Buffett’s Ratio Is Bearish (excerpt)

Warren Buffett’s favorite valuation model is screaming that stocks are overvalued. It was discussed in a 7/20 Business Insider article titled “Warren Buffett’s ‘single best measure’ of stock market value falls short in 3 big ways.” The article was based on a note to clients on Monday from Bank of America Merrill Lynch’s Savita Subramanian. She wrote that Warren Buffett’s favorite metric of long-term value “may have limited utility.” The market-cap-to-GDP ratio, which he once characterized as the “single best measure” of value, is used to determine whether the stock market is overvalued or undervalued. Here are the three shortcomings of the Buffett ratio according to BAML and my thoughts:

(1) Like price-to-sales ratios, the Buffett ratio doesn’t adjust for structural changes in profit margins due to lower taxes, lower interest expense, and higher operating margins attributable to technological innovation.

Maybe so, but that assumes that these changes are indeed permanent. They may be, but that is quite debatable. The implication that the profit margin may remain structurally high is a radical idea given that it has been a highly cyclical variable since the beginning of recorded time, i.e., since 1947. There are lots of reversion-to-the-mean believers who would vociferously dissent from the view that margins may remain higher than in the past.

(2) On average, more than half of S&P 500 revenues come from overseas. So comparing the index’s market cap to domestic GDP is flawed. It would be more accurate to measure it relative to a global measure of GDP.

I calculate the Buffett ratio dividing total US equity market capitalization excluding foreign issues by nominal GDP. Interestingly, it is almost identical to the market cap of the S&P 500 divided by the index’s revenues, which includes both domestic and overseas revenues. Both are near their peaks during 2000, suggesting that stocks are indeed extremely overvalued.

(3) The market cap of the S&P 500 has a much different industry mix than GDP. So the ratio is comparing apples and oranges.

I don’t disagree. However, I long ago concluded that every valuation model has flaws. That’s why I try to track them all. I see are lots of valuation measures that look quite stretched to me. But then again, valuation, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Today's Morning Briefing: Challenges for Earnings. (1) The dollar and oil price could weigh on earnings again. (2) Industrial commodity prices may also be signaling trouble for earnings. (3) The Boom-Bust Barometer may be running out of boom. (4) Will rebound in forward earnings move forward? (5) Are Gordon-type models really bullish for valuation? (6) The Buffett ratio is bearish, and it is flawed according to top Wall Street strategist. (7) Most valuation models are flawed for one reason or another. (8) Valuation is subjective. (More for subscribers.)

Varieties of Valuation (excerpt)

In my ongoing research on valuation, I constructed a quarterly P/E series for the S&P 500 based on reported earnings from Q4-1935 through Q3-1988, and operating earnings since then. Its average is exactly 15.0. It was 18.5 during Q1-2015. It has been this high before and sometimes gone higher. A reversion-to-the-mean valuation model is bearish based on this measure of the P/E since it is currently higher than its mean.

Over 30 years ago, Jim Moltz, my mentor at CJ Lawrence during the 1990s, devised the Rule of 20. It states that for equities to be fairly valued, the P/E ratio plus the inflation rate has to be around 20. In April, the CPI inflation rate was minus 0.2% y/y, implying that the fair-value P/E should be 20.2, well above the trailing P/E. On the other hand, the core CPI was up 1.8% y/y, suggesting that 18.2 is the right valuation number.

Greg Donaldson, the chief investment officer of Donaldson Capital Management and a subscriber and friend of Yardeni Research, offers an interesting inflation-based analysis of the P/E in a 5/16 Seeking Alpha article titled “The Great P/E Debate: Are Stocks Overvalued?” Greg writes: “We do not find strong relationships between any of the widely followed indicators such as interest rates, GDP growth or earnings growth. We have found that inflation is the best predictor of P/E ratios at any given point in time.” He ran a regression of inflation (using the core PCED) on the earnings yield (E/P). He used it to calculate that the current P/E should be about 21 based on his model.

In addition to tracking the trailing P/E, I also monitor market-capitalization-to-sales and price-to-sales ratios. During Q1, the Fed’s Financial Accounts showed that the ratio of the market capitalization of all equities traded in the US (excluding foreign issues) to nominal GDP rose to 1.69, the highest since Q3-2000. The comparable ratio for the S&P 500 rose to 1.87 during Q1, also the highest since Q3-2000. The ratio of the S&P 500 to its forward revenues per share rose to a cyclical high of 1.82 in early June. Stocks are seriously overvalued according to these measures.

Today's Morning Briefing: Slice & Dice. (1) The valuation question again. (2) Waiting for the answer while stocks meander. (3) Earnings-led target of 2300 for the S&P 500 next year. (4) Reversion-to-the-mean model is bearish. (5) A 20 P/E isn’t irrational according to inflation models. (6) Fed model says either stocks are too cheap or bonds are too expensive. (7) Does revenues growth matter to valuation? (8) Price-to-sales models are bearish. (9) Retail sales data suggest soft patch is over. (10) Our in-house Gen Xer slices and dices generational demographics from A to Z. (11) “Love & Mercy” (+ + +). (More for subscribers.)

Trailing P/E Is On the High Side (excerpt)

As I noted recently, valuation, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I think P/Es are high. Others disagree and say they can go higher given historically low inflation and interest rates.

I counter that low inflation rates are contributing to low revenues growth. Given record-high profit margins, total earnings aren’t likely to rise faster than total revenues. Low interest rates are offset by low earnings growth, in my opinion. I’ve constructed a quarterly P/E measure based on S&P 500 reported earnings from Q1-1960 through Q3-1988 and operating earnings since then when it first became available. Consider the following:

(1) Reversion to the mean. The average of this combined series is 16.2. The P/E was 18.5 during Q1, exceeding the average by 2.3 percentage points. Historically, readings of 20.0 or more have proved to be high and often followed by bear markets.

(2) Inflation and interest rates. There is a stronger inverse correlation between the CPI inflation rate and the P/E than between the 10-year Treasury bond yield and the PE. Arguably, they both justify still higher P/Es.

(3) Earnings growth. However, there is also a very good correlation between analysts’ consensus expected long-term earnings growth over the next five years for the S&P 500 and the P/E. The former suggests that the latter may be too high.

(4) Valuation and beauty. I come to the same conclusion as before: Valuation, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Today's Morning Briefing: Which Way Is the Wind Blowing? (1) Jefferson, Einstein, and Twain. (2) The weather will change. (3) Neither boom nor bust. (4) OECD paints a picture with some shades of grey. (5) China’s trade data confirm domestic weakness. (6) Eurozone on recovery road, as Greece can gets kicked down the road. (7) Japan isn’t getting much bang for all those yen. (8) Waiting for Thursday’s retail sales report. (9) Real exports are really OK. (10) Dead calm for US stocks. (11) Revenues growth outlook is neither hot nor cold. (12) Valuation vs. reversion to the mean, inflation and interest rates, and earnings growth. (More for subscribers.)

The Trend in Profits (excerpt)

The growth trend of corporate profits is determined by the growth trend of nominal GDP. My analysis shows that the trend of these variables has been 7% since 1960. Profits growth is much weaker during recessions and much faster during recoveries, but 7% has been the magic number for the trend. That seems to be the best we can expect in the coming years until the next recession. Given that valuation multiples are at their historical highs, 7% may also be the best we can expect in terms of annual capital gains in the stock market for the duration of the current bull market. That’s quite good compared to the bond yield and the inflation rate, which are both historically low.

On a cyclical basis, there is a strong correlation between the y/y growth rates of nominal GDP and S&P 500 revenues in aggregate. The correlation is even better with nominal GDP for goods. The two series do diverge often on a short-term basis, but have the same cyclical pattern. During Q1, revenues fell 2.5% y/y, while nominal GDP with and without services rose 3.6%. The recent plunge in oil prices had a bigger impact on S&P 500 revenues than on nominal GDP.

Over the past four and a half years, nominal GDP has been growing just under 5%, so it’s possible that this may be the new magic number for the trend growth in GDP, and therefore in profits. While there has been some recent chatter about the depressing impact of seasonal adjustment factors on Q1 real GDP, that distortion is eliminated simply by tracking the y/y growth rate, which has been relatively stable around 2.5% since mid-2010. In fact, while real GDP fell 0.7% (saar) during Q1, it was up 2.7% y/y! Meanwhile, inflation continues to decelerate in the GDP accounts. The GDP price deflator was up just 0.9% y/y during Q1, with the core rate also low at 1.1%. Again, put these trends together, and nominal GDP is growing below 5% rather than close to 7%.

Today's Morning Briefing: Probing Profits. (1) Profits measures: Take your pick. (2) We pick forward earnings. (3) Is the 7% trend still our friend for profits growth, or might it be 5%? (4) How much longer can profit margins break records? (5) Cash flow stalled at record high. (6) The government should fill potholes. (7) Assessing the soft patch in the oil patch. (8) Regional surveys add up to weak May. (9) Frightful freight index. (10) Signs of life in Eurozone’s corporate earnings. (More for subscribers.)

Valuation & the Fed Model (excerpt)

Valuation like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. With bond yields at historical lows, why shouldn’t valuation multiples be at historical highs? At 2%, the 10-year Treasury bond yield has an effective forward P/E of 50, implying that stocks trading at a forward earnings yield of 5.9% and a multiple of 17 are grossly undervalued by as much as 62%. Of course, this “Fed Model,” as I first named it back in July 1997, has been showing that stocks are undervalued since the Tech bubble burst. Furthermore, historically low interest rates may be a sign of secular stagnation, which isn’t particularly bullish.

Previously I’ve argued that valuations are being driven by equity purchasers who don’t pay much attention to valuations. They are corporate managers buying back their shares because the forward earnings yields on their shares exceed their borrowing cost of capital in the bond market. As far as they are concerned, beauty is measured by the appreciation of their stock price as they buy back their shares. In this scenario, the source of irrational exuberance is the ultra-cheap money available in the bond market for share buy backs and M&A thanks to the ultra-easy monetary policies of the Fed.

Today's Morning Briefing: Beauty Contest. (1) Episode 42 in The Twilight Zone. (2) Different strokes: Dear Leader vs. King Kong. (3) Some pushback on valuation. (4) Irrational Exuberance Zone. (5) The 3 scenarios again. (6) Channeling the Tech bubble. (7) Record PEG for S&P 500. (8) Smithers & Co. on Tobin’s Q. (9) Does valuation matter? (10) Do interest rates matter? (11) Draghi renews his vows. (12) Front-end loaded QE. (13) Lackluster recovery in Eurozone. (More for subscribers.)

Revenues & Earnings Coming Back Down to Earth? (excerpt)

While valuation multiples are flying into the wild blue yonder, revenues and earnings have been coming back down to Earth. But that’s all because of the crash in the Energy sector. Excluding this sector, the skies are still relatively sunny. Nevertheless, investors have to beware of repeating the fate of Greek mythology’s Icarus, who flew too close to the sun, melting the wax on his homemade wings and sending him into the sea. It was the first meltdown recorded in human history. Let’s have a closer look at the data:

(1) Revenues. The y/y growth in S&P 500 revenues, as compiled by Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S, is highly correlated with the comparable growth in manufacturing and trade sales. The former was down 1.8% y/y through Q1, while the latter declined 2.4% through March. However, excluding petroleum products, business sales rose 2.4% y/y. Petroleum-related sales plunged 31.7% y/y through March.

(2) Earnings. Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S calculates that S&P 500 earnings fell 6.3% q/q to $28.58 per share during Q1. It was up just 1.4% y/y. Excluding the Energy sector, Q1 earnings rose 11.5%. The following sectors had very strong results: Health Care (19.8%), Financials (19.5), and Tech (11.2).

Today's Morning Briefing: Wild Blue Yonder. (1) David Bowie’s scenario for stocks. (2) Valuations are flying into the wild blue yonder. (3) Blue Angels and the stunt plane. (4) Icarus and Major Tom. (5) Revenues and earnings have come back to Earth, but are still flying excluding Energy. (6) Joe confirms earnings rose 11.5% y/y during Q1 excluding Energy. (7) Not much spring in consumer’s step. (8) Four theories for why consumer spending is disappointing. (More for subscribers.)

Analysts Continue to Lower S&P 500 Earnings (excerpt)

Although the dollar might have peaked on March 13 for a while, and the price of crude oil might have bottomed on January 13 for a while, industry analysts who cover the S&P 500 are still lowering their earnings estimates for both 2015 and 2016. They now expect $119.02 and $134.18 per share for this year and next year, down 5.9% and 5.2% from their estimates at the end of last year. For this year, they’ve been lowering their Q2-Q4 estimates as earnings have beaten expectations during Q1 with a 4.7% “hook-up” move so far over the past two weeks, which is typical during earnings seasons.

It’s getting harder to find much if any GAARP (growth at a reasonable price) in the US given the latest lofty valuation ranking for the S&P 500 sectors: Energy (28.8 vs. 14.2 year ago), Consumer Staples (19.7, 17.4), Consumer Discretionary (19.0, 17.4), Health Care (17.8, 16.2), Materials (17.2, 16.7), S&P 500 (17.2, 15.3), Utilities (16.4, 16.1), IT (16.2, 14.4), Industrials (16.2, 16.3), Financials (13.9, 13.5), and Telecom Services (13.4, 13.1).

Today's Morning Briefing: The World According to GAARP. (1) John Irving’s terminal cases. (2) Desperately seeking growth at a reasonable price. (3) Is looking for GAARP like waiting for Godot? (4) Global synchronized secular stagnation. (5) Industry analysts aren’t exuberant about outlook for revenues and earnings. (6) Secular stagnation rather than boom or bust. (7) Valuations aren’t cheap, but could go higher in a liquidity-driven melt-up. (8) Hard to find much GAARP in US. (9) Global M-PMIs uninspiring. (More for subscribers.)

Churning (excerpt)

So far so good. In the 2/2 Morning Briefing, I wrote: “[T]he stock market may continue to trade in a volatile range during the first half of this year. The main negative for stocks is that valuation multiples are historically high, while earnings growth estimates are declining in the face of a strong dollar, weakening commodity prices, a flattening yield curve, and slowing global economic growth. The big positives are that bond yields are at historical lows and the plunge in oil prices is boosting consumer confidence and spending. Joe and I are still targeting 2150 for the S&P 500 by the end of this year and 2300 by the middle of next year.”

Yesterday, Kristen Scholer posted a story on the WSJ website titled “Why Record Highs May be Harder to Come By This Year.” She observed: “The Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P 500 set 188 fresh all-time highs, or the equivalent of roughly one every five trading sessions, during 2013 and 2014. This year, though, the major indexes have booked only nine historic highs as stocks have moved sideways for much of 2015. … It has been 34 sessions since the S&P 500 last finished at a historic high. That’s the index’s longest streak without an all-time high since the first record of the current bull market in 2013, according to Bespoke Investment Group.”

Why has this been happening? According to the article: “Corporate buybacks, deals and low interest rates have kept equities afloat, while stalled earnings growth, high valuations and slowing economic activity have put a lid on gains.” If that sounds like the same story I’ve been telling, then I should disclose that I was interviewed for the WSJ story and mentioned as follows: “He thinks the tug of war between the bulls and the bears will continue through the summer and into the fall. ‘While some institutional investors might be inclined to sell due to overvaluation, the most significant buyers continue to be corporate managers buying back their shares, and they aren’t nearly as sensitive to valuations,’ he said.”

At the beginning of 2013, in the 1/29 Morning Briefing, which was titled “Nothing to Fear but Nothing to Fear.” I noted: “In recent discussions, some of my professional friends told me they are now worrying that there is nothing to worry about. They note that there may be too many bulls for the good of the bull market.” I also noticed that many of them had “anxiety fatigue.” After the widely feared Fiscal Cliff was averted, investors seemed to be less prone to anxiety attacks. In other words, they were less prone to sell on bearish news, and more likely to hold their stocks and add to their positions on any weakness.

Now they seem to have “bull market fatigue” because valuations are stretched. Nevertheless, they are mostly staying fully invested. Consider the following:

(1) Anxiety fatigue. Since the start of the year, the S&P 500 has been trading between a record high of 2117 on March 2 and a low of 1992 on January 15. There have been lots of panic attacks since 2013, but none that turned into significant corrections. Recent worries that the plunge in the oil price might trigger a rout in the junk bond market haven’t panned out. China’s latest batch of weak economic indicators has been mitigated by the PBOC’s easier monetary policy. The winter/spring economic slowdown in the US increases the odds of a “one-and-done” or “none-and-done” rate hike by the Fed this year.

(2) Moving averages. The S&P 500 has remained above its still-rising 200-day moving average after briefly retesting it in early October last year. The S&P 500 Transportation index is currently back to its 200-dma. That’s a bit of a concern from a Dow Theory perspective, especially since the index’s 50-day moving average has turned down since it peaked on January 22.

(3) Melt-up worries. Interestingly, in recent conversations with our accounts, I am finding that more of them are worrying about missing a melt-up in stock prices than about dodging a correction or a meltdown. What might trigger a melt-up? The obvious answer is a significant postponement of monetary normalization by the Fed. A more likely scenario is that the initial lift-off in interest rates might cause corporations to stampede into the bond market to raise funds for more buy backs and M&A.

Today's Morning Briefing: Paths of Least Resistance. (1) Going nowhere fast. (2) Tug of war. (3) From “anxiety fatigue” to “bull market fatigue.” (4) Still too many bulls. (5) Home on the range. (6) Sector-neutral strategy beating many active managers. (7) Melt-up anxiety. (8) Hard to find anything bullish in crude oil’s demand/supply balance. (9) Maybe it’s geopolitical. (10) Saudis playing for keeps. (11) Focus on market-weight-rated S&P 500 Energy. (More for subscribers.)

Inflation Warning (excerpt)

Last week, the 4/16 WSJ reported: “U.S. wages may be starting to pick up, a development that could help policy makers at the Federal Reserve feel more confident that sluggish U.S. inflation also will gain traction, Fed Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer said Thursday.” He said so on a panel discussion in Washington. That same morning, in a CNBC interview, he said the Fed knows the markets “look ahead somewhat, so I think--I hope--that they are taking into account that the Fed, at some point, is likely to raise the interest rate.” On timing, he said markets “can’t depend on the current situation continuing forever--or even probably--beyond the end of this year.”

He reiterated that “there are more signs every day” of mild wage increases. What is he looking at? Let’s have a look:

(1) Minimum wage. Anecdotally, the minimum wage was raised in 21 states at the start of the year. However, during March, average hourly earnings rose only 2.1% and 1.8% for all workers and for production and nonsupervisory workers.

(2) McDonald’s. On 4/15, fast-food cooks and cashiers demanding a $15 minimum wage walked off the job in 236 cities in what organizers called the largest mobilization of low-wage workers ever. On April 1, McDonald’s announced plans to give employees a 10% pay bump and some extra benefits. The raise will affect about 90,000 workers at a small fraction of McDonald’s stores. Employees at franchises, which make up the majority of the burger chain's locations, won't be affected.

(3) Walmart. At the start of April, Walmart raised its minimum starting wage to $9 an hour, 24% higher than the federal minimum. A 4/10 story on PBS NewsHour noted, “The company says that its wage increases will impact 500,000 workers, but the number who will see their wages rise from the federal minimum of $7.25 to $9 is much smaller. Only 5,000 of its 1.4 million workers actually make the minimum wage. And the minimum in most of the country, 29 states, is already considerably higher than the federal minimum. Seven states and the District of Columbia have minimums of $9 or higher. So the average pay raise for the affected Walmart workers will be far less than the 24% raise for the very small number currently earning the federal minimum.”

(4) Quit rate. The quit rate in retailing tends to be relatively high, especially among low-paid workers. Retailers are raising their wages to reduce their labor turnover costs.

(5) Q1 wages and prices. Average hourly earnings for all workers rose 3.9% (saar) during the first three months of the year, the highest since December 2008. That’s the kind of y/y increase that Fed officials have said would allow them to normalize monetary policy sooner and at a faster clip.

In addition, the core CPI inflation rate edged back up to 1.8% during March, closer to the Fed’s 2% target--which is really for the core PCED, which was 1.4% during February. The three-month annualized change in the core CPI through March was 2.3%, suggesting that the core PCED, which was 0.9% through February, might show a higher increase when March data are released on Thursday, April 30.

Today's Morning Briefing: The Twilight Zone. (1) Valuations on the border of the Irrational Zone. (2) Three fears hit market: Greek exit, China bubble, and inflation uptick. (3) Recapping stretched valuations. (4) Institutional investors remain skeptical. (5) Outperforming SMidCaps less exposed to dollar. (6) Shortage of bargains. (7) Buybacks = Corporate QE. (8) Corporate execs comparing earnings yield to borrowing rate when buying back shares. (9) Warning: Inflation may be warming. (More for subscribers.)

Chinese Government Driving Stock Prices Higher (excerpt)

On 4/8, Reuters reported, “Chinese funds are snapping up shares in Hong Kong, betting that a link-up between the Shenzhen and Hong Kong stock exchanges, and easier access for institutional investors, will yield quick double-digit or even triple-digit arbitrage profits. On Wednesday, Chinese investors used the entire 10.5 billion yuan ($1.69 billion) daily investment quota for buying Hong Kong stocks under the Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect scheme for the first time. This propelled the Hang Seng China Enterprises Index up 5.8 percent, following a 6.43 percent gain last week, and helped the Hong Kong exchange reach record volume on Wednesday.”

China's CSI 300 stock index of the largest listed companies in Shanghai and Shenzhen has soared 91.3% y/y while the Hong Kong China Enterprises Index of 40 companies is up 36.8% over the same period. The broader Shanghai A-Shares index of around 1,000 companies is up 67.0% since mid-November 2014, when the PBOC started cutting interest rates to boost economic growth. The China MSCI includes 138 companies and recently joined the circus with a gain of 10.1% just last week.

Nevertheless, the China MSCI forward P/E remains relatively cheap. It was just 10.3 at the start of April. On the other hand, this composite’s Net Earnings Revisions Index was -3.9 during March, the 14th consecutive monthly negative reading. Furthermore, both forward revenues and forward earnings remain below last year’s record highs.

The Reuters story cited above also noted, “In the past, arbitrage opportunities proved a mirage. The Shanghai-Hong Kong stock connect not only failed to narrow the premium after its November launch but actually widened it as Chinese retail investors declined to move money south. But this time may be different. In late March, China's securities regulator improved access, letting mainland mutual funds invest in Hong Kong shares via the connector. Several days later, China allowed insurers to buy shares listed on GEM.”

The 4/10 FT reported: “After years of poor performance, confidence in the stock market has returned in China with a vengeance. Savers have switched hundreds of billions of dollars out of property, deposits and wealth management products in the hope of making a fast buck in stocks. … Investors opened more than 4.8m new stock trading accounts in March alone and almost 1m more in the first two days of April, according to the latest figures from the country’s main clearing house. These accounts largely represent new investors ….The explosive growth of margin lending, in which brokerages lend money to investors to play the markets, also suggests irrational exuberance. Margin loans outstanding in Shanghai and Shenzhen--home to China’s two stock exchanges--totaled Rmb2.2tn ($358bn) on Wednesday, two-and-a-half times the total six months earlier.”

Today's Morning Briefing: The Greatest Show on Earth. (1) A day at the circus. (2) Honorary member of Crudele’s rig club. (3) Send in the clowns. (4) Cecil B. DeMille on central banks. (5) Dudley’s Put. (6) What’s the difference between the “wealth effect” and asset bubbles? (7) Removing the safety net in China’s high-flying stock market. (8) Draghi sends EMU stocks into orbit. (9) Lots of cotton candy in the capital markets. (10) The Down Under controversy. (11) Are analysts underestimating EMU earnings? (12) “Woman in Gold” (+ +). (More for subscribers.)