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.

Krauthammer on IRS scandal: Nixon was missing only 18 minutes, Lerner is missing two years

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Nixon was missing only 18 minutes. Lerner is missing two years. Nixon is a piker compared to this administration when it comes to concealment, hiding or pretending that they can't find stuff.

@BarackObama: We never said record Antarctic sea ice is made of cheese

If the Iraq War had been about getting the oil, it wasn't a very good deal

DoD direct spending on the war in Iraq was $758 billion.

Iraqi exports, mostly oil, reached $94.2 billion in 2012, and have totaled barely $441 billion from 2004 to 2012. We blow more than that on gasoline in a single year.

At the current US gasoline average price of $3.648/gallon, the 134.51 billion gallons of gasoline consumed in the US in 2013 is the equivalent of spending $490.7 billion.

The problem with free-market ideology in our time isn't about the tax code, it's about patriotism

Free-marketeers in our time want to wipe away the favors of the tax code, many of which go to the middle class in the form of credits and deductions, and to end the taxes on capital which they say deprive the middle of opportunity. 

That seems to be the upshot of the libertarian attempt to co-opt the meaning of the Dave Brat victory over Eric Cantor as expressed by Kim Strassel of the Wall Street urinal, for one. Central to that thesis is poo-poo-ing the importance of the immigration stance of Eric Cantor, which was attacked by Brat with the support of anti-amnesty conservatives, especially Laura Ingraham, and complaining about "the insane complexity of taxes".

What the kerfuffle shows is that Dave Brat is a mighty conflicted person, as are all libertarians, some more some less, a condition they share with liberals, and that he may end up being worse than the man he now replaces. Brat spent much of the campaign talking about closing loopholes and simplifying the tax code, but opposed more immigration because Americans are having massive trouble finding work. The better angels of his nature, all Christian, were at work there. But to his free-market self, there should be no reason why citizenship shouldn't be free. Why should there be a law restricting it to those born here? The federal government has no role "making my life work", he has said. See how well your life works when there's no army to stop an invasion, and there's no will to create one. Just ask Arizona.

Immigration is an issue which ought to direct the attention of the American right toward the bigger picture of what has happened to this country since the Reagan revolution slashed taxes, but hasn't because the right is now obsessed with principles over people. It has become as "ideologized" as any leftist camp. In fact the political discussion on the right deliberately obscures how libertarianism has already impoverished the many and rewarded the few. Some of its adherents today actually foresee an American future more starkly drawn that way, as did Ayn Rand. It isn't capitalism which is to blame for all the income inequality, it's libertarianism.

With the permanently lower tax regime in the US since Reagan also came a headlong plunge into global free trade which has created vast middle classes abroad where there were none before, at the expense of our own. The anchor manufacturing industries of the middle class in this country were exported to places where labor was cheaper, leaving the hollowed out shell of a service industry economy behind to pick up the pieces here.

Where's the patriotism, I'd like to know? Neither side wants to touch the trade argument, mostly because they are all profiting from the new status quo while we are fed a bunch of lies about who are the real conservatives. The answer is none of them are. They've all betrayed us and joined the global investor class where borders no longer matter.

To be a conservative in our time is to be for families with children here, for good jobs here, and for tax and trade policies which prop up those things here and put Americans first, not foreigners and disloyal Americans and disloyal American businesses.

If that's too complicated for you, maybe you shouldn't be in office.  

Glenn Beck thinks we have an actual democracy to export

When the dim bulbs of our time start interviewing each other, you know it's almost over.

Here with Sean Hannity:

BECK: We don't have the resources to deal with it anymore. We should have gone in after September 11th, taken care of the bad guys, killed them, not rebuilt them. I think it's real hubris to think that we can bring our democracy and peace to a region that doesn't want it. Freedom is something I truly believe you have to earn.

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

If freedom isn't the natural state of humanity, then there isn't any freedom anywhere. Someone who has to earn his freedom is a slave. And if someone is a slave, that someone is owned by someone else. And as the ancients taught us, the owner is but the slave turned inside out, who is as miserable as the one owned.

The real hubris is mistaking this oligarchy for a democracy in the first place, and that we have any freedom to export.

Food stamps go to 46.098 million Americans in March 2014, down 3.4% from a year ago

Year over year the numbers are down overall, but the number of recipients is up in a number of states, for example, in California 3.7%, 3.9% in Connecticut, 6.9% in Nevada and 3.7% in West Virginia. 

Larry Kudlow must be kidding: "if the 11 million illegals who live here obey the law . . ."

Here:

And if the 11 million illegals who live here obey the law, pay taxes, learn English, and understand the Constitution, they deserve legal status. Citizenship is an issue way down the road. And yes, we must include border security, where unfortunately Obama's lax policies have contributed to the calamitous surge in illegal-immigrant children. But temporary visas or work permits should be part of a sensible reform package. The E-Verify system can work.

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

Ahem . . . illegals have already broken the law, Larry. So sorry to see the amnesty fanatics have abandoned the first conservative instinct, the love for law and order. There will be no free-market without it.

Sen. Rand Paul learns nothing from Cantor loss, joins immigration amnesty fanatics lead by Grover Norquist

Libertarians of a feather quack together.

Story here:

A top Paul aide confirmed the alliance of Mr. Paul and Mr. Norquist on immigration reform, after The Times received a copy of an email sent to Republicans, Democrats, independents and others thought to be open to some kind of reform.

Hillary Clinton's top achievement as Secretary of State was . . .

. . . doubling the Department's liquor budget.

Cantor's opponent Brat won without money, especially Tea Party money, and was outspent 20-1

The Hill reports here that Cantor spent over $1 million on the primary and that Tea Party groups did not fund Brat at all:

Brat defeated Cantor, a six-term incumbent, despite having no experience in elected office and being outspent by nearly 20-to-1. ... Unlike elections in Mississippi and Kentucky, major conservative and Tea Party groups did not flood Cantor’s district with money and rallies. ... Cantor spent more than $1 million on the primary and attacked Brat for serving on an advisory board for former Gov. Tim Kaine at a time when the Democrat was pushing tax increases.

USA Today story about Tea Party defeating Cantor is total crap

The story here quotes some law professor who claims the Tea Party strongly supported Brat when no major Tea Party group supported Brat at all:

"Brat ran an aggressive campaign with strong Tea Party support and perhaps some voters felt that Cantor was not doing enough for those in his home district," said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor who resides in Cantor's district.

No major Tea Party groups played a role in Eric Cantor's defeat: they were caught by surprise at leadership dinner

Cantor's defeat had to do with his immigration amnesty activism, and the Tea Party is soft on the issue, which is why it didn't endorse Brat.

Reported here:

It was supposed to be a casual dinner of tea party and conservative movement leaders at the Virginia home of ForAmerica chairman Brent Bozell to talk about upcoming races in 2014.

But while the group was still nibbling on cheese and crackers, Tea Party Patriots President Jenny Beth Martin checked the early returns in Tuesday’s GOP primary pitting House Majority Leader Eric Cantor against a little-known challenger. ...

One of the most stunning aspects of Mr. Brat’s victory was that none of the major tea party groups apparently played a role. Most are currently focused on the runoff hundreds of miles away in Mississippi pitting incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran against state Sen. Chris McDaniel. Talk show hosts Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin helped to rally the troops in Virginia, Ms. Martin said. ...

Matt Kibbe, the president of FreedomWorks for America, which did not endorse Mr. Brat, said that Mr. Cantor’s defeat proves the rules of politics are changing. Some grassroots leaders in Virginia, he said, have more Facebook contacts than some county Republican leaders.

Best News Since 2011: Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor loses in primary

The weenie is out!

But the seat may well go Democrat as a result. The question is, to which Democrat. The Republican winner, Brat, is perceived by some voters as someone who isn't really sure what he is. One thing's for sure: Cantor was ousted over his immigration squishiness. Radio host Laura Ingraham helped lead the charge against him on this issue and succeeded. Importantly, she noted today on the program that the Tea Party had abandoned Brat, meaning Brat is not a victory for the Tea Party. The Tea Party has been co-opted by open borders libertarians who secretly supported Cantor with their indifference.

The danger now is that Cantor will help broker a bad immigration deal with Obama, bad for Republicans and bad for the country, on his way out the door. 

Real returns from stocks since April 2000 have been just 1.3% per annum

Stock market investors who think market peaks like now are good times to add large sums to the equity side might want to consider what would have happened had you gone all in with new monies in the spring of 2000.

Today's real S&P500 for April 1, 2000 was higher than it is today: 2,022.46 then vs. 1951.27 now. The real S&P500 would go on to exceed that level only once: on August 1, 2000 at 2,037.97. It's been a pretty rough ride since then even with the spectacular 5-year run we've just had, added in.

Ironman here provides an excellent tool to calculate your returns in the S&P500 since April 2000 to April 2014, the most recent date available. They are horrible: just 1.3% per annum real, 3.68% not adjusted for inflation.

By way of contrast, Morningstar reports that Vanguard's Total Bond Market Index Fund through yesterday has produced a nominal 15-year return of 5.34% per annum.

John Hussman: It's advisable to panic before everyone else does

From the irrepressible mind of John Hussman, here:

Market conditions presently match those that have repeatedly preceded either market crashes or extended losses approaching 50% or more. Such losses have not always occurred immediately, but they have typically been significant enough to wipe out years of prior market gains. ... On the basis of historically reliable measures, the S&P 500 would have to move slightly below the 1000 level to raise its prospective returns to a historically normal 10% annually. ... Regardless of whether the market’s losses in this cycle turn out to be closer to 32% (which is the average run-of-the-mill bear market loss) or greater than 50% (which would be required to take historically reliable valuation measures to historical norms, though most bear markets have continued to undervalued levels), it’s going to be difficult to avoid steep losses without a plan of action. In our view, that action should be rather immediate even if the market’s losses are not. However uncomfortable it might be in the shorter-term, the historical evidence suggests that once overvalued, overbought, overbullish conditions become as extreme as they are today, it’s advisable to panic before everyone else does.

S&P500 rises just 0.09% yesterday to new high

That puts correction territory everywhere down to 1561.016, where the market was as recently as April 2013.

1365.889 demarcates a bear down 30% from here, the market level in April 2011.

1170.762 is a 40% bear, the market level in March 2010.

976.135 is a 50% bear from here, the market level in July 2009.

780.508 is a 60% bear from here, the market level in April 1997.

585.381 is a 70% bear from here, the market level in September 1995.

That should about unwind it. 

Oops: "Collapsing" Antarctic glacier is melting because of geothermal heat energy, not CO2

Magma!

Reported here:

Thwaites Glacier, the large, rapidly changing outlet of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, is not only being eroded by the ocean, it’s being melted from below by geothermal heat, researchers at the Institute for Geophysics at The University of Texas at Austin (UTIG) report in the current edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. ... Until now, scientists had been unable to measure the strength or location of heat flow under the glacier. Current ice sheet models have assumed that heat flow under the glacier is uniform like a pancake griddle with even heat distribution across the bottom of the ice. The findings of lead author Dusty Schroeder and his colleagues show that the glacier sits on something more like a multi-burner stovetop with burners putting out heat at different levels at different locations.

Fertility drops in 2013: Maybe some demographers are under the ILLUSION of economic recovery

They're puzzled by the total fertility rate dropping and staying below the replacement rate.

Reported here:

But the total fertility rate, or TFR, the average number of children a woman would have during her child-bearing years, fell to just 1.86 [in 2013], the lowest rate in 27 years. TFR is considered the best metric of fertility. A TFR of 2.1 represents a stable population, with children replacing parents as they die off.

Demographers expected the fertility rate to fall during recession, as financially strapped families put off childbearing. But what has surprised some demographers is both the depth of the decline and the fact that fertility has continued to drop even over the course of the country's five years of slow but steady recovery. The rate has fallen steadily each year since 2007, when it stood at 2.1 percent. ...

[T]he U.S. only reached a TFR above 2.1 in 2006 and 2007, at the height of the housing bubble years.

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

The total fertility rate in the US has been below the replacement rate since 1971 except for the two years noted. This is the real reason behind the immigration liberalization push by Republicans, who didn't have enough children themselves and still don't understand as a political party that it's impossible for America to look like it did in the past, now or in the future, without having done so. They are as guilty as liberals in eschewing family.

It raises the question of what comes first: the GDP or the population which goes on to consume it. Arguably, just as banks create money by writing loans, not by the Fed printing dollars, people actually create future economic growth by having children in the present. It really isn't the other way around, but we haven't been smart enough as a culture to grasp this. Women naturally grasp this. They not only naturally want children on a time schedule dictated by human biology, but also grandchildren. But the liberal war on this natural instinct has succeeded in killing off the goose that laid the golden egg of American greatness. It should not come as a surprise that GDP was negative again.

We do not live. We just survive.

A little Larry Norman from 1973, from the not coincidentally entitled "Nightmare Number 71":

We kill our children swap our wives


We've learned to greet a man with knives


We swallow pills in fours and fives

Our cities look like crumbling hives

Man does not live he just survives

We sleep till he arrives


Love is a corpse we sit and watch it harden


We left it oh so long ago the garden

Globe and Mail columnist forgets to lump in Henry Kissinger with Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders as Putin's 5th column in the West

Doug Saunders, here:

In words widely reported in the Russian media, [Farage] added that the EU has “blood on its hands” for supporting the democracy movement in Ukraine. Rather than posing a threat to Europe, Mr. Farage said, Russia has fallen prey to Europe’s “activist, militarist and expansionist foreign policy.”

Henry Kissinger, here:

The European Union must recognize that its bureaucratic dilatoriness and subordination of the strategic element to domestic politics in negotiating Ukraine’s relationship to Europe contributed to turning a negotiation into a crisis. Foreign policy is the art of establishing priorities. ... Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I took seven years ago, when it last came up.