Shiller pe ratio above 40 for the first time since 1999-2000

 

Remember last fall when a bunch of Nobel economists assured us that gobs more spending by Joe Biden wouldn't have serious inflationary impacts?

 Here's what the ring leader of Tom Nichols' vaunted expert class of economists had to say at the time:

Some, however, have invoked fears of inflation as a reason to not undertake these investments. This view is short-sighted. ... We need safe school buildings and bridges, and affordable child and elder care, whether inflation is 2% or 5%. With the investments being financed by tax increases, the inflationary impacts will be at most negligible ...

The Build Back Better package ... would transform the U.S. economy to be more efficient, equitable, sustainable, and prosperous for the long run, without presenting an inflationary threat.

From Joe Stiglitz' letter last September, here. Robert Shiller of all people signed on to this load of hooey. Carl Schramm unloaded on all this yesterday, here.

Stiglitz wrote that with a straight face when inflation had already soared to 5.3% in July. The orgy of coronavirus spending in 2020-2021 was already stoking the inflation engine, but the experts then simply ignored it, and called for more! more! more!

Now look where we are, even without more.

Government spending in the United States hasn't been financed by tax increases in decades. We wouldn't be $30 trillion in the hole if it were. It's financed by borrowing, and the interest payments on that borrowing progressively accumulate to crowd-out other spending. One day soon interest payments on the debt will become the biggest part of the budget, severely limiting our ability to allocate resources responsibly.

 

 

Robert Shiller: Great Depression tariffs did not plausibly, directly affect economic growth in a major degree

Everywhere we turn we hear the opposite. It's standard operating procedure to blame protectionism for the Great Depression. Shiller knows it can't be demonstrated from the data. Hence the psychological argument. 

Quoted here:

Shiller said he did not believe there would be a significant inflationary effect to the U.S. from steel and aluminum tariffs, but he warned that heated trade rhetoric from both sides could send the American economy reeling into a recession.

"When you ask about the size of the impact on the economy, I think a lot of it is more psychological than direct, unless they really slam on tariffs," he said. The Yale economist pointed to the "most famous tariff war of all" during the Great Depression, which he said did not "plausibly, directly" affect economic growth "in a major degree," but it may have helped "destroy confidence" and willingness to plan for the future.

"It's exactly those 'wait and see' attitudes that cause a recession," he explained.

Robert Shiller blames housing bubbles on get rich quick flipper narratives, still completely misses the tax angle

Here, in The New York Times:

There is still no consensus on why the last housing boom and bust happened. That is troubling, because that violent housing cycle helped to produce the Great Recession and financial crisis of 2007 to 2009. We need to understand it all if we are going to be able to avoid ordeals like that in the future.

Ordinary Americans were suddenly able to make a lot of money by flipping their homes because of the tax law changes of 1997. Capital that was previously locked-up in housing by the rules of the New Deal until 1997 was suddenly unleashed to slosh around in the economy when lawmakers gave homeowners the right to avoid most capital gains on the sale of their homes as long as they lived in them only two years. Until 1997, if you didn't buy a more expensive home after you sold yours, you were exposed to a tax hit, unless you took the option of a once in a lifetime exclusion on the gain. The old arrangement had insured, along with the 30-year mortgage, that housing capital built up over a long period of time, creating forced savings for the middle class which could be safely liquidated in retirement without adversely affecting the housing market.

The Republican and Democrat geniuses who ran our government in 1997 changed all that, and within ten years the dang thing blew up. Yeah, I'm talking about you, Bill Clinton, and you, Newt Gingrich.

Too bad Robert Shiller still doesn't get it.

It would probably be unwise to turn back the tax clock now that the damage has been done, but the reinflation of the housing bubble after the crisis wasn't inevitable. The Fed's unprecedented zero interest rate policy has been responsible for that.

When the next housing crash comes, we'll probably not understand it either.

Meanwhile, the median sales price of homes in the aggregate has never been higher, or more unaffordable, and remains the primary driver of wealth inequality in America. 

S&P 500 market capitalization/GDP ratios the years before plus-20% crashes

http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/commentaries/CAPE-at-Market-Peaks.php

1955: 104*
1956: 101
1957:   84

1960: 107
1961: 123
1962: 103

1965: 120
1966:   96

1967: 109
1968: 107
1969:   88
1970:   84

1972:   89
1973:   66
1974:   43

1979:   40
1980:   45
1981:   37
1982:   41


1986:   52
1987:   49

1999: 148
2000: 126
2001: 107
2002:   79

2006: 101
2007: 100
2008:   62
2009:   77

*The ratio is the S&P 500 level at the end of the calendar year divided by 4Q final GDP in trillions of dollars. The average peak ratio in the series is 99. The average trough ratio is 71. The average spread between peak and trough ratios in the series is 27%. The ratio through 3Q2014 is 112, 13% above the average peak in the series.

The chart from Doug Short gives the Shiller p/e ratios on the record dates. The average peak of these is 22.6, the average trough is 14.2, and the average spread between them in the series is 35%. The Shiller p/e ratio at the end of 3Q2014 was 25.16, 11% above the average peak in the series. 

Shiller p/e vaults above 27 for Thanksgiving, first time in 7 years it's been this high

The S&P500 ends the week just 0.7% below the all-time inflation-adjusted high in August 2000

The current real price of the S&P500 is 2031.92, an all-time high in the nominal sense.

This level is just 0.7% off the all-time inflation-adjusted high, which was 2046.21 and occurred in August 2000.

Valuation is rich at 26.61 for the Shiller p/e, but well-off the December 1999 peak of 44.19. However, the market crash of 2008-09 was preceded by the Shiller p/e peaking at 27.55 during 2007.

The Shiller p/e has been in a never-never land of high valuation above 26 for extended periods since October 1996, coinciding with the famous onset of "irrational exuberance". You have to go back before that all the way to 1929 to find valuation at 27 and above.

Since the last market peak in August 2000, real returns from stocks have averaged just 1.61% per year through August 2014

politicalcalculations.blogspot.com

The inflation-adjusted market peak was in August 2000 at S&P500 2044.67, still unequalled (2011.36 is as high as we've gotten). Through August 2014, your average real return from stocks, that is, your return adjusted for inflation with dividends fully reinvested along the way, has been just 1.61% per year for 14 years. Without dividend reinvestment, your return actually has been negative annually because of inflation. Nominally your return has been 3.95% per year, dividends reinvested.

Compare bonds over the last 15 years to date. Take VBMFX, Vanguard's Total Bond Market Index Fund. Morningstar shows your nominal 15 year return this morning at 5.49% per annum. VBIIX, Vanguard's Intermediate Term Bond Index Fund, has done even better, at 6.59% per annum, nominal.

Clearly, bonds have beaten stocks over the long haul since 2000. And valuations tell you why. Yardsticks such as the Shiller p/e have not dipped below 15 to any meaningful degree over the whole period, meaning stocks have been pricey for the performance you get. The higher the price, the poorer the return.

Expect the same from stocks going forward as long as valuations remain as elevated as they are. Today's Shiller p/e starts out at 24.95.

Buy and hold investors from the Aug.'00 high have made all of 1.32%/yr through May 2014

The August 2000 level of 2045 was the inflation-adjusted all-time high for the S&P500. Average annual returns adjusted for inflation have been a paltry 1.32% since then, indicating how steeply valued stocks were at the time: The Shiller p/e was 42.87. h/t politicalcalculations.blogspot.com

Josh Brown must be nuts: valuations are high, markets are exuberant and growth is as pathetic as 2007

Is Ritholtz paying him to say this stuff?

Here:

"Valuation is not going to tell you when the run ends. We were reasonably valued in 2007. The economy fell off the cliff," he said. Brown also said he agreed with Yardeni that there was "no sign of a recession."

"Those are usually what coincide with the end of a bull market," he said. "I'm not telling you P/E expansion takes us significantly higher, but earnings growth could, revenue growth could, and in the second half of this year, we should be seeing a meaningful uptick based on what analysts are expecting at the moment. So, I think it's smarter to be constructive than to be worried about the next 5 percent in either direction."

--------------------------------------------------------------------

In late September 2007 the Shiller p/e was high, in the range of 26/27, the S&P500 was making new all time highs, and 1Q2007 GDP had just been finalized at 0.6% after a 2.1% and a 1.1% print for the two previous quarters of 2006. That's growth of more or less just 1.2% over three quarters.

The 3.8% 3rd estimate for Q2 at the time arguably contributed to the blow off market top at 1565 within days of the announcement, but growth in the economy had been pathetic up to that point. People thought things were looking up again, but within a year we were almost scraping people off the sidewalks of Wall Street.

Today valuations are similarly high at 26, the market has made new all time highs, and we've just booked a horrible NEGATIVE GDP for the first quarter. The average of the last three quarters is now the same as it was in late September 2007: 1.2%.

Valuations are reasonable? There's no sign of a recession? Both may very well be coinciding right now to signal the end of a bull market, just like in 2007.

Market cap to GDP ratios March 2009 vs. March 2014 flash valuation warning

Probably the broadest measure for stock market valuation purposes is total stock market capitalization divided by GDP. Warren Buffett uses it and John Hussman has spoken approvingly of the measure.

But because we have to wait for GDP numbers for at least a month after the quarter end, the ratio cannot be a real-time valuation tool. And given that revisions to GDP can be substantial in the 2nd and 3rd estimates, as well as in the annual summer revisions, precision using the 1st estimate is also wanting. Nevertheless the calculation provides a big picture snapshot of where we have been in the market cycle, and gives forward guidance for long term investors. Presently it appears to counsel taking chips off the table and waiting in cash for a better opportunity to invest. 

For the following I use nominal figures for GDP as revised in the most recent updates from bea.gov and calculate market cap using the popular Wilshire 5000 (level x $1.2 billion) as close to March 31 as practicable.

A comparison of March 2009 to March 2014 is instructive, since March 2009 was a pretty good buying opportunity both in terms of the absolute level of the stock market after its decline and the coincident Shiller p/e valuation which was about 13.3 on March 1. The ratio has almost doubled in the interim, indicating that now is probably not a good time to commit large new sums to stock markets. The current Shiller p/e begins the day at 26.31, which is also nearly doubled from five years ago.

That said, the 10 year Treasury presently pays just 69 basis points more than the dividend yield of the S&P500. At the October 2007 stock market high, the 10 year Treasury paid 276 basis points more than the dividend yield of the S&P500. You could argue the Fed caused the markets to crash by taking rates much too high in 2006 and 2007 and that Janet Yellen is bound and determined not to let that happen again anytime soon, meaning stock markets could have higher to go. Keep in mind that the inflation-adjusted all-time high of the S&P500 was 2045.09 on August 1, 2000. We're at 1962.46 this morning. 

March 30 2009

$10.32 trillion market cap

---------------------------------------------- = 0.72

$14.38 trillion GDP

March 31 2014

$23.99 trillion market cap

---------------------------------------------- = 1.41

$17.02 trillion GDP

Shiller p/e vs. S&P500 p/e: Was either a guide to investing since 2008?

The merit of the Shiller p/e, which is backward looking, for timing investment decisions is cautioned against even by its supporters like John Hussman. It's something of a straw man to attack people like him for using it that way when they really don't use it to time market entry and exit points. Hussman views the indicator as one of a number of things which help him forecast 10-year returns going forward, a point lost it seems on people who don't read him carefully. High Shiller p/e levels in the present are part of an ensemble of indicators which to Hussman forecast low average annual returns over the course of the next decade.

That said, which has been the better indicator for timing a major allocation of monies to stocks in the recent past, the backward-looking Shiller p/e or the simple S&P500 p/e?

Today's Shiller p/e is a very high 26.06, 57.65% above its mean level of 16.53. The S&P500 p/e is 19.32, 24.56% above its mean level of 15.51. By both measures, today would seem to be a costly time to invest new monies in the stock markets.

How about during the March 2009 period when stocks tanked to their lows during the financial crisis?

The Shiller p/e actually told you to invest, hitting 13.32 on March 1, just days before the markets bottomed. In fact between October 2008 and June 2009 the indicator remained at or below 16.38, in other words below mean level, while the S&P500 inverted bell curve fell from 1100 to 683 and rose to 940. With the S&P500 now over 1900, any time during that woeful period looks in retrospect like a great time to buy. The trouble was that people didn't have any money to invest, being fully invested as usual, riding it all the way down after riding it all the way up.

The S&P500 p/e on the other hand was quite high on March 1, 2009 at 110.37, 612% above its mean level! It most definitely told you NOT to buy then, when you should have bought then. This indicator didn't hit its lows for the period, at the 13 level, until the late summer of 2011 and then only briefly, when interestingly enough the S&P500 was trading near 1100 again, in retrospect another very good time to buy. But at that time the Shiller p/e was above mean, at about 20, and you might have been forgiven for not taking the bait. But because you didn't you've missed an 800 point climb in the S&P500.

You have to go all the way back to the late 1980s to get an S&P500 p/e ratio consistently below 15, and even earlier to the mid-1980s for the Shiller p/e. All of which is to say that stocks have been rather expensive for quite a long time in general, coinciding with the generational focus on it as the way to make the big money for retirement.

In other words, we're in a bubble, and we blew it.

Shiller p/e hits 25.94 as total market index and S&P500 make the barest of new highs

The S&P500 floated up 0.19% while Vanguard's Total Stock Market Index Fund was up just 0.22%.

The Shiller p/e at nearly 26 is close to a level matched on the first of the month just 24 times going back to 1881. Valuation is presently 56.9% above the mean Shiller p/e of 16.53.

From John Hussman earlier this week, here:

On Friday, our estimate of prospective 10-year S&P nominal total returns set a new low for this cycle, falling below 2.2% annually. This is worse than the level observed at the 2007 market peak, or at any point in history outside of the late-1990's market bubble. 

Housing is a store of value, not an investment

Catherine Rampell for WaPo puts the long term real compound annual gain from housing at 0.3%. For the 100 years up to 1990, i.e. before the housing bubble, Robert Shiller has put it at 0.2% per annum, 33% less!

Here is Rampell:

Over the past century, housing prices have grown at a compound annual rate of just 0.3 percent once one adjusts for inflation, according to my calculations using Shiller’s historical housing data. Over the same period, the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index has had comparable annual returns of about 6.5 percent.

---------------------------------------

Housing's ability to retain its value has made it an attractive target for securitization as mortgage-backed securities which have been highly liquid and trade in large denominations just like US Treasury securities, facilitating transactions.

S&P500 Hits New All Time High At 1885.52 Today

The Shiller p/e hit 25.99, and the spread to the all time real price high of the S&P500 in August 2000 at 2018.27 narrowed to 6.6%.

Both Shiller p/e and Tobin's q warn stocks are seriously overvalued

As reported by Brett Arends, here:

Smithers found that over the past century the Shiller PE had an R-squared to subsequent returns of 0.52, the “Pseudo-Indicator” one of 0.61, and the q an astounding 0.79.

So if the past is any guide, if you want to get a good estimate of the future returns from today’s stock market you should completely ignore the low yields on cash, certificates of deposit, or bonds. You should pay more attention to the Shiller PE, and you should pay the most attention to the Tobin’s q.

And what do these tell you? “As at the 31st December, 2013,” says Smithers, the “q indicated that U.S. non-financial equities were overvalued by 73% and CAPE indicated an overvaluation of 76% for equities, including financials.”

John Hussman Is Right: High Valuations Since The Late 1990s Have Coincided With Smaller S&P500 Returns

Here's Hussman:

Yes, several reliable valuation measures have hovered at much higher levels since the late-1990’s than were generally seen historically. But that in itself is not evidence that these historically reliable valuation measures are “broken.” It matters that those high valuations have been associated with a period of more than 13 years now where the S&P 500 has scarcely achieved a 3% annual total return.

Here's Ironman's chart of S&P500 returns for the 15 years ended October 2013 showing a real, that is inflation-adjusted, total annual return with dividends fully reinvested of . . . 2.88%:

click to enlarge

Here's Morningstar's chart showing how much better you'd have done in intermediate term bonds like Vanguard's VBIIX, 5.88% nominal per year over the last 15 years (roughly 3.4% real), and that's including this year's bond slaughter:

click to enlarge

Here's the Shiller p/e as of this morning, clearly and excessively above the mean level of 16.50 for most of the time from the 1990s:

click to enlarge

Hussman says investors should expect poor returns from stocks going forward:

[S]tocks are currently at levels that we estimate will provide roughly zero nominal total returns over the next 7-10 years, with historically adequate long-term returns thereafter.

If profit margins were historically normal, the Shiller p/e would be about 29 here, not 24

So writes John Hussman, here, on Tuesday last:

Meanwhile, the current Shiller P/E (S&P 500 divided by the 10-year average of inflation-adjusted earnings) of 24.2 is closer to 65% above its pre-bubble median. Despite the 10-year averaging, Shiller earnings – the denominator of the Shiller P/E – are currently 6.4% of S&P 500 revenues, compared to a pre-bubble norm of only about 5.4%. So contrary to the assertion that Shiller earnings are somehow understated due to the brief plunge in earnings during the credit crisis, the opposite is actually true. If anything, Shiller earnings have benefited from recently elevated margins, and the Shiller P/E presently understates the extent of market overvaluation. On historically normal profit margins, the Shiller P/E would be about 29 here. In any event, on the basis of valuation measures that are actually well-correlated with subsequent market returns, current valuations are now at or beyond the most extreme points in a century of market history, save for the final approach to the 2000 peak.

-------------------------------------

You have been warned.

The Swiss Overwhelmingly Want To Be Home Owners But Aren't

And the famous Robert Shiller really doesn't care, here:

Consider Switzerland, which by several accounts has had one of the lowest rates of homeownership in the developed world. In 2010, only 36.8 percent of Swiss homes housed an owner-occupant; in the United States that same year, the rate was 66.5 percent. Yet Switzerland is doing just fine, with a gross domestic product that is 4 percent higher, per capita, than that of the United States, according to 2011 figures produced at the University of Pennsylvania. It’s not that the Swiss inherently prefer renting. A 1996 survey asked a sample of Swiss whether, if they could freely choose, they would rather be homeowners or renters. Eighty-three percent said homeowners.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To hell with what people want, right? Just keep property values so high only the likes of David Niven, William F. Buckley, Jr. and Tina Turner can afford to own there.

Rosie May Be Right: Cash May No Longer Be Safe

David Rosenberg points out that financial repression could go on as long as 2018, here:

[T]he Fed said in its December post-meeting press release that it will not budge from its 0% policy rate until the U.S. unemployment rate drops to 6.5%. It is currently around 8%.

We have done estimates based on various assumptions and found that achieving this Holy Grail likely takes us to the opening months of 2018 or another five years of what is otherwise known as financial repression.

People think their money is safe in cash, but it isn’t.

Following on that, just compare cash in the form of Vanguard's Prime Money Market Fund with stocks in the form of Vanguard's Total Stock Market Index Fund over the last five years and you will see that while cash was relatively safe compared to stocks for the four years up to May 2012 with stocks mostly underperforming cash, since then stocks have firmly broken out, as of about May 31, 2012 (the dot on the chart grabbed from Morningstar).

The only problem is that with a Shiller p/e today of 24.26 it's an awfully rich time to be investing in stocks which have reached new all-time highs.

And the alternatives don't look very attractive either.

At this hour the gold/oil ratio stands at 15 indicating that relative to each other their prices may have normalized but both at high levels relative to the long term.

Housing prices also are at the far upper end of the long term trend prior to the bubble.

And the bond market is within 2% of its highest valuations and also remains expensive to buy.

In my humble opinion the smartest thing to buy under these conditions is any long term debt one may be carrying at a rate of interest higher than about 3.5%. To retire it one would have to deploy capital, i.e. savings, but you can hardly lock in say 6.25% for twenty or twenty-five years anywhere else more easily than by retiring a 30yr-mortgage taken out at that rate in 2007. Bonds have returned less than 5% annually over the last ten years, and one year returns have fallen below 3.5%.

Still, there is no substitute for savings.

The surest way to get a 10% return is to save one dollar of every ten earned.