but eyeballing your chart, PEs are still at around the 25 year median, same as the JPM chart.
As for longer than 25 years...
I think it's nonsense to think PEs in 1925 or 1955 are somehow relevant to 2022. Accounting rules are different, companies are international, we have technology now, etc.
This. It's part of why understanding where we are is somewhat of an art and not an exact science. More people invest today than they did pre-internet. A lot is different now compared to 40+ years ago. When I try to gauge things about modern times, I only go back to about 1980 and treat anything before then as something to be aware of but not really include too seriously as predictions of anything going on today, at least in terms of ratios etc.
OK, if that is anywhere close to an accurate assessment, then why did the Fed have to drive interest rates to zero, and balloon their balance sheet to $9.2 Trillion?
You really can’t argue your point when your foundational argument is imbedded in sand.
If technology was this all encompasses investment, why do these companies pay their executives largely in stock, buy the same shares back, and tout their non-GAAP earnings as if it is not a cost to do business? You are constantly hoodwinked, but continue to lap it up. Yet the same posters had no interest in energy a couple years ago because it was so yesterday. Funny really.
This. It's part of why understanding where we are is somewhat of an art and not an exact science. More people invest today than they did pre-internet. A lot is different now compared to 40+ years ago. When I try to gauge things about modern times, I only go back to about 1980 and treat anything before then as something to be aware of but not really include too seriously as predictions of anything going on today, at least in terms of ratios etc.
OK, if that is anywhere close to an accurate assessment, then why did the Fed have to drive interest rates to zero, and balloon their balance sheet to $9.2 Trillion?
You really can’t argue your point when your foundational argument is imbedded in sand.
false premise
the fed didn't drive interest rates anywhere...the fed only sets one very short term rate. the market sets all the other rates. QE only matters a dozen bps or something like that on longer rates.
interest rates were low because inflation was low.
Interest rates are now higher because inflation is higher now.
Fed is following, not leading.
the balance sheet is harder to talk about so I won't.
If technology was this all encompasses investment, why do these companies pay their executives largely in stock, buy the same shares back, and tout their non-GAAP earnings as if it is not a cost to do business? You are constantly hoodwinked, but continue to lap it up. Yet the same posters had no interest in energy a couple years ago because it was so yesterday. Funny really.
the issue on tech is that tech has made companies far more profitable now. So PEs *should* be higher.
And also I'd argue that tech has flattened the business cycle since it makes inventory easier to manage and less likely to pile up, causing recessions.
If technology was this all encompasses investment, why do these companies pay their executives largely in stock, buy the same shares back, and tout their non-GAAP earnings as if it is not a cost to do business? You are constantly hoodwinked, but continue to lap it up. Yet the same posters had no interest in energy a couple years ago because it was so yesterday. Funny really.
the issue on tech is that tech has made companies far more profitable now. So PEs *should* be higher.
And also I'd argue that tech has flattened the business cycle since it makes inventory easier to manage and less likely to pile up, causing recessions.
Now explain to me why Apple, the great innovator, is a better value today at a 24 PE than it was less than five years ago at 12? Certainly it is not more profitable for those buying the stock today.
OK, if that is anywhere close to an accurate assessment, then why did the Fed have to drive interest rates to zero, and balloon their balance sheet to $9.2 Trillion?
You really can’t argue your point when your foundational argument is imbedded in sand.
false premise
the fed didn't drive interest rates anywhere...the fed only sets one very short term rate. the market sets all the other rates. QE only matters a dozen bps or something like that on longer rates.
interest rates were low because inflation was low.
Interest rates are now higher because inflation is higher now.
Fed is following, not leading.
the balance sheet is harder to talk about so I won't.
Respectfully not close to accurate. I suppose you can conjure up any kind of allowance to excuse the unholy alliance between the Treasury, politicians, and the Fed. On closer examination the result are fake markets, where few things can be relied upon. Even smart well intentioned people have sucked up the nonsense. Your argument is droned on daily by those pushing the inventory, and those using bubble gum and bailing wire to keep the sickness going a little longer. It is tenuous at best.
the issue on tech is that tech has made companies far more profitable now. So PEs *should* be higher.
And also I'd argue that tech has flattened the business cycle since it makes inventory easier to manage and less likely to pile up, causing recessions.
Now explain to me why Apple, the great innovator, is a better value today at a 24 PE than it was less than five years ago at 12? Certainly it is not more profitable for those buying the stock today.
apple may not be a better value now...who knows. probably not.
or possibly Apple was undervalued for decades and now is overvalued.
Now explain to me why Apple, the great innovator, is a better value today at a 24 PE than it was less than five years ago at 12? Certainly it is not more profitable for those buying the stock today.
apple may not be a better value now...who knows. probably not.
or possibly Apple was undervalued for decades and now is overvalued.
Not sure what that proves.
It proves as an investment today, it is not more profitable. You are buying a stream of income and price matters. Going back to my point, you talk about technology like a teenager talks about the in pop star. Rubbing up against will make you the star, or in this case rich.
Now explain to me why Apple, the great innovator, is a better value today at a 24 PE than it was less than five years ago at 12? Certainly it is not more profitable for those buying the stock today.
apple may not be a better value now...who knows. probably not.
or possibly Apple was undervalued for decades and now is overvalued.
Not sure what that proves.
It proves as an investment today, it is not more profitable. You are buying a stream of income and price matters. Going back to my point, you talk about technology like a teenager talks about the in pop star. Rubbing up against will make you the star, or in this case rich.
Morgan Stanley had a contract with Salesforce. Data mine your book of business to email them sales pitches. Check how many outbound calls you have to clients. Guarantee you in poor markets clients don’t want the emails, and advisors are not calling clients.
apple may not be a better value now...who knows. probably not.
or possibly Apple was undervalued for decades and now is overvalued.
Not sure what that proves.
It proves as an investment today, it is not more profitable. You are buying a stream of income and price matters. Going back to my point, you talk about technology like a teenager talks about the in pop star. Rubbing up against will make you the star, or in this case rich.
my point is that apple is just one stock...hard to take much meaning from one company one stock.
It proves as an investment today, it is not more profitable. You are buying a stream of income and price matters. Going back to my point, you talk about technology like a teenager talks about the in pop star. Rubbing up against will make you the star, or in this case rich.
my point is that apple is just one stock...hard to take much meaning from one company one stock.
I picked Apple because it is down far less than the market, largest company in the world. People always talking about how innovative the company is. That is not true in this period of stock run up, where the company has been more dependent upon buybacks and services revenue. Stock is in a way the last man standing.
Current and historical debt to equity ratio values for Apple (AAPL) over the last 10 years. The debt/equity ratio can be defined as a measure of a company's financial leverage calculated by dividing its long-term debt by stoc...
my point is that apple is just one stock...hard to take much meaning from one company one stock.
I picked Apple because it is down far less than the market, largest company in the world. People always talking about how innovative the company is. That is not true in this period of stock run up, where the company has been more dependent upon buybacks and services revenue. Stock is in a way the last man standing.
This post was on Feb 18, 2022. Igy predicted Hussman would be up 32% for 2022.
True to a consistent pattern, Igy was correct on direction but excessive on scale.
Hussman is now up around 15%, better than in February, but nowhere close to 32%.
I'll give a 70% victory to Igy on this one.
Add in another 1.14% today. 🤡
If you had invested $10,000 in the S & P 500 index on July 2000 (the inception date for the Hussmann Strategic Growth fund) it would be worth $41,000 today. If you had instead invested the $10,000 in the Hussmann Strategic Growth back in 2000, it would be worth today, drum roll please, a whopping $12,326. So you are looking at $31,000 versus $2,326. Which would you rather have?