|
Stock market movements over the past few months have been characterized by
increased volatility as uncertainty became paramount. And as new pieces of
the economics puzzle are added every day, investors are increasingly grappling
to make sense of the most likely direction of stock prices.
It seems to be a case of so many pundits, so many views. Has the market started
bottoming out, or are bourses still in the grip of the bear? Or is a "muddle-through" trading
range in store?
It is one thing to trade the market's rallies and corrections, but this is
easier said than done, with not many people actually getting it right with
any degree of consistency. Others are of the opinion that the recipe for creating
wealth is simply to follow the patient approach, saying that "it's time in
the market, not timing the market" that counts.
This gives rise to the all-important question: does one's entry level into
the market, i.e. the valuation of the market at the time of investing, make
a significant difference to subsequent investment returns?
In an attempt to cast light on this issue, my colleagues at Plexus Asset Management
have updated a previous multi-year comparison of the price-earnings (PE) ratios
of the S&P 500 Index (as a measure of stock valuations) and the forward
real returns. The study covered the period from 1871 to October 2008 and used
the S&P 500 (and its predecessors prior to 1957). In essence, PEs based
on rolling average ten-year earnings were calculated and used together with
ten-year forward real returns.
In the first analysis the PEs and the corresponding ten-year forward real
returns were grouped in five quintiles (i.e. 20% intervals) (Diagram A.1).

The cheapest quintile had an average PE of 8.5 with an average ten-year forward
real return of 11,0% per annum, whereas the most expensive quintile had an
average PE of 22.6 with an average ten-year forward real return of only 3.1%
per annum.
This analysis clearly shows the strong long-term relationship between real
returns and the level of valuation at which the investment was made.
The study was then repeated with the PEs divided into smaller groups, i.e.
deciles or 10% intervals (see Diagrams A.2 and A.3).


This analysis strongly confirms the downward trend of the average ten-year
forward real returns from the cheapest grouping (PEs of less than six) to the
most expensive grouping (PEs of more than 21). The second study also shows
that any investment at PEs of less than 12 always had positive ten-year real
returns, while investments at PE ratios of 12 and higher experienced negative
real returns at some stage.
A third observation from this analysis is, interestingly, that the ten-year
forward real returns of investments made at PEs between 12 and 17 had the biggest
spread between minimum and maximum returns and were therefore more volatile
and less predictable. Interestingly, given that the current 10-year normalized
PE of 14.9 falls in the middle of this range, the exceptional volatility being
experienced at the moment is consistent with historical patterns.
As a further refinement, holding periods of one, three, five and 20 years
were also analyzed. The research results (not reported in this article) for
the one-year period showed a poor relationship with expected returns, but the
findings for all the other periods were consistent with the findings for the
ten-year periods.
Although the above analysis represents an update to and extension of an earlier
study by Jeremy Grantham's GMO, it was also considered appropriate to replicate
the study using dividend yields rather than PEs as valuation yardstick. The
results are reported in Diagrams B.1, B.2 and B.3 and, as can be expected,
are very similar to those based on PEs.



Based on the above research findings, with the S&P 500 Index's current
ten-year normalized PE of 14.9 and ten-year normalized dividend yield of 3.1%,
investors should be aware of the fact that the market is by historical standards
still only in "average value" territory. As far as the market in general is
concerned, this argues for unexciting long-term returns, possibly a "muddle-through" trading
range for a number of years to come.
Although the research results offer no guidance as to calling market tops
and bottoms, they do indicate that it would not be consistent with the findings
to bank on above-average returns based on the current ten-year normalized valuation
levels. As a matter of fact, there is a distinct possibility of some negative
returns.
Did you enjoy this post? If so, click here to
subscribe to updates to Investment Postcards from Cape Town by e-mail.
|