Trying to make sense out of Shiller P/E Ratio

@resjudicata You would need to be pretty fucking dumb to have your money in cash right now, losing like 15% per year to inflation. Even if we hit a correction, it’s not like you’re going to be much worse off than having inflation erode your purchasing power, because history shows that even if you do avoid the correction, you will probably miss the big chunks of the recovery still on the sidelines. People have crying Shiller PE since what, 2015? How has that worked out?
 
@rescued2 What? You realize that inflation effects the value of all your stocks too, right? “If there’s a correction” you’re going to lose from inflation, on top of that. And it will add up more to a much worse real return then -7%
 
@testimony2share
And it will add up more to a much worse real return then -7%

Cash is NOT a -7% real return right now, it is easily into the double digits negative.

What? You realize that inflation effects the value of all your stocks too, right?

You realize that cash can only get less valuable in an inflationary environment right? Whereas stocks can appreciate?

As the saying goes "Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections, or trying to anticipate corrections, than has been lost in corrections themselves.”

Staying out of the market because you think a crash is coming is a suckers game, and always has been, because you have to be right on the timing too, otherwise you still come out behind.
 
@rescued2 cash is not in the double digits.

i thnk sitting on cash is dumb too if you dont need the money, the market literally cant go down long term or you wont really need to worry about fiat money.

but in no way are you losing double digits on cash right now.
 
@rescued2 But why be so extreme? Why not sit out this year and see what the end of QE and rate hikes do? Nothing happens?
Oh well what did you miss out on? Get back in next year when it is safer. I've seen no estimates that think we are going up this year (some even this decade). Risk vs. reward for me leans strongly to sit out. This is an unprecedented time of risk.

You are still sitting at the top of this needle and it has barely dropped with the "crashes" we've seen so far this year- https://www.currentmarketvaluation.com/models/s&p500-mean-reversion.php

And look at that 2000-2010 decade...everything points to that decade coming again. https://financial-charts.effingapp.com/
 
@resjudicata
Oh well what did you miss out on?

If anyone knew the answer to that question they could become a multimillionaire over the course of the next year. The point is - nobody does know. By all means, sit out, but you're still trying to time the market, which it has been proven over and over that no one can do.

Also - you can go ahead and pencil in -10 to -15% real return over the next year by sitting in cash.

You are still sitting at the top of this needle

Ok? Are you saying that has predictive value? Because you could have made the exact same statement a year ago. The opportunity cost for getting that wrong (which you would have, and many people did) is HUGE.
 
@rescued2 I always hear that timing the market is impossible. B. S. Good investors juice their returns all the time by avoiding over-priced equities for value ones. That, in effect is “timing the market”. I suspect you are quite young and have never seen a real bear market. Time ti get schooled.
 
@resjudicata you got it figured out!

sit on cash till the market drops, buy, ez win.

untill you realize youve had several opps in the last 2 years and you did shit all, so youre likely to do shit all next time, and the next time, and the next time..
 
@theriversedge What is your interpretation of this? I find it a little hard to believe that "US investors" were allocating only 30-35% of their portfolios to equity as recently as 2012. Maybe I'm not understanding what that axis means. Or maybe the data is suspect.
 
@rescued2 That I'm comfortable using it directionally, but it's not hyper accurate or anything. Just another tool in the box.

For the equity allocation, it's explained here. The excerpt itself:

Now, suppose that we open up every investor’s portfolio and calculate, for each investor, his percent allocation to stocks, bonds, and cash. My portfolio might be allocated 85% to stocks, 15% to bonds, 0% to cash. Yours might be allocated 50% to stocks, 20% to bonds, 30% to cash. And so on.

The question we want to answer is this: what would the average of all of these investors’ portfolio allocations look like, weighted by size? More specifically, what would the average investor allocation to stocks be? And how would that average compare to the averages of the past? It turns out that this question predicts the market’s future long-term returns better than any other classic valuation metrics to date developed–price to earnings (P/E), price to book (P/B), price to sales (P/S), CAPE, q-ratio, Market Cap to GDP, Fed Model, etc.

To answer the question, we need to know two things: (1) the total amount of stocks that investors in aggregate are holding, and (2) the total amount of cash and bonds that investors in aggregate are holding. Mathematically, the total amount of stocks that investors are holding divided by the total amount of everything (stocks plus bonds and cash) that they are holding just is the average investor allocation to stocks.

Now, to calculate the total quantity of cash and bonds in investor portfolios, we might think that we can just sum the total quantity of cash and bonds in existence outright–the total amount floating around the economy. After all, these securities have to be held by investors. But this approach won’t work. The reason is that a large portion of the bonds in existence are actually held by banks, not by investors. This fact extends to the central bank (the Federal Reserve), which presently owns an unusually large quantity of bonds.

Fortunately, there’s a convenient way to get around the problem. Recall that when the Federal Reserve buys bonds (treasury, MBS, etc.), it doesn’t add any net financial assets to investor portfolios. Rather, it takes bonds out of investor portfolios, and puts newly created cash into investor portfolios. It changes the cash-bond mix of the assets that investors hold–but not the total amount.

It turns out that private banks do essentially the same thing when they buy assets. They take the assets out of the hands of investors, and put their own liabilities–in the form of their own bonds or deposits (cash)–into investor hands. (They can also fund purchases with equity sales, but the equity component of a banks balance sheet is small enough to ignore.)

The entities that create net new financial assets (that investors can hold) are not banks, which are just intermediaries, but rather real economic borrowers. The universe of real economic borrowers consists of five categories: Households, Non-Financial Corporations, State and Local Governments, the Federal Government, and the Rest of the World. When these entities borrow directly from investors, the investors get new bonds to hold. When the entities borrow from banks, the investors get new cash to hold. That’s because when a bank makes a loan, the money supply expands. The loan creates a new deposit that didn’t previously exist–some investor must now hold that deposit in his portfolio of assets.

It follows, then, that if we want to get an estimate of the total amount of bonds and cash that investors are holding at any given time, all we have to do is sum the total outstanding liabilities of each of the five categories of real economic borrowers. Those liabilities either translate into cash that an investor somewhere is holding (if the entity took a loan from a bank, which expands the money supply), or they translate into a bond that an investor somewhere is holding (if the entity borrowed directly from the investor). Note that the average bond trades close to par (with some above, and some below), so, in aggregate, the value of the liabilities approximates the total market value of the bonds.

Banks don’t generally hold stocks. So to estimate the total amount of stocks in investor portfolios, what we need to know is the total market value of all stocks in existence. We end up with the following equation:

Investor Allocation to Stocks (Average) = Market Value of All Stocks / (Market Value of All Stocks + Total Liabilities of All Real Economic Borrowers)

We can get all of the information in this equation from the Flow of Funds report. The information is also conveniently available in FRED Graph. A link to the calculated metric is provided here, and to a separately downloadable version of each series, here.

Now, the Rest of the World creates an interesting complication. Parts of our portfolios are composed of stocks, bonds and cash denominated in foreign currencies (which do not show up in these series and are not being counted, though they should be). But in the same way, some parts of the portfolios of individuals in other countries are composed of stocks, bonds and cash denominated in our currency (which do show up in these series–and are being wrongly counted, given that our goal is to know our own allocations as domestic investors). As an estimation, it works to assume that the two cancel each other out.
 
@donlor Businesses can't own their own stock. Any stock they buy back is called treasury stock and does not count towards ownership. They can own parts of other companies.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top