty Fifty was a term used to describe a collection of blue-chip stocks in the US that were touted to be ‘one decision’ (i.e. you would just buy and hold these stocks, period). These stocks were so well loved that their valuations become quite stretched. However, from around 1973 onwards, these stocks cratered and went on to underperform the broader equity market. Since then, we’ve never seen the top five companies in the USA command a 25% market share of the US equity market – until now.

Figure 1. Share of top five companies by market cap in S&P 500: 1966 – 2023
Top five annotated through history


Source: DB Asset Allocation, Deutsche Bank.

Today, we’re seeing similar enthusiasm levels for the top end of the market, the so-called ‘Magnificent Seven’. Granted, the starting point in terms of valuations for the Magnificent Seven today is much less than the Nifty Fifty that preceded them.  Time will tell whether this will be enough to spare them a similar fate in terms of underperforming future equity returns.

The table below looks at the top 10 largest stocks in the world, at the start of each decade.

Table 1. The world’s 10 largest companies by market capitalisation (ex Berkshire and Aramco)


*Merged entities. Source: Gavekal Data/Macrobond

The first thing that stands out is how the composition radically changes over time. Each decade tends to be dominated by a big theme, and the stocks at the top of the list tend to reflect that. In the 1980s it was oil, and six of the top 10 were in the broader oil industry. In 1990, it was Japan’s seemingly unstoppable rise,  and eight of the largest 10 stocks in the world were Japanese. In 2000, it was the dot.com bubble, and eight of the top 10 were from the TMT sector. A decade later, it was China’s turn to take over the world, and most companies in the top 10 (with perhaps the exception of Microsoft) were companies that were either Chinese, or exported a lot to China, and thereby China was a big source of growth.

Interestingly, each subsequent decade has only seen one or two names in its top 10 that were present in the previous decade’s top 10. This highlights the lack of persistency in being able to remain a top performer for long stretches of time.

What happens if you hold the most dominant stocks?

So, what if an investor had, at the start of each decade, created a portfolio for themselves comprised entirely of the most dominant stocks of the time? I went through this hypothetical exercise myself.

I took the 10 largest stocks of each decade from the previous chart, calculated their subsequent returns for the following decade (e.g. the 1980 cohort had its performance calculated from 1 January 1980 to 1 January 1990), and created a simple, equal-weighted portfolio. I then compared this to the returns delivered by the MSCI World Index for the same subsequent time period.

Figure 2. Cumulative returns over the subsequent decade


Source: Fidelity International

In all but the 2010 vintage, our investor would have underperformed the broader market by investing in the mega-cap names of the time. And if we strip out Apple from the 2010 portfolio it, too, would have significantly underperformed the broader market. Apple delivered a cumulative return of almost 1100% from 2010 to 2020, vs the MSCI World of ~180%. If you missed Apple in 2010, then once again you would have been better off investing in the broader market.

Analysis from GMO, this time comparing investing in the largest 10 US stocks vs the rest of the S&P 500 shows that, on average, since 1957, you would have underperformed. However, since 2013, investing in the mega-caps has been a winning strategy. Whilst unusual, this is not unheard of – we witnessed similar episodes in the late 1960s/early 1970’s (Nifty Fifty era), as well as in the late 1990s (dot.com and internet bubble).

Figure 3. S&P 500: Top 10 vs 490 equal weighted


Source: Compustat, Standard & Poors

Figure 4. LTM profit ($US) of listed equities in G20 countries* by domicile, plus the Magnificent Seven and the seven largest stocks in Europe, for comparison


Source: Bloomberg Finance LP, Deutsche Bank. Note: aggregates are a sum of LTM net profit of common and preference stocks domiciled in a particular country, excluding stocks with a market cap below $200m.

Magnificent Seven: how big is big?

To be fair, most of the outperformance of the Magnificent Seven over the last decade has been driven by earnings. This has meant that, in aggregate, the NASDAQ is trading at cheaper valuations today than it did at the peak of the tech bubble in 1999. Said differently, valuation multiples for US mega-cap tech – whilst high relative to the broader market – can get to even more elevated levels than where they are today. If their amazing run of outperformance is to come to an end, it will need to come from future  earnings disappointing the lofty expectations that have  been set for them.

It’s worth keeping in mind that the Magnificent Seven are now more akin to countries, rather than companies, with respect to their sheer scale (see Figure 4). For example, Apple alone generates annual profits equivalent to over half of all French listed stocks (or German, for that matter), and more than the total profits generated by the entire Australian market.  In aggregate, the Magnificent Seven generate profits roughly equal to the entire Japanese stock market, or around half of the entire Chinese market.

So the question now is: Can companies the size of individual developed nations continue to grow at breakneck speed and, if so, for how long?

On top of the sheer element of size (law of large numbers is a headwind here), there’s also an element of circularity to this, as well. Nvidia has been by far the standout performer amongst the group in 2024. The revenues it generates in its Data Centre division (which accounts for ~80% of group revenues) is equivalent to ~40% of the cloud capex currently being spent by Amazon, Google, Meta and Microsoft combined.

Figure 5. Nvidia data center revenue as a percentage of Amazon/Google/Meta/Microsoft capex


Source: Platformonomics.com

Obviously, Nvidia is selling GPUs to more than just these four customers, and the total capex spend of this cohort of customers is going on not just GPUs, but a whole bunch of other things as well (think of CPUs, DRAM, NAND, network switches, etc.). But it nevertheless does highlight how Nvidia’s fortunes are closely tied to its fellow mega-cap brethren – and if one or more of this group of important customers needed to scale back cloud investment for whatever reason, it could have contagious effects.

The end of the reign of US mega-cap tech has been predicted for quite some time now, and to date that has proven to be incorrect. I’m not saying it’s game over for these guys from this point on, but I do think it’s prudent to think of other areas of the market that can also generate robust investor returns going forward and to diversify into them, given that history isn’t on the side of the Magnificent Seven.

 

Maroun Younes is Co-Portfolio Manager of the Fidelity Global Future Leaders Fund and Analyst at Fidelity International, a sponsor of Firstlinks. This document is issued by FIL Responsible Entity (Australia) Limited ABN 33 148 059 009, AFSL 409340 (‘Fidelity Australia’), a member of the FIL Limited group of companies commonly known as Fidelity International. This document is intended as general information only. You should consider the relevant Product Disclosure Statement available on the website www.fidelity.com.au.

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

© 2024 FIL Responsible Entity (Australia) Limited. Fidelity, Fidelity International and the Fidelity International logo and F symbol are trademarks of FIL Limited.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

The 1970s offer a helpful framework for today's markets

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

16 ASX stocks to buy and hold forever, updated

This time last year, I highlighted 16 ASX stocks that investors could own indefinitely. One year on, I look at whether there should be any changes to the list of stocks as well as which companies are worth buying now. 

UniSuper’s boss flags a potential correction ahead

The CIO of Australia’s fourth largest super fund by assets, John Pearce, suggests the odds favour a flat year for markets, with the possibility of a correction of 10% or more. However, he’ll use any dip as a buying opportunity.

2025-26 super thresholds – key changes and implications

The ABS recently released figures which are used to determine key superannuation rates and thresholds that will apply from 1 July 2025. This outlines the rates and thresholds that are changing and those that aren’t.  

Is Gen X ready for retirement?

With the arrival of the new year, the first members of ‘Generation X’ turned 60, marking the start of the MTV generation’s collective journey towards retirement. Are Gen Xers and our retirement system ready for the transition?

Why the $5.4 trillion wealth transfer is a generational tragedy

The intergenerational wealth transfer, largely driven by a housing boom, exacerbates economic inequality, stifles productivity, and impedes social mobility. Solutions lie in addressing the housing problem, not taxing wealth.

What Warren Buffett isn’t saying speaks volumes

Warren Buffett's annual shareholder letter has been fixture for avid investors for decades. In his latest letter, Buffett is reticent on many key topics, but his actions rather than words are sending clear signals to investors.

Latest Updates

Investing

Designing a life, with money to spare

Are you living your life by default or by design? It strikes me that many people are doing the former and living according to others’ expectations of them, leading to poor choices including with their finances.

Investment strategies

A closer look at defensive assets for turbulent times

After the recent market slump, it's a good time to brush up on the defensive asset classes – what they are, why hold them, and how they can both deliver on your goals and increase the reliability of your desired outcomes.

Financial planning

Are lifetime income streams the answer or just the easy way out?

Lately, there's been a push by Government for lifetime income streams as a solution to retirement income challenges. We run the numbers on these products to see whether they deliver on what they promise.

Shares

Is it time to buy the Big Four banks?

The stellar run of the major ASX banks last year left many investors scratching their heads. After a recent share price pullback, has value emerged in these banks, or is it best to steer clear of them?

Investment strategies

The useful role that subordinated debt can play in your portfolio

If you’re struggling to replace the hybrid exposure in your portfolio, you’re not alone. Subordinated debt is an option, and here is a guide on what it is and how it can fit into your investment mix.

Shares

Europe is back and small caps there offer significant opportunities

Trump’s moves on tariffs, defence, and Ukraine, have awoken European Governments after a decade of lethargy. European small cap manager, Alantra Asset Management, says it could herald a new era for the continent.

Shares

Lessons from the rise and fall of founder-led companies

Founder-led companies often attract investors due to leaders' personal stakes and long-term vision. But founder presence alone does not guarantee success, and the challenge is to identify which ones will succeed in the long term.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 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.