5/14/13 – A More Cheerful Look at Stock Valuations

Posted by Brad McMillan, CFA, CAIA, MAI

Find me on:

This entry was posted on May 14, 2013 12:29:18 PM

and tagged Economics Lessons

Leave a comment

One of the keys to looking at the stock market as a whole is valuations. For a given stream of earnings, how much you pay can make the difference between success and failure. Much like buying a car, getting a great deal goes a long way toward being happy with the results.

The problem is that no one really knows how to value the market. I’ve written about different valuation metrics for the stock market before, with a focus on price/earnings ratios, or just how much people are paying for that stream of earnings. I favor the P/E10 (now known as the Shiller P/E), which is based on average earnings for the past 10 years, as it washes out the effect of business cycles, as opposed to the trailing 12-month P/E. In my studies, the P/E10 also provides more predictive power than the regular P/E, although not a lot.

I recently reviewed a Vanguard study that examined the different valuation measures in more detail. The idea behind the study was to look at the history of the valuation metrics and see which ones actually worked and over which time frames. The study seems comprehensive and well done, and the results are consistent with work I have done myself.

Cutting to the chase, the only metrics that worked were based on P/E ratios, and then only at multiyear time horizons. Returns over periods of one year were essentially unpredictable, suggesting that market timing systems—at least using the methods tested—aren’t going to work. For the P/E ratio indicators, the P/E10 and the regular P/E were the most reliable, with the P/E10 having a slight edge. Neither, though, explained more than half of returns.

Looking at these two metrics for the current market, we find contrasting results. On a P/E10 basis, the market is quite overvalued. On a P/E basis, the market is reasonably valued. Which one is right?

The argument against the P/E10 is that the 10-year period in question includes two recessions, one of which was by far the worst in the postwar era. The 10-year average, the argument goes, is inappropriately depressed and simply not representative of a more normal environment.

The counterargument is that the 10-year period also includes the real estate bubble years, when consumer spending was artificially supported, as well as the current era of financial easing, with artificially low interest rates contributing about 30 percent of current earnings. The balance is not clear.

The argument for the P/E is that current earnings are representative of normal levels. With profit margins at all-time highs and earnings supported by low interest rates, that doesn’t seem clear either.

Overall, I tend to conclude that the P/E10 suggests caution. Both current earnings and valuations have multiple positive factors already baked in, and it’s not clear to me how further good news can materially affect earnings, particularly once interest rates start to normalize. Disappointments could negatively affect either—or both. I think the risks are more to the downside, although the P/E suggests that’s not necessarily the case.

Ned Davis Research (NDR) offers another positive note. One potentially distorting factor in market valuation levels is the amount of cash companies are holding. Moreover, with interest rates so low, the interest from this cash contributes much less to the bottom line. To correct for this, NDR backed out cash from the valuations and recalculated the P/E ratios over the past several decades.

The results show that, net of cash, the current P/E ratio for the S&P 500 is 13.1, well below the long-term average of 15.4. Moreover, in the third quarter of 2011, adjusted for cash, the P/E ratio fell to 8.2, its lowest point since 1982. One of the arguments against a sustained bull market has been that prices never really corrected to the appropriate low levels; according to this metric, however, they did.

I am suspicious of new metrics that appear to justify valuation levels that otherwise look high—price to revenue in the dot-com boom, for example—but I have to say this makes a lot of sense and adjusts for one of the key differences this time around.

While I remain cautious, I believe that the trend will remain upward for the immediate future. The next test will probably come in the fall, when the expectations of accelerating economic growth begin to prove out—or not.

Upcoming Appearances

Tune in to CNBC's Power Lunch on Wednesday, February 26, between 1:45 and 3:00 P.M. ET to hear Brad talk about the market. Exact interview time will be updated once confirmed. Check local listings for availability. 

Tune in to Bloomberg Radio's Bloomberg Businessweek on Friday, February 28, at 3:45 P.M. ET to hear Brad talk about the market. Stream the show live at https://www.bloombergradio.com/, listen through SiriusXM 119, or download Bloomberg's app, Bloomberg Radio+.

Subscribe via E-mail

New call-to-action
Crash-Test Investing
Commonwealth Independent Advisor

Hot Topics

Have a Question?

New Call-to-action

Conversations

Archives

see all

Subscribe

Disclosure

The information on this website is intended for informational/educational purposes only and should not be construed as investment advice, a solicitation, or a recommendation to buy or sell any security or investment product. Please contact your financial professional for more information specific to your situation.

Certain sections of this commentary contain forward-looking statements that are based on our reasonable expectations, estimates, projections, and assumptions. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks and uncertainties, which are difficult to predict. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Diversification does not assure a profit or protect against loss in declining markets.

The S&P 500 Index is a broad-based measurement of changes in stock market conditions based on the average performance of 500 widely held common stocks. All indices are unmanaged and investors cannot invest directly into an index.

The MSCI EAFE Index (Europe, Australasia, Far East) is a free float‐adjusted market capitalization index that is designed to measure the equity market performance of developed markets, excluding the U.S. and Canada. The MSCI EAFE Index consists of 21 developed market country indices.  

Third party links are provided to you as a courtesy. We make no representation as to the completeness or accuracy of information provided at these websites. Information on such sites, including third party links contained within, should not be construed as an endorsement or adoption by Commonwealth of any kind. You should consult with a financial advisor regarding your specific situation.

Member FINRASIPC

Please review our Terms of Use

Commonwealth Financial Network®