Dear Valued Clients and Friends,
I am not sure the title of this week’s Dividend Cafe is totally accurate. I want to write about five things that are concerning – that are noteworthy – for investors, but I am not sure that is the same thing as saying I am “worried” about them. I will give more color on this distinction at the end of this week’s Dividend Cafe.
But the second half of the title captures an important part of today’s Dividend Cafe, too. We are told that certain things are inevitable or deeply concerning, and I want to make a contrarian case that they are not.
So read today’s Dividend Cafe and become more pessimistic or more optimistic – that choice is yours (and successful investors will know which choice to make). But no matter what your temperament or emotional disposition is, read today’s Dividend Cafe and become more informed.
Let’s jump into the Dividend Cafe …
| Subscribe on |
Five Things I am Currently Worried About:
Concentrate on the Concentration
I could start my five concerns with valuations, AI froth, and semiconductor excess, but it would first help to establish why this matters to more investors than is commonly understood. In 1999, a very high percentage of investors did not own the Munder NetNet Fund atrocity. A high percentage of investors were not buying dotcom stocks on margin. The carnage was severe, but the penetration was different because many investors didn’t believe they were, and indeed weren’t, exposed to the central focus of market danger. But today, I believe a whole lot of people believe they are not exposed, and yet due to changes in market concentration, they really are. Significantly so.
But, you say, why worry? I mean, yes, 40% in ten companies out of 500 seems concerning, but these will all be the sure winners in this era. And it isn’t like the whole semiconductor story has taken over the broad market, right?
Well, few words make me more ill in investing than “sure winners.” I am told British soccer fans agree. I know that Duke basketball fans agree (hurts to type). But let me just tell you something as surely as I can: When you use the phrase “sure winners” in vesting, you are “sure” to regret it.
But let’s evaluate the second part of the retort above. Is the S&P 500 really immune to semiconductor exposure (or at least heavily mitigated)? Hardly. Look at the concentration just of this sub-sector within a sub-sector?
Simply put, I believe there is more democratized exposure to the most vulnerable parts of markets than there has been historically, and I believe the perception of safety in cap-weighted “diversified” indices is very likely going to be called into question in the year(s) ahead.
Behavior, Masses, Crowding, and the Rhymes of History
Some of what I am about to share will be argued by some to be bullish indicators that belong on some people’s positive list. Those people are believers in the wisdom of crowds, the merit of momentum, and the sage advice that that which goes up just keeps going up more. Suffice it to say, those things are not part of my investment philosophy.
Now, none of these things indicates imminent doom and gloom. Every contrarian knows the loneliness you have to feel at times to be a good contrarian investor. But as a broad indicator of the built-up vulnerability, I point you to the following:
Enthusiasm for equities jumping exponentially after years of a screaming bull market has, well, not always ended great. Add to the gravity of this situation that many of these ETFs are levered, double-levered, single-stock, and all sorts of other versions of shiny frothiness, and you can see why this may be a bit concerning. A 460% jump in just a few years in the amount of these levered ETFs is noteworthy.
Speaking of “retail trading excess,” the Citadel market maker alone recorded a stunning $6.8 billion of option premiums traded per day in June just from retail investors, 65% above the 2025 average and 100% above historical averages. Highly speculative option activity from retail investors, skyrocketing like this – what could go wrong?
I will add anecdotally, without piling on with another chart, that options in semiconductors received 6.2x their historical volume in June. “Space” as a sub-sector received 5.6x the options volume. Yep. And if I can quote my friend, Cliff Asness, about this last data point, “What fresh hell is this?” – 30% of all options traded from retail traders are now “Zero Days to Expiration” options – SINGLE DAY speculation on stock moves. Ignoring this as an indicator of something seems unwise.
Again, it is not one thing here, and it is not connected to a specific prediction in a specific timeline. It is a voice of rational concern in response to what feels like a glut of irrational activity – exuberant activity, if you will.
The Right Pocket is Fighting the Left Pocket
There are competing tensions within the market right now that do not feel fully appreciated by investors, to me. One can say that “the semiconductor 1,000% move up is perfectly justified because the hyperscalers are going to continue buying compute at the same rate” – and maybe that is true (I don’t actually think it is, but I am willing to pretend).
But if the semis get to benefit from that, do we not understand that there is no way that can happen without the hyperscalers diluting the ____ out of their shareholders through new equity issuance, AND/OR levering their balance sheets to the hilt through new debt issuance? I would vote on the AND in that AND/OR, by the way.
The S&P Profits Story
I am not as sanguine about S&P profits as many appear to be. That is not to say that earnings are not strong – they are. It is not to say that earnings are not growing – they are. So what is the problem? Earnings in the S&P 500 have been skewed by “other income” with a couple of companies marking up the value of, well, a couple of companies. It is all legitimate GAAP accounting, but it speaks to the fact that we are double-counting stories to rationalize the narrative that is holding up market valuations.
“This isn’t just AI hype – it is real earnings!”
“But a lot of the earnings are from marking up AI value”
“Yes, that’s because the AI story is crushing it! Look at the earnings?”
At some point, I believe this expectation of everything lining up perfectly in perpetuity gets exposed, and the best-case scenario will prove to be my long-held view in a multi-year range-bound market, and the worse-case scenario will be … worse.
Margins have been expanding for quite some time. But I have never heard of anything in history that holds its margins when it succeeds at scale and in the face of competition. Downward pressure on margins is inevitable as a basic law of economics, unless the whole thing is a real bust, which would be worse.
OpenAI and Too Big to Fail
Peter Boockvar flagged the following after S&P’s credit downgrade of Oracle last week, and I think it speaks to a larger issue that is absolutely in my top five list. While most of their commentary was [rightly] on the changing risk profile of Oracle’s business model as they transition more into cloud infrastructure than enterprise software and database, they highlighted the growing capex needs to feed this change (fair enough), and the very competitive nature of the space with hyper-scalers seeking to lease excess compute capacity, making them formidable competitors (also fair enough). But then they got to the issue I feel gets nowhere near enough attention right now, and that is the way in which a reasonably brand new company with minuscule revenues and massive losses has become one of the most significant “too big to fail” stories of our day:
“OpenAI remains a key credit risk. We estimate that OpenAI makes up roughly half of the $638 billion in RPO (remaining performance obligations). OpenAI’s ability to meet its contractual obligations and raise external financing will be contingent upon AI tailwinds continuing and its models being market leaders. If OpenAI were unable to pay Oracle, we believe Oracle could be left with massive data center leases that it might be unable to exit or have to re-lease to new tenants under less favorable terms.”
This is not a statement about Nvidia, about the S&P 500, about AI, about IPO’s, about valuations, about shiny objects, about big cap growth, or about any number of other things that are all perfectly legitimate subjects for discussion … This is a very specific statement about one company that barely anyone in America has heard of (even if many have heard of their flagship product) and what I believe is becoming its inter-connectedness to the U.S. economy and financial markets in a way that is unprecedented given the context. And of everything on my list above, nothing would upset me more than the U.S. government taking an equity stake in OpenAI. And I am sad to say that I believe it is more likely than not going to happen, at some point.
Five Things I am not Currently Worried About:
Imminent AI Destruction of Jobs
At this time, high-intensity AI adopters in their workflows are increasing their hiring, with entry-level jobs up +12% in such companies but flat at companies with low adoption. Total hiring is up +10.2% among AI adopters.
Of course, I cannot say that this will continue. I do believe the burden of proof that “this time it’s different” has always been on the other side of this issue. My read is that right now we are seeing lower input costs expand certain sectors, and that is leading to more, not less, employment. Some dynamic shift workforce needs still seems inevitable, but the imminent spiking of unemployment related to AI is simply not something we see in the data or fear in the longer term.
We see a modestly declining unemployment rate, shocking to some, amongst those in their 20s since the advent of AI. We see new business formation up 30% since the more significant launch of AI. There are counter-trends out there that paint a different picture than the prevalent narrative.
There should be no confusion on what I am saying (and not saying). For any individual who loses their job to some form of technological efficiency, I would have nothing but genuine care and sympathy. I am not being cavalier about the disruption that will happen. I am talking about macro aggregates in the economy, which admittedly force a more depersonalized tenor to the conversation.
Mere Market Volatility as a Bad Thing
I talked in the prior list about the reality of concentration risk in the current S&P 500. That is very different than commenting on the normal reality of normal volatility in the broad stock market. I not only expect broad market volatility but embrace it, want it, and love it. Volatility enhances the risk premium that drives returns, and as a dividend growth investor, I am confident that the strategy contains an automatic “defense turned to offense” mechanic through dividend reinvestment that accounts for a substantial portion of the total return we will enjoy over the years and decades to come. I do believe the magnitude of volatility relative to the expectation an investor has for such – in other words, their own preparedness- matters a great deal. But if all we were talking about was “historical market volatility,” I essentially believe it is part of what I have paid for, and I believe that as a dividend growth investor, we have (a) mitigated the fat tail risk of such, and (b) positioned ourselves mechanically and mathematically to benefit from the reality of volatility.
The Inflation Story as it is Being Told
I do not like higher prices. Let me start over. I am sure I like higher prices if I am the one selling something (see More to Chew On below). For all the talk about people’s hatred of inflation, I seem to recall a generation of people living on cloud nine when their house prices inflated into la-la land in the first decade of this new century. I fully get the political and the practical problem of inflation when it comes to things like fuel prices and groceries. But today we have such a convoluted bag of poppycock, all mixed together in the same conversation, allegedly about “inflation,” that it long ago made coherence impossible and cogent policy solutions laughable. The fact of the matter is that nearly all discussion of inflation today is dressed up political campaigning and rhetoric devoid of any economic nuance.
Oil prices going up because of a Hormuz-induced supply shock is not “inflation.” It is higher prices that last until supply comes back online, and it is real, and it matters, but treating it like it is the same thing as a massive surge in money supply leading to an entire price level going higher is totally dishonest.
Goods prices going up because of select tariffs is not “inflation.” It is costly for the people buying them. It may even discourage new supply and lead to a worse problem. It is an unhealthy economic distortion. But again, it is not the “inflation” we talk about as a monetary phenomenon that requires a Fed response.
Shelter prices are going down and are disinflationary if not deflationary right now because – wait for it – they got too high! Florida homeowners know it (if they have put up a For Sale sign in the last six months). Multi-family landlords know it. And a half-dozen real-time market indicators know it. But this is not a sign of “beating inflation,” and those who claim it are either not smart or not honest.
So, across the board, there are a plethora of different stories all connected to “inflation” headlines and data. Tariffs. Housing. Oil. Take your pick. They are not one and the same, and they all require different conversations. Some are tough. Some are improving. Some are uncertain. But when it comes to inflation, I would simply say that a policy of price stability avoids manipulation of money supply and the cost of capital, and that other supply-oriented nuances are outside the purview of monetary policymakers.
The Energy Sector
At the peak of ESG insanity, the predominant narrative was that the oil and gas sector would be extinct, and it was just a matter of when, not if. It is not a narrative I hear a lot anymore, and not one very many serious people say out loud. Some may wish for it, and some may still think it should happen, but the notion of a world having its energy needs met without oil and gas has taken a backseat to the other environmental goal of improving the ways in which we produce, extract, and transport, which is very different than trying to figure out a way to make it sunny 24 hours per day.
The Energy sector has had a heck of a run the last five years, and the new narrative I hear is not as existential as the ESG one was, but rather more cyclical. Namely, that once the Strait of Hormuz re-opens, we will be cursed with $60-70 oil again, and who would want to own midstream or upstream stocks in that commodity price range?
Nonsense.
You may have heard we have a power deficit, an electricity deficit, and the underlying fuel to drive the AI investment we hear so much about. Good luck meeting that without energy. You may have heard we have geopolitical enemies who need to be de-fanged. Good luck winning those global struggles without leverage on the energy front.
My Energy thesis is not about Iran, Hormuz, or $75 oil. It is about, well, humanity.
Software as Dead
My view on this whole story is unsurprisingly one of nuance. Multiples on the cash flow of the software sector (at large) have utterly collapsed. The view that AI has eliminated the need for software has become systemic, at least if you look at a chart like this.
But when you look under the hood, you see a different picture. The median software stock has actually substantially outperformed the total sector, as the total sector is heavily distorted by its largest (most overpriced) constituents. The facts around this whole story continue to be extremely Darwinian:
- Some companies will massively benefit from AI
- Some companies will suffer and then benefit
- Some companies have a moat and a brand, and some don’t
- Some companies have data, and some don’t
And through this all, investors (in private and public markets) are left with the uncomfortable reality that there is no aggregate narrative to lean on – just the hard work of real due diligence. The spoils belong to those who study for the test. Same as it ever was.
Quote of the Week
“Should you find yourself in a chronically leaking boat, energy devoted to changing vessels is likely to be more productive than energy devoted to patching leaks”
~ Warren Buffett
More to Chew on
- Turns out controlling Hormuz is complicated!
- Taking oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve involves more than meets the eye
- Milton Friedman called out the hypocrisy of people who are against inflation when I was just a little boy
* * *
If you have read Dividend Cafe for any significant period of time, you know that my long-term concern is excessive debt and its impact on future growth. That is almost the only thing I wish to focus on. Today’s Dividend Cafe is about fewer structural concerns and more cyclical ones. So the “five and five” list of today does not replace “the one and one” list of the decades ahead. The one big problem is that we grow government spending and debt more than we grow the economy these days. And the one big opportunity is for companies to rise above that nonsense and grow their profits anyway. To that end, we work.
With regards,
David L. Bahnsen
Chief Investment Officer, Managing Partner
The Bahnsen Group
thebahnsengroup.com
This week’s Dividend Cafe features research from S&P, Baird, Barclays, Goldman Sachs, and the IRN research platform of FactSet
