|
Where Are We with Market Valuations?03/10/2010: The Stock Market is Fairly valued. Based on historical valuations, it is likely to return 5.7% a year from this level of valuation. This page is updated daily with the market. Total Market Cap and US GDPEmbed: The Ratio of Total Market Cap to US GDPEmbed: The Predicted and the Actual Stock Market ReturnsEmbed: What returns can we expect from the stock market?As of today, the Total Market Index is at $ 11874.7 billion, which is about 82.1% of the last reported GDP. The US stock market is positioned for an average annualized return of 5.7%, estimated from the historical valuations of the stock market. This includes the returns from the dividends, currently yielding at 2.03%.As pointed by Warren Buffett, the percentage of total market cap (TMC) relative to the US GNP is “probably the best single measure of where valuations stand at any given moment.” Over the long term, the returns from stock market are determined by these factors: We can see that during the past four decades the TMC/GNP ratio has varied wildly. The lowest point was about 35% in the previous deep recession of 1982, while the highest point was 148% during the tech bubble in 2000. The market went from extremely undervalued in 1982 to extremely overvalued in 2000. Based on these historical valuations, we have divided the market valuation into five zones:
The Sources of Investment ReturnsThe returns of investing in an individual stock or in the entire stock market are determined by these three factors: 1. Business growth If we look at a particular business, the value of the business is determined by how much money this business can make. The growth in the value of the business comes from the growth of the earnings of the business growth. This growth in the business value is reflected as the price appreciation of the company stock if the market recognizes the value, which it does, eventually. If we look at the overall economy, the growth in the value of the entire stock market comes from the growth of corporate earnings. As we discussed above, over long term, corporate earnings grow as fast as the economy itself. 2. Dividends Dividend is an important portion of the investment return. Dividend comes from the cash earning of a business. Everything equal, higher dividend payout ratio, in principle, result in a lower growth rate. Therefore, if a company pays out dividend while with growing earnings, the dividend is an additional return for the shareholders besides the appreciation of the business value. 3. Change in the market valuation Although the value of a business does not change overnight, stock price does. The market valuation is usually measured by the well-known ratios such as P/E, P/S, P/B etc. These ratios can be applied to individual business, as well as the overall market. The ratio Warren Buffett uses for market valuation, TMC/GNP, is equivalent to the P/S ratio of the economy. What Returns Is the Market Likely to Deliver From This Level?Putting all the three factors together, the return of an investment can be estimated by the following formula: The first two items of the equation are straightforward. The third item can be calculated if we know the beginning and the ending market ratios of the time period (T) considered. If we assumed the beginning ratio is Rb, and the ending ratio is Re, then the contribution in the change of the valuation can be calculated from this: The thick bright line in the bottom right chart is the actual annualized return of the stock market in 8 years. We can see the calculations largely predicted the trend in the returns of the stock market. The swing of the market returns is related to the change of the interest rate. It has been unforunate for investors who entered the market after the late 1990s. The market has been always overvalued, only until the recent decline since 2008. From Oct. 2008, for the first time in 15 years, the market is positioned for meaningful positive returns. As of 03/10/2010, the stock market is likely to return 5.7% a year in the next 8 years. Warren Buffett’s Market CallsBased on these factors, Warren Buffett made a few market calls in the past. In Nov. 1999, when Dow was at 11,000, a few months before the burst of dotcom bubble, stock market had gained 13% a year from 1981-1998. Warren Buffett said in a speech to friends and business leaders, “I'd like to argue that we can't come even remotely close to that 12.9... If you strip out the inflation component from this nominal return (which you would need to do however inflation fluctuates), that's 4% in real terms. And if 4% is wrong, I believe that the percentage is just as likely to be less as more.” Two years after the Nov. 1999 article, when Dow was down to 9,000, Mr. Buffett said, “I would expect now to see long-term returns run somewhat higher, in the neighborhood of 7% after costs.” Nine years have passed since the publication of the article of November 22, 1999, it has been a wide and painful ride for most investors; Dow went as high as 14,000 in October 2007 and retreated painfully back to 8,000 today. Again, Warren Buffett wrote in Oct. 2008: Equities will almost certainly outperform cash over the next decade, probably by a substantial degree.” If you like this page, you will love Our Premium Membership, Take a Free Trial. User Notes, Comments, and Questions Add Notes, Comments or Ask Questions »1 month ago, by Dand49
Gurufocus, The total market value divisor is 1059.32 (in millions) and that puts the total market at 12.293 (in millions) and the full-cap total market at 13.453 (in millions). The percentages are then 86% and 94%. Why don't you use the US Total Market full cap? The data can be found at [www.djindexes.com]. Thanks for posting and updating this information. Add Notes, Comments or Ask Questions »2 months ago, by Latc
Buffetteer17, thanks for your answer. I look forward to seeing your investment returns. By the way, where can I see your returns? Is there a link/website? Best regards Add Notes, Comments or Ask Questions »2 months ago, by Buffetteer17
Latc, what does my track record have to do with this argument? Nothing. That question is implicitly an ad hominem attack on me. You accuse me of attacking you but I have not, at least not intentionally. I only disagreed with your logic and called it nonsense. That's strong language, but I had thought you could tell from the context that the sentence was intended to be humorous rather than vindictive. I guess I just do not have a good sense of humor. That statement is intended as an attack of your argument, not against you. I am sorry if you took it as a personal attack. Next you make an appeal to authority, by referring to Buffett. I am unsure of just what relationship you are talking about. Is it the fact that stocks are sometimes mis-priced? Buffett has consistently maintained that the intrinsic value of a company is the discounted present value of future "owner earnings," which, while not exactly the same as net cash flows, is pretty close. He apparently believes this strongly, as he put this statement in his Owner's Manual [http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/ownman.pdf]: "Intrinsic value is an all-important concept that offers the only logical approach to evaluating the relative attractiveness of investments and businesses. Intrinsic value can be defined simply: It is the discounted value of the cash that can be taken out of a business during its remaining life." I will shortly be posting my usual "Quarterly Report on The Porfolio Q4 2009," which will answer your question about my investing returns. You can have the last word in this argument. I am done. Add Notes, Comments or Ask Questions »2 months ago, by Latc
Buffetteer17, what is your track record on investments, let’s say in the last 10 years? Even Warren Buffett has talked about the relationship that you are dismissing, so instead of attacking show me your performance track record based on your theoretical assumptions. Add Notes, Comments or Ask Questions »2 months ago, by Buffetteer17
I'm sorry, but you cannot sell me nonsense by claiming to be fresh out of sense. The flaw in your argument is that future net cash flows are hard to predict accurately WHETHER OR NOT interest rates are high or low. The definition of intrinsic value is mathematically precise, just not calculable. All we can do is make our best estimates to actually calculate the present value. Unless you think there will be an inverse correlation between the level of interest rates and the level of corporate profits, your argument is not valid. Historically there is no such inverse correlation. In fact, I have read (forget the source) that profits and interest rates tend to be directly correlated as long as interest rates are not at extreme highs or lows. Add Notes, Comments or Ask Questions »2 months ago, by Latc
Buffetteer17, I know the theory but theory normally does not work, I can not precisely predict net cash flows many years out, can you? Therefore, I just go one year out, in this regard, the current 10 year-Treasury yield is only 3.8% while the S&P 500 earning yield (using the expected earnings for 2010) is around 6.9%, so clearly stocks are undervalued vis a vis bonds right now. I do not have the TM expected earnings for 2010 but I am sure the result will show the same conclusion. Add Notes, Comments or Ask Questions »2 months ago, by Buffetteer17
If you believe that current low interest rates will persist for a decade or more, your reasoning is correct. Reminder: the discounted value of net cash flows is the correct theoretical measure of the value of a stock. However, remember that this formula refers to net cash flows far in the future as well as near term. If you believe, as I do, that interest rates will rise significantly during the next decade, you must use a much higher discount rate for all but the next 2-3 years of net cash flows. This adjustment causes the value of stocks to be much less. Add Notes, Comments or Ask Questions »2 months ago, by Latc
This stock market valuation TMC vis a vis GDP gives a partial view on the over/under/fair valuation of the stock market. The level of interest rates needs to be incorporated into the equation to provide a more complete view. So, the current low level of interest rates justifies a higher TMC/GDP ratio, hence I would argue that stocks are currently undervalued. Add Notes, Comments or Ask Questions »2 months ago, by Gurufocus
Alahendrix, We use Wilshire 5000 for the measurement of total market cap, which is different from what Buffett and Van Den Berg use. They use the total of all stocks traded. We do not have the daily data for that. Their numbers are higher than Wilshire 5000. But relatively speaking, the overall picture is the same. GuruFocus. Add Notes, Comments or Ask Questions »2 months ago, by Alahendrix
You guys are calculating TMC/GDP differently than most. For i.e, Arnold Van DeBerg, whom you site, acutally has today's TMC/GDP well over 100%. He pegged it at 108% back in Oct! So, while using the Wishire 5000 is interesting for your Market Cap input, it is somehow very off from Buffett's data points and Van DeBerg's as well. If you're going to use this metric, you should at least make sure that it is accurate. And clearly it is not! Add Notes, Comments or Ask Questions »2 months ago, by Latc
Can anybody clarify if the TMC number has been adjusted to exclude foreign ADRs traded in the US? If this is not the case, then stocks might be undervalued. Add Notes, Comments or Ask Questions »2 months ago, by Hill
The first graph - "Total Market Cap and US GDP" would serve better if it were in log scale. The graph gives the false impression that valuations were at record low levels in early 2009. The "The Ratio of Total Market Cap to US GDP" graph gives a much more realistic representation of the relative valuations over time. Add Notes, Comments or Ask Questions »4 months ago, by Coreythen
Does anybody have a website with a similar graph for China's equity markets? In addition, anyone have a graph for the U.S. going back further than 1970? It could be interesting to check out what the valuations were like during the Ben Graham days. Add Notes, Comments or Ask Questions »4 months ago, by Jackbrugge@comcast.net
The 12/10/2001 Fortune article covering W.B. on the stock market clearly states that TMC/GNP peaked at 190% in 3/2000, not the 148% stated in the GF article. The actual TMC/GNP valuation on 10/9/09 approximates 97%. WB states "... if the percentage relationship falls to 70%-80%, buying stocks is likely to work very well..." Add Notes, Comments or Ask Questions »5 months ago, by Jcf9999
That looks really cool. This is simple enough to understand. No wonder Buffett is so beloved. This site just published an article to take this a step further: they backtested this metric as a timing indicator. Interesting is if you only buy at the significantly undervalued and sell at the significantly overvalued, you would have avoided the last two bubbles and made 9.7% (?) per year since 1980. See this link: [www.validfi.com]. Sorry, how do you put an embedded link on gurufocus.com? JC. Add Notes, Comments or Ask Questions: If you like this page, you will love Our Premium Membership, Take a Free Trial.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
| © 2004-2010 GuruFocus.com, LLC. All Rights Reserved. |
| Disclaimers: GuruFocus.com
is not operated by a broker, a dealer, or a registered investment adviser.
Under no circumstances does any information posted on GuruFocus.com represent
a recommendation to buy or sell a security. The information on this site,
and in its related newsletters, is not intended to be, nor does it constitute,
investment advice or recommendations. The gurus may buy and sell securities
before and after any particular article and report and information herein
is published, with respect to the securities discussed in any article
and report posted herein. In no event shall GuruFocus.com be liable to
any member, guest or third party for any damages of any kind arising out
of the use of any content or other material published or available on
GuruFocus.com, or relating to the use of, or inability to use, GuruFocus.com
or any content, including, without limitation, any investment losses,
lost profits, lost opportunity, special, incidental, indirect, consequential
or punitive damages. Past performance is a poor indicator of future performance.
The information on this site, and in its related newsletters, is not intended
to be, nor does it constitute, investment advice or recommendations. The
information on this site is in no way guaranteed for completeness, accuracy
or in any other way. The gurus listed in this website are not affiliated
with GuruFocus.com, LLC. Daily updates provided by QuoteMedia, Inc. (CSI). Fundamental company data provided by Zacks, Inc. |