Search
Get in touch!
Linkedin X-twitter Envelope

Bridgewater: The Drivers of US Exceptionalism

In their recent article, the team at Bridgewater analyzes the exceptional performance of US equities over the past decade, breaking down the key drivers of outperformance and discussing the outlook for continued success.

They examine the extraordinary outperformance of US equities over the past decade, with the S&P 500 delivering returns of over 600% since 2010 and significantly outpacing other developed markets. It attributes this success to three main factors: faster revenue growth, bigger margin expansion, and rising P/E multiples.

Here are the key takeaways:

  • US equity outperformance drivers: The exceptional returns of US equities were driven by a combination of faster revenue growth, larger margin expansion, and rising P/E multiples, with each factor contributing roughly equally.
  • Role of US companies and policy: US companies demonstrated superior efficiency, innovation, and capital deployment compared to global peers. This was supported by a favorable pro-corporate environment, including tax cuts and fiscal policies that boosted corporate profits.
  • Technology sector impact: While US outperformance was broad-based, the technology sector played an outsized role, accounting for more than half of the total outperformance. The growing weight of tech in the S&P 500 (from 20% to 40%) significantly impacted overall index performance.
  • Higher expectations priced in: The strong performance has led to higher expectations being priced into US equities, setting a higher bar for future outperformance. US companies now need about 7% EPS growth to generate a normal risk premium, compared to 3% for other developed markets.
  • Future outlook: Continued US outperformance faces challenges as many past drivers (e.g., globalization, tax cuts) may not persist. Future success heavily depends on the technology sector’s ability to deliver, particularly through AI-driven productivity gains across various sectors.

And while the US continues to have significantly better companies, that’s also a lot more priced-in today versus a decade ago.

Click here to go to the external source.

Share the news

Disclaimer of liability

The above has been prepared by Børsgade ApS for information purposes and cannot be regarded as a solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security. Nor can the information etc. be regarded as recommendations or advice of a legal, accounting or tax nature. Børsgade cannot be held liable for losses caused by customers’/users’ actions – or lack thereof – based on the information in the above. We have made every effort to ensure that the information in the above is complete and accurate, but cannot guarantee this and accept no liability for errors or omissions.

Readers are advised that investing may involve a risk of loss that cannot be determined in advance, and that past performance and price development cannot be used as a reliable indicator of future performance and price development. For further information please contact info@borsgade.dk

You might also find this interesting:

Thomas Shrager: Superior Value Outside the U.S

July 3, 2025

In a comprehensive interview, Thomas Shrager and Jay Hill from the renowned New York value investing boutique Tweedy, Browne articulate their belief that the most compelling investment opportunities currently lie outside the United States. The veteran fund managers, who oversee portfolios for the 104-year-old firm, explain that international markets offer dramatically better value propositions than the overvalued U.S. equity market, which they describe as “priced for perfection” at 24 times earnings.

Aswath Damodaran: The Uncertain Payoff from Alternative Investments

June 18, 2025

Professor Aswath Damodaran’s latest analysis challenges the conventional wisdom surrounding alternative investments, revealing significant gaps between marketing promises and actual performance. Aswath examines how institutional and individual investors have increasingly embraced alternatives like hedge funds, private equity, and venture capital, often with disappointing results despite decades of compelling sales pitches.

Alternative investments have gained mainstream acceptance over the past two decades, moving beyond their traditional institutional confines to target individual investors. The core argument for these investments rests on two pillars: their supposedly low correlation with traditional stocks and bonds, and their potential to generate excess returns through superior management and market inefficiencies. However, Damodaran’s analysis suggests these benefits may be largely illusory when subjected to rigorous scrutiny.

Michael Mauboussin: How to Handle Intangibles in Modern Value Investing

June 18, 2025

Michael Mauboussin, Head of Consilient Research at Morgan Stanley, delivered a compelling keynote presentation at the Ben Graham Centre for Value Investing’s 2025 conference, addressing how the rise of intangible assets has fundamentally altered the landscape of value investing.

Drawing from nearly a century of investment wisdom while adapting to modern realities, Mauboussin argues that traditional accounting methods have become increasingly inadequate for evaluating companies in today’s intangible-heavy economy. His presentation reveals that intangible investments now represent 1.7 times tangible investments in the U.S. economy, a complete reversal from 1977 when tangible investments dominated by a factor of 1.4.

Cliff Asness: Missing the Best Days Isn’t the Real Problem

June 12, 2025

Clifford Asness of AQR Capital Management revisits his 1999 rejected paper that challenged one of the most common arguments against market timing. The widespread belief that missing just a few of the market’s best days destroys long-term returns is fundamentally flawed, according to Asness.

His analysis shows that while missing the best performing days does hurt returns, missing the worst performing days provides symmetrical benefits. The author demonstrates through both historical data and simulations that this “evidence” against market timing is mathematically obvious and essentially useless for investment decision-making.

Asness argues that legitimate criticisms of market timing should focus on investors’ lack of skill rather than cherry-picked scenarios of perfect incompetence. His 25+ years of out-of-sample data confirms these findings, showing the argument remains as flawed today as it was when first proposed.