This is just such an information rich chart, even if you are not a CAPE fan:
click for ginormous graphic
Source: Bloomberg
June 4, 2015 9:30am by Barry Ritholtz
This is just such an information rich chart, even if you are not a CAPE fan:
click for ginormous graphic
Source: Bloomberg
This content, which contains security-related opinions and/or information, is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in any manner as professional advice, or an endorsement of any practices, products or services. There can be no guarantees or assurances that the views expressed here will be applicable for any particular facts or circumstances, and should not be relied upon in any manner. You should consult your own advisers as to legal, business, tax, and other related matters concerning any investment. The commentary in this “post” (including any related blog, podcasts, videos, and social media) reflects the personal opinions, viewpoints, and analyses of the Ritholtz Wealth Management employees providing such comments, and should not be regarded the views of Ritholtz Wealth Management LLC. or its respective affiliates or as a description of advisory services provided by Ritholtz Wealth Management or performance returns of any Ritholtz Wealth Management Investments client. References to any securities or digital assets, or performance data, are for illustrative purposes only and do not constitute an investment recommendation or offer to provide investment advisory services. Charts and graphs provided within are for informational purposes solely and should not be relied upon when making any investment decision. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The content speaks only as of the date indicated. Any projections, estimates, forecasts, targets, prospects, and/or opinions expressed in these materials are subject to change without notice and may differ or be contrary to opinions expressed by others. The Compound Media, Inc., an affiliate of Ritholtz Wealth Management, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. Investments in securities involve the risk of loss. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here: https://www.ritholtzwealth.com/advertising-disclaimers Please see disclosures here: https://ritholtzwealth.com/blog-disclosures/
Previous Post
Today: Co-Hosting Bloomberg Radio 8-10 amNext Post
The Slowly Disappearing Commission
Probably not.
The displacement that is the rise of asset prices caused by a fall in safe interest rates may trigger a bubble. But the mere displacement itself–and the fact that asset prices will fall should interest rates rise and “normalize” is not a bubble: it is a carry trade, a tradeoff of higher returns now against a risk of capital loss later. (BDL)
Useful! The zero interest rate is a real thing, that affects stock prices. Unlike the usual generators of bubbles, which are not actually real things (tech stock earnings prospects, house prices going ever higher, intrinsic value of tulip bulbs).
I think the stock market is fairly valued if we avoid a recession in the next couple of years and we can consistently do 3% growth in GDP over the next few years (sorry, GDI – the new preferred measure since GDP isn’t given the desired results). I don’t see revenue and earnings growing significantly otherwise and you need steady earnings growth to justify these high PEs.
That will require the economy overcoming the retirement of boomers and the demographic divot of Generation X occupying the key “peak earnings years” slot in the demographic curve until the millenial bulge moves into their 40s. Much of the rest of the world is aging faster than the US, so they will have their own headwinds and probably not contribute huge amounts to our GDP. European CAPEs have reset back close to their median values due to concern over their economy over the next few years given their aging population.
Since every stock market valuation measure is in the top quintile or decile, any significant hiccup would likely create a large downdraft. I would be surprised of a 10% pullback stayed at 10%.
BTW – my 401k turns out to be set to rebalance quarterly tomorrow, so I decided to go look at it today. Despite all of the tooth gnashing and wailing headlines over the past few weeks, only one of the funds is off by 1% from its target ratio. Nothing is more than 1% away. So it looks like all of the volatility is largely cancelling itself out right now when you look at multi-month horizons.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-bogle-and-buffett-tell-investors-to-ignore-market-noise-2015-06-04?link=MW_home_latest_news
With the S&P PE @ 20.5, Price to sales @1.8. it looks expensive to me..
Here is a good web site with different ways to look at the S&P. Links at the bottom of the page. http://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-price-to-sales
Great discussion looking forward to seeing what others have to say. It does seems like we are reaching for yield at this point.
The concept of ‘overvalued’ or ‘fairly valued’ only exist in context. What are the alternatives? Compared to what?
In a low-rate era higher stock prices make sense; they still pay better than the competition. Any measure of ‘value’ that does not consider this is flawed.
Rates themselves are overvalued as a tool.
I don’t necessarily see this as a low rate era. When you have excessive economic growth in the past and now are a based totally on consumption, this is more a reason than financialization and slower growth.
IMO, the private sector is tapped out. They invested heavily and I mean heavily in the Boomer rise, especially in the 70’s/early 80’s yet people said the economy was bad. That was more a fact when you adjust for real inflation to consumer purchases, consumer spending was terrible despite marginal profits hitting a true peak in 1979.. This business boom(at slower more sustainable pace) until the computerization blowoff in 2000 and after that, business investment appeared to “dry up”. I think the more logical answer was that business investment was saturated by the 70’s and only maintaining what was built was the final extension which is why inflation happened to slow the economy down, which hit consumer spending as residential/non-residential boomed. This lowered real marginal profits because they invested less, but boosted consumption along with supply sided economics, made fiancialization a fixture. Higher consumption rate in the economy, yet slower growth. In otherwards, inflation is easier to get than you would expect…….if you would try. Which is why we don’t try. I bet if todays people tried to live in the 70’s/80’s, they would complain of how poor they felt, GDP is not a great indicator of economic “status” because it doesn’t explain how the parts work and why they work.
Cape would need to pass 2000’s peak just to have the same impact today.