美國經濟增長緩慢，投資者可能實現兩位數的每股收益增長嗎？

我們都聽到了華爾街看漲者的念叨，分析師和市場戰略師反復表示，每股收益的重新上揚會讓股票價格提升。分析師現在普遍預測，標普指數的每股收益將會從2017年第一季度的100.29美元（根據過去四個季度計算）提高到2018年的133美元，年化增長率超過18%。

當然，這些普遍預測總是有些注水。不過即便我們把這些預測砍掉45%，在2017年第二季度到2018年第四季度這七個季度中，這些股票每股收益的增長率仍然有10%。

不過最近，國際貨幣基金組織到國會預算辦公室等各個機構對未來GDP給出的預測增速都在2%上下，考慮到通貨膨脹則是4%。那么，每股收益怎么才能比推動銷售額，很大程度上決定這些收益的整體GDP高出6%的增速？

顯然，長期來看，每股收益的增長和GDP的增長密切相關。不過在較短的時間區間內，情況未必如此。如果每股收益在較長時間內低于GDP的增長趨勢，也可能迅速增長，重新達到它們的歷史水平。不過現在，每股收益幾乎沒有出現這種低迷，而是正好相反：兩大關鍵指標表明，以歷史標準來看，如今的每股收益已經極高。1951年以來，企業利潤平均占GDP的7.5%。而如今，它們占到了9.2%的國民收入。而利潤呢？也很高。對《財富》500強公司而言，2016年的銷售利潤率為7.4%，比榜單創立64年來的平均利潤率高出2個百分點，也是榜單上第四高的年利潤率。

因此，最可能的結果是每股收益的增速不如GDP的增速。

這對未來的股價意味著什么？讓我們假設今天的市盈率維持在現在的極高點24.6。按照書中的理論，也就是目前標普500指數12個月以來的平均值2464，除以每股年收益100美元得出的值。換句話說，也就是公司實際上掙得的錢。根據之前的預測，未來七個季度的收益將會達到133美元，那么每股收益率就是18，這從數學上看是不可能的。

在接近25的市盈率下，你在股市每投入100美元，標普的股市就會產生4美元的收益。你會通過分紅得到4美元中的1.9美元，因為股息收益率只有微不足道的1.9%。25的市盈率就意味著總共的“真實”回報率為其倒數，即4%。在1.9%的股息收益率以外，另外2.1%以利潤增長的形式，推動了相應資本的增長——考慮到對整體經濟增長的現有估計，這很合理。再加上2%的通脹率，總增長速度就是6%。這完全達不到看漲者預計的兩位數增長。不過考慮到十年國債的收益率只有2.33%，股市的收益率也不差。

是這樣嗎？風險在于，未來十年的回報率遠低于我們6%基準線的概率，要遠高于它們超過這條線的概率。由于企業利潤已經大大高于歷史平均值，如今這種趨勢可能會在三四年內終結，重復到2013年的情景。根據經濟學家羅伯特·希勒提出的讓收益的頂峰和低谷更為平滑的周期性調整的市盈率，這是個危險的信號。如今，周期性調整的收益遠遠超出正常水平，以至于周期性調整的市盈率達到了可怕的30%。

低利率也無濟于事。Hussman Funds的約翰·赫森曼在最近的一篇文章中表示“如果低預期增長率最后導致了低利率……那未來的回報率也會更低”，因為低經濟增長率會同時導致低利率和低利潤增長率。它們就像是股市里的不可分割的一對。赫森曼預計，標普指數未來十年中的總回報率是0。

赫森曼在利率、經濟增長和利潤增長的相互作用上談到了關鍵的一點。從任何較長的一段時間來看，這三個數據都是緊密相關的。低于標準的經濟增長，會同時導致低利率和糟糕的利潤增長。所以低利率完全不應被看作是股市的利好，如果它們預示著未來平庸的商業氣候，而情況往往就是這樣。正如赫森曼指出的那樣，“低折扣率”的益處完全被低收入增長所抵消了。所以不景氣的增長和下滑的利率也會相互抵消。

事實上，實際利率的下滑會推動市盈率的提高。不過這段時期已經過去了。如今，我們面對的是極高的市盈率，它最終會給如今購買股票的人帶來極低的回報。這就是25左右市盈率的詛咒。

那么，為什么股票還在繼續大漲呢？赫森曼看來，這只是投機狂潮，一種“估價過高、購買過多、過度看好的綜合征”。市場在不斷與他的警告背道而馳，不過有一件事可以肯定：在4%增速（2%實際增速）的經濟體中，每股收益達到10%的情形，也就是利潤大幅提升而GDP緩步增長的情形，只是華爾街的幻想。（財富中文網）

譯者：嚴匡正

Can profits really grow in double-digits in an economy bumping along at 2%?

That's the question that investors should be asking, and instead ignore at their peril. We've all heard the Wall Street bulls' mantra, endlessly advanced by analysts and market strategists, that a renewed surge in profits will keep equity prices waxing. The current consensus among analysts forecasts that reported S&P earnings-per-share will jump from $100.29 in Q1 of 2017 (based on the past four quarters) to $133 by the end of 2018, an annualized increase of over 18%.

Of course, those consensus forecasts are always inflated. But even if we discount those projections by 45%, the bulls are still expecting 10% gains in EPS over the the seven quarters spanning Q2 2017 to Q4 2018.

But recent history, and projections from every agency from the IMF to the CBO, foresee GDP growth in the 2% range, or 4% including projected inflation, well into the future. So how can the profits expand 6 points faster than the overall economy that drives the sales that largely determine the course of those profits?

It's clear that over long periods, growth in profits and GDP are closely linked. But that's not necessarily the case in shorter timeframes. If EPS are stuck well below trend for an extended period, earnings can rapidly expand to regain their historic levels. But today, profits are hardly depressed. It's the opposite: Two key metrics confirm that earnings are extremely high by historical standards. On average, corporate profits have averaged 7.5% of GDP since 1951. Today, they absorb 9.2% of national income. How about margins? They're lofty as well. For the Fortune 500, the ratio of profits to sales was 7.4% in 2016, more than 2 points higher than the average over the 64 year history of the list, and the fourth highest annual reading.

Hence, the most likely outcome is that profits at best expand at the less-than-thrilling rate of GDP.

What does that mean for the future of stock prices? Let's assume that today's price-to-earnings ratio remains at the current, and extremely high, 24.6. Haven't heard that figure? That's the one in the books, the ratio of the current S&P 500 average of 2464 to 12-month, reported annual earnings of $100. In other words, what companies actually earned. The 18 multiple more routinely cited is bogus. It's based on the bluebird prognosticating that "forward" profits will reach $133 in seven quarters, a mathematical impossibility.

At a PE of almost 25, the S&P is producing $4 in earnings for every $100 you spend on stocks. You receive $1.90 of that $4 in dividends, for a puny yield of 1.9%. A constant PE of 25 predicts a total "real" return of the inverse of that ratio, or 4%. In addition to the 1.9% dividend yield, the other 2.1% comes in the form of profit gains that drive equivalent capital gains––quite reasonable given current projections of overall economic growth. The total comes to 6%, including 2% inflation. That's nowhere the double-digit future the earnings bulls are projecting, but with the 10 year treasury at 2.33%, it's not bad.

Or is it? The risks that future returns will fall far below our benchmark of 6% over the next decade are a lot greater than the chances they'll exceed that bogey. Since corporate profits are well above historic averages, they could finish in three or four years right where they are today, repeating the scenario since 2013. That's the danger signal flashed by the cyclically-adjusted price-earnings multiple developed by economist Robert Shiller, a yardstick that smoothes the peaks and troughs in earnings to get a normalized multiple; today, profits according to the CAPE are so far above normal that the CAPE adjusted PE looms at a terrifying 30.

Nor will low rates help. John Hussman of the Hussman Funds stated in a recent article that "if low interest rates emerge as a consequence of low expected nominal growth...prospective returns will be lower," because low economic growth causes both low interest rates and low profit growth. They're the stock market's ham and eggs. Hussman is projecting a 0 total return for the S&P over the next decade.

Hussman makes a crucial point on the interaction between rates, economic growth and gains in profits. All three are closely aligned over any extended period. It's sub-par economic growth that causes both low real rates and sluggish profit growth. So low rates shouldn't be a boon to stocks at all if they're signaling a mediocre business climate ahead, as is usually the case. As Hussman points out, the benefit of the "low discount rate" is fully offset by the slower growth in earnings. So flagging growth and declining rates cancel each other out.

It's true that a fall in real rates swells multiples. But that game is over. Now we're left with hugely expensive PEs that will saddle folks buying equities today with extremely low returns. That's the curse of mid-20s PEs.

Why, then, do stocks keep soaring? For Hussman, it's all about a speculative frenzy, an "overvalued, overbought, overbullish syndrome." The market keeps defying his warnings, but one thing is certain: A future where EPS grows at 10% in a 4% (2% real) economy, where profits gallop while GDP lopes, is a Wall Street fantasy.