Down goes the Dow

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

agip wrote:

here's Igy on 12/30/16 mocking an analyst for two things:

predicting a +15% gain

predicting $140 in sp500 earnings.

Igy was wrong on the first - SP500 is up far more than 15% this year

but he was right on the second - as far as I can tell, SP500 earnings will be in the $131 range. But I'm not putting in a lot of time figuring out if I am right on the SP500 earnings. I could be wrong there.

Shows you - stock investing is not a math game. Animal spirits trump math.

agip,

Let me respond this way. The original post you said was "mocking" two things; that is wrong. It was one thing, Castellini's expectation that the market would be up 15% on the basis of 2017 S&P 500 EPS of $140 a share. I did not criticize his projection for the S&P 500 being up 15%, which is all to common on Wall Street, double digit up each and every year. So we should be clear on that point first.

Rather, I pointed out in that post that the 2016 S&P 500 Q3 Last Twelve Months (LTM) non-GAAP EPS was $101.46. I gave Castellini a pass for using non-GAAP, which Wall Street uses to inflated earnings, when the GAAP EPS was $89.09 for the same period. So let's see who appears to be very wrong so far. The 2017 S&P 500 Q3 Last Twelve Months (LTM) non-GAAP EPS looks to be close to $118.73 with 97.7% of companies reporting. GAAP EPS is $107.18 for the same period, or about 2% better than the previous record of $105.96 recorded 9/30/2014. Current full year 2017 S&P 500 EPS Wall Street consensus is an optimistic $125.10, more likely to finish closer to $121.00, a far cry from your belief of $131 or Castellini's projection of $140. And "no one questions" projections like Castellini's, even you. Financial advisors question little, just riding the market up or down. It is convenient, or at least appears to be.

I find my criticism of his $140 more the justified and validated in the above data.

"Shows you - stock investing is not a math game. Animal spirits trump math," surely that is not what you intended to say. Return on Investment (ROI )is a mathematical calculation that is used in evaluating all investments. Modern Portfolio theory, on which you rely for your investment models, are all social science calculations using mathematics. Billions are spent by investment firms, pension plans using various mathematical models to evaluate stocks. So, I am assuming you meant, in the short run, valuation models are poor predictors of short term market performance. And on that point I agree. However, valuation models that are strongly correlated with 10-12 year market performance, with better than 90% validity, on average show the market 2.8 times above historic norms. Translated to numbers more relevant to the discussion, that would mean it would take a -64% drop, or to about 950 S&P 500 points just to reach historic norms.

It seems interesting to me that investors as well as advisers take in the prognostications of Wall Street without examining the numbers. Both groups are delusional. Why? Easy answer, Wall Street firms sell more financial products and generate more profits when investors are Bullish. Yet Wall Street was very wrong in 2000 and very wrong in 2007. We'll see who is more right when the market comes full circle.

Igy

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

agip,

Let me respond this way. The original post you said was "mocking" two things; that is wrong. It was one thing, Castellini's expectation that the market would be up 15% on the basis of 2017 S&P 500 EPS of $140 a share. I did not criticize his projection for the S&P 500 being up 15%, which is all to common on Wall Street, double digit up each and every year. So we should be clear on that point first.

Rather, I pointed out in that post that the 2016 S&P 500 Q3 Last Twelve Months (LTM) non-GAAP EPS was $101.46. I gave Castellini a pass for using non-GAAP, which Wall Street uses to inflated earnings, when the GAAP EPS was $89.09 for the same period. So let's see who appears to be very wrong so far. The 2017 S&P 500 Q3 Last Twelve Months (LTM) non-GAAP EPS looks to be close to $118.73 with 97.7% of companies reporting. GAAP EPS is $107.18 for the same period, or about 2% better than the previous record of $105.96 recorded 9/30/2014. Current full year 2017 S&P 500 EPS Wall Street consensus is an optimistic $125.10, more likely to finish closer to $121.00, a far cry from your belief of $131 or Castellini's projection of $140. And "no one questions" projections like Castellini's, even you. Financial advisors question little, just riding the market up or down. It is convenient, or at least appears to be.

I find my criticism of his $140 more the justified and validated in the above data.

"Shows you - stock investing is not a math game. Animal spirits trump math," surely that is not what you intended to say. Return on Investment (ROI )is a mathematical calculation that is used in evaluating all investments. Modern Portfolio theory, on which you rely for your investment models, are all social science calculations using mathematics. Billions are spent by investment firms, pension plans using various mathematical models to evaluate stocks. So, I am assuming you meant, in the short run, valuation models are poor predictors of short term market performance. And on that point I agree. However, valuation models that are strongly correlated with 10-12 year market performance, with better than 90% validity, on average show the market 2.8 times above historic norms. Translated to numbers more relevant to the discussion, that would mean it would take a -64% drop, or to about 950 S&P 500 points just to reach historic norms.

It seems interesting to me that investors as well as advisers take in the prognostications of Wall Street without examining the numbers. Both groups are delusional. Why? Easy answer, Wall Street firms sell more financial products and generate more profits when investors are Bullish. Yet Wall Street was very wrong in 2000 and very wrong in 2007. We'll see who is more right when the market comes full circle.

Igy