For example the 30 stocks in the Dow Jones Industrial average have an average PE ratio of about 13. It is about the same whether you use trailing earning or forward analyst estimates for next year. Well 13 is indeed pretty cheap compared to the long term average of about 15.
But looks can be deceiving. The question is what the earnings will be in the future. Corporate profits as percent of GDP were recently at an extreme value. The long term trend for real earnings (as compiled by Robert Shiller) puts the S&P 500 earnings at about 50. That would be the trend value not the value one might expect in a very deep recession. Typically earnings fall to about half the trend during deep recessions. So earnings for the S&P 500 might be more like 30 over the next few years. With the S&P 500 at 900 that would put the PE ratio at about 30. Not so cheap looking anymore.
Let's look at the data for the Depression years 1928-1936 as an example.

This plot shows the aggregate earnings (black), stocks prices (blue) and the (trailing) PE ratio in red. The data is from Robert Shiller's data-sets. The stock prices have been divided by 17.
In late 1929, the bubble popped and stock prices fell as market participants realized that corporate earnings would fall and that stocks were overvalued. The PE ratio fell quickly from about 20 in 1929 to about 13 by the beginning of 1930. People naturally expected a quick economic recovery and decided that stocks were cheap. After-all, a PE of 13 (just like today) is pretty enticing. So began the rally of 1930. The PE ratio jumped up to about 18 before the rally fell apart. The market then fell steadily with occasional rallies until the bottom in late 1932. The amazing thing is that the PE ratios never strayed far from 17 during the rest of the bear market except for right at the end when it fell quickly to bottom at 10. The blue line is price over 17 so the fact that the blue line traces the black line demonstrates this. It is just that earnings fell steadily until they fell to about 7 from the peak at 26, a 73% decline. The story of the great bear market was really one of corporate earnings not valuation.
The moral of the story of course is that a PE ratio is pretty meaningless by itself. What matters is where earnings will be in the future. The best guide to that is simply mean reversion. Corporate profits tend to revert to about 6% of GDP. They recently peaked at almost twice that. If they bottom at half this average that would be a 75% fall just like in the Depression. If that happens we might expect the S&P to fall to at least a PE of 15. The S&P 500 earnings peaked about about 85 so a 75% decline would be 21 and a 15 PE would bring the index to a horrifying 315 a 65% decline from here.
Of course this might be overly pessimistic or it might not. But the point is that stocks will follow future earnings and that those will likely go down from here. Stocks are not nearly as cheap as they look.
14 comments:
Smells like Waterloo...
tbh, i've thought for a while now that earnings follow price, not that price follows earnings. companies have a habit of funding earnings from shareholder capital.
i was the last poster. just to expand on that point about earnings following price, comparing return on equity or capital would give a much more accurate picture in my opinion, because companies can't earn as much if they have less to invest with, including shareholder capital.
The next big bubble is the treasury yield bubble - If earnings deteriorate the equity markets are very dangerous - even for the shorts. I would appredciate a study on fixed income in this world where the Federal Government is committed to spending $13 trillion --- at least.
We can also look at return on equity. For example, for the Dow 30, the average PE is 13. The average PB (price-to-book) is 3.1. The ratio PB/PE=E/B=ROE is 23.8%
That is very high compared to historical averages. I think the average is more like half of that.
Looking at the 500 largest companies (a proxy for the S&P 500), my Morningstar screen tells me that the median ROE is about 14%. So the big companies are earning much higher ROEs as might be expected. They are more stable, more globally diversified, have access to capital markets etc. Many of these big Dow 30 companies are in less volatile industries like healthcare (JNJ, MRK,PFE) or food (KFT, WMT, PG) and oil (XOM, CVX). I expect these to hold up better.
Of course there is also a selection bias there if you use market cap as a measure of size. Naturally AIG, WAMU, GM etc do not make the list of big companies. Not anymore. They have been replaced in the Dow with companies like KFT and CSCO who should stay fairly profitable.
"[T]he point is that stocks will follow future earnings..."
Agreed.
"...and that those will likely go down from here."
"Likely"? Based on what? I'm looking at top-down estimates that show earnings gradually increasing through next year.
vR
it's anonymous #2 and #3 again(i really should get an account).
i don't know about the market as a whole, but i've noticed when doing valuations that roe or roc drops before price, so maybe it's the change in roe or roc that should be looked at.
but it seems logical to me that a roe/roc drop would occur independently of price if the economy is doing bad. so it might not relate to price, but it would relate to the health of the economy, i say that because price can be very irrational sometimes.
People with lots of gray hair remember what inflation does to stock valuation. Deflation is also quite bad. Take a look at "S&P 500 INDEX PE AT TROUGHS: A DETAILED 80 YEARS ANALYSIS" at http://www.news-to-use.com/2009/03/s-500-index-pe-at-troughs-detailed-80.html
Not to pimp my blog, but I think I figured it out.
http://thetaildoesnotwagthedog.blogspot.com/2009/07/in-end-tail-does-not-wag-dog.html
Anon says
"Likely"? Based on what? I'm looking at top-down estimates that show earnings gradually increasing through next year.
It depends what earnings you are talking about.
You mean the S&P top-down estimates? They have "As reported" earnings of 43.0 for 2009 and 46.6 for 2010. So fine. Those are not decreasing but look how low they are. With a 15X multiple, that puts the S&P 500 at 672 basically back at the March low.
We are currently selling at 24.3 time 2010 earnings.
But those numbers would be only take us to trend earnings. That is normal earnings for the size of the economy by historical standards. Do you really think that this once a century economic collapse will only take us back to trend? The Q4 EPS was -$23. Don't you think there might be more quarters like that ahead? Many people think we have another trillion dollars of write-offs coming. The total (trend) earnings of the S&P 500 companies is roughly $450B per year. So that would wipe out roughly two years of earnings. Add to that, under funded pensions, higher future taxes, higher borrowing costs for less credit worthy companies.
I think they gotta go down further.
Why do people look at 2010 earnings numbers? All numbers since 2007 have been way off. The actual S&P 500 PE ratio (http://online.barrons.com/public/page/9_0210-indexespeyields.html)
goes up every week lately and is currently at 130. I think the authors forecast of 310 for the S&P is conservative.
310 on the SP might be conservative, but you need to figure the timeframe. I'm thinking somewhat faster than the Nikkei crash due to faster flow of information.
IMO, In the end, we will need to create an entirely new financial system, because the old one will prove unworkable and unfixable.
I don't really think 310 is likely. But the 666 low might not hold. The main thing though is that there is little upside from here. The defensive blue chips might do pretty well (JNJ, K, KO, MRK etc) and might keep earnings from falling that low. But many of these big companies could really fall a long ways down, especially financials and cyclicals. Check out the leverage on CAT! If companies like that can't produce profits, they will be in big, big trouble.
I don't think we will create an entirely new financial system. Financial systems evolve. They don't do well with revolution.
viagra logo viagra rrp australia cost viagra vs cialis which is better cialis or viagra lowest price viagra cheap viagra canada viagra and cialis does viagra really work viagra dosages effects of viagra on women free trial of viagra natural herbs used as viagra women does viagra work viagra results
Post a Comment