5/9/14 – How to Turn P/E Data into P/E Information

Posted by Brad McMillan, CFA, CAIA, MAI

Find me on:

This entry was posted on May 19, 2014 10:22:00 AM

and tagged Commentary

Leave a comment

The first question you might have, upon seeing that headline, is what’s the difference? Data is simply facts, without meaning or context. Information can be used as a basis to make decisions; it can be acted on.

A good example is an old radio comedy routine that went something like this: “And now for the baseball scores: 4–2, 5–1, 3–1, and in a blowout surprise, 9–0.” Without the team names attached to the scores, the data isn’t particularly useful to fans. Add the context—the names of the teams—and it becomes information, usable to settle bets, update team records, or make fun of your friends.

Putting P/E ratios in context

An analogy in the financial markets is price-earnings ratios. 17, 21, 6, 15—without knowing anything more, these are meaningless numbers. What is the growth rate of earnings? What is the typical ratio in the industry? What time period do those earnings cover? Is it unusual?

Consider the different types of P/E ratios mentioned in the press, which are often confused with each other:

  • The forward P/E, based on current price and estimated earnings for the next year
  • The trailing 12-month P/E, which uses earnings over the past year
  • The Shiller P/E, which uses average earnings for the past 10 years
  • The Hussman P/E, which uses all-time-high annual earnings

Each has its strengths and weaknesses, as well as known biases that are built into the calculation. Looking at any one ratio can result in a bad decision, while comparing two different types may leave you scratching your head. (For more on this general topic, see my recent post about different ways to look at data.)

What can each type of P/E ratio tell us?

Analyses that use the forward P/E are a pet peeve of mine. Forward earnings estimates have a systemic upward bias; they are almost always high. Forward P/Es, therefore, make stocks look cheaper than they really are. (This may be why they’re often quoted by Wall Street.)

The trailing 12-month P/E is better, in that it reflects what has actually happened. But its weakness is assuming that the past year was typical. Most years are not typical, and values look much higher in bad years and lower in good years. Right now, for instance—with record-high profit margins, low interest rates, and high stock buybacks—earnings are higher than normal, and stocks look cheaper than they would in a more typical year.

The Shiller P/E tries to address the normality concern by using an average of earnings over 10 years, on the theory that good years and bad years will average out over time. As a result, it is a much smoother indicator of value, avoiding the big swings of the yearly figures, but it has the drawback of using out-of-date information. Another weakness is that it has been at historically high levels for more than the past 20 years, raising the question of whether current figures are really useful or whether the market has changed.

The Hussman P/E attempts to sidestep the issues associated with annual figures, estimates, and longer time periods by using the best annual earnings the company has ever achieved. Because of this, there are no comparison issues; you’re simply valuing the company based on the best it has done. This provides a stable and defensible E for the analysis, but it raises an obvious question: will the company ever get those earnings again, or improve on them?

Which P/E ratio is best?

Personally, I find the trailing 12-month P/E (for its use of the most recent actual data) and the Shiller P/E (for its inclusion of a full business cycle of earnings) to be useful. Both, however, present the difficulty of comparing current figures to historical data.

The information contained in these ratios can be used in portfolio planning to estimate future returns. At this point, given current valuations and historical patterns, those estimates are likely to be disappointing for most people (i.e., in the low- to mid-single digits). You can certainly conclude that the indicators are wrong, but viewing them as information and not just data, you should be prepared to demonstrate why you think that’s the case.

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®