套用投資傳奇人物杰里米?格蘭瑟姆的話說,牛市的末尾總是最瘋狂。如今股價已極其昂貴,預示著末日可能即將到來。
截至2月5日的一周內,標普500指數似乎迎來了另一輪強勁上漲。截至上周五收盤,指數上漲4.7%,創下3887點的記錄。華爾街銀行幾乎一致預測將繼續上漲。高盛預計到年底還能上漲10.6%,達到4300點。很明顯,跳上一列動力不但不減弱還持續加速的火車對人們很有誘惑力。
然而,投資者應該考慮,如果按照標準指標判斷股價只從看似過高轉向中等價位,損失會多大。數字龐大而可怕。
我們看看判斷衡量股票是便宜還是定價過高的四種市盈率指標。相關指標都可以用來判斷投資者為每一美元收益支付的價格。不同之處在于如何才能更準確地判斷收益水平。
當前市盈率
先從標準普爾當前市盈率開始看,截至去年12月的四個季度里,根據美國公認會計準則每股凈收益96.45美元計算,市盈率為40.3倍。分析師對四季度的預測已包括在內,因為標普公布最新數據時,只有一半成員公布了最新數據。市盈率倍數很高,但意義不大。因為疫情危機導致年中收益暴跌,從而人為抬高了倍數。
疫情前市盈率
那么,哪項標準更準確?我建議三個。第一個是基于疫情前大盤股的市盈率??梢哉f當時的收益水平比較“正?!薄,F在國會預算辦公室預測美國人收入將在2021年年中恢復到2019年水平,假定收益將恢復到疫情前的水平沒什么問題。2019年底,標普每股收益曾達到139.47美元的歷史高點。如果今年某個時候收益水平真能重新達到峰值,比較靠譜的市盈率水平是28倍(標普目前的“價格”為3887除以139.47美元收益)。
收益想反彈到每股近140美元將比較艱難。即便如此,為每一美元收益支付28美元仍然非常昂貴。28倍的市盈率比2009年暴跌以來最高水平還高出15%,而2009年暴跌曾導致收益大幅減少(跟當今現象一樣,市盈率也隨之膨脹)。2016年9月曾達到24.34美元的峰值。
席勒市盈率
但每股139.47美元真適合作為收益的基準嗎?根據第三個標準,由耶魯大學經濟學家羅伯特?希勒提出著名的周期調整市盈率或CAPE,其實并不適合。收益水平并不穩定。而且股價飛漲時,市盈率看起來人為壓低,而當市盈率暫時低迷時,標普指數看起來比較適合買入,實際上并非如此。為了糾正波動,希勒并非使用過去12個月的收益,而是10年平均值,并根據通脹進行了調整。
根據席勒市盈率公式,疫情之前的收益與歷史相比異常高,原因可能是已根據對GDP或收入比例等更正常的數據調整。當前席勒市盈率里收益為109美元。因此,希勒市盈率(3887除以109美元)為35.7倍。2000年科技崩潰之前,歷史上只出現過一次如此高的水平。每次只要接近類似高點,緊隨其后就是迅速拋售。
調整后的席勒市盈率
要計算股票可能下跌多少,最好調整一下席勒市盈率。因為該指標使用“真實”或者說通貨膨脹調整后的收益。投資者入袋的收益隨著整體價格上漲而增長,因為持股公司出售的汽車和日用品價格每年上漲。如果算上通貨膨脹,平均10年收益會高出7.5%到10%。我們將選擇對多頭更有利的10%。
增長10%之后,席勒市盈率計算的收益就能達到120美元。如果美國人收入恢復到疫情前的水平,收益達到該水平的可能性比較大。應該使用多少倍市盈率?1990年以來,標普指數平均市盈率為21.8倍,遠高于1950年以來的17.1倍,但由于低于20倍市盈率已持續很長一段時間,至少有理由預期市盈率會保持,雖然回歸至之前的市盈率意味著風險。
如果收益調整為120美元,倍數為21.8,標普將在2620點左右賣出。該點位比今天創紀錄的3887點低1270點,低了33%。相關數據顯示,多元化一籃子大盤股存在下跌三分之一的風險。請記住,2020年3月標普指數曾暴跌至2237點,比我算出的公允價值低了近400點。
多頭可以認為今年收益將躍升至2019年的最高水平,指數繼續飆升。 但論據沒什么力度。 收益從未如此飛漲。不斷攀升高峰的股票越多,下跌的可能性就越大。如果您的資產配置里全是股票,一旦出現崩潰投資組合價值可能跌去三分之一,而華爾街專業人士還在鼓吹只會繼續增長。(財富中文網)
譯者:梁宇
審校:夏林
套用投資傳奇人物杰里米?格蘭瑟姆的話說,牛市的末尾總是最瘋狂。如今股價已極其昂貴,預示著末日可能即將到來。
截至2月5日的一周內,標普500指數似乎迎來了另一輪強勁上漲。截至上周五收盤,指數上漲4.7%,創下3887點的記錄。華爾街銀行幾乎一致預測將繼續上漲。高盛預計到年底還能上漲10.6%,達到4300點。很明顯,跳上一列動力不但不減弱還持續加速的火車對人們很有誘惑力。
然而,投資者應該考慮,如果按照標準指標判斷股價只從看似過高轉向中等價位,損失會多大。數字龐大而可怕。
我們看看判斷衡量股票是便宜還是定價過高的四種市盈率指標。相關指標都可以用來判斷投資者為每一美元收益支付的價格。不同之處在于如何才能更準確地判斷收益水平。
當前市盈率
先從標準普爾當前市盈率開始看,截至去年12月的四個季度里,根據美國公認會計準則每股凈收益96.45美元計算,市盈率為40.3倍。分析師對四季度的預測已包括在內,因為標普公布最新數據時,只有一半成員公布了最新數據。市盈率倍數很高,但意義不大。因為疫情危機導致年中收益暴跌,從而人為抬高了倍數。
疫情前市盈率
那么,哪項標準更準確?我建議三個。第一個是基于疫情前大盤股的市盈率。可以說當時的收益水平比較“正?!薄,F在國會預算辦公室預測美國人收入將在2021年年中恢復到2019年水平,假定收益將恢復到疫情前的水平沒什么問題。2019年底,標普每股收益曾達到139.47美元的歷史高點。如果今年某個時候收益水平真能重新達到峰值,比較靠譜的市盈率水平是28倍(標普目前的“價格”為3887除以139.47美元收益)。
收益想反彈到每股近140美元將比較艱難。即便如此,為每一美元收益支付28美元仍然非常昂貴。28倍的市盈率比2009年暴跌以來最高水平還高出15%,而2009年暴跌曾導致收益大幅減少(跟當今現象一樣,市盈率也隨之膨脹)。2016年9月曾達到24.34美元的峰值。
席勒市盈率
但每股139.47美元真適合作為收益的基準嗎?根據第三個標準,由耶魯大學經濟學家羅伯特?希勒提出著名的周期調整市盈率或CAPE,其實并不適合。收益水平并不穩定。而且股價飛漲時,市盈率看起來人為壓低,而當市盈率暫時低迷時,標普指數看起來比較適合買入,實際上并非如此。為了糾正波動,希勒并非使用過去12個月的收益,而是10年平均值,并根據通脹進行了調整。
根據席勒市盈率公式,疫情之前的收益與歷史相比異常高,原因可能是已根據對GDP或收入比例等更正常的數據調整。當前席勒市盈率里收益為109美元。因此,希勒市盈率(3887除以109美元)為35.7倍。2000年科技崩潰之前,歷史上只出現過一次如此高的水平。每次只要接近類似高點,緊隨其后就是迅速拋售。
調整后的席勒市盈率
要計算股票可能下跌多少,最好調整一下席勒市盈率。因為該指標使用“真實”或者說通貨膨脹調整后的收益。投資者入袋的收益隨著整體價格上漲而增長,因為持股公司出售的汽車和日用品價格每年上漲。如果算上通貨膨脹,平均10年收益會高出7.5%到10%。我們將選擇對多頭更有利的10%。
增長10%之后,席勒市盈率計算的收益就能達到120美元。如果美國人收入恢復到疫情前的水平,收益達到該水平的可能性比較大。應該使用多少倍市盈率?1990年以來,標普指數平均市盈率為21.8倍,遠高于1950年以來的17.1倍,但由于低于20倍市盈率已持續很長一段時間,至少有理由預期市盈率會保持,雖然回歸至之前的市盈率意味著風險。
如果收益調整為120美元,倍數為21.8,標普將在2620點左右賣出。該點位比今天創紀錄的3887點低1270點,低了33%。相關數據顯示,多元化一籃子大盤股存在下跌三分之一的風險。請記住,2020年3月標普指數曾暴跌至2237點,比我算出的公允價值低了近400點。
多頭可以認為今年收益將躍升至2019年的最高水平,指數繼續飆升。 但論據沒什么力度。 收益從未如此飛漲。不斷攀升高峰的股票越多,下跌的可能性就越大。如果您的資產配置里全是股票,一旦出現崩潰投資組合價值可能跌去三分之一,而華爾街專業人士還在鼓吹只會繼續增長。(財富中文網)
譯者:梁宇
審校:夏林
To paraphrase investment legend Jeremy Grantham, bull markets get craziest in their final leg. The surge we're now witnessing from already superexpensive heights signals that the end may be near.
The S&P 500 looks headed for another gangbusters performance for the week ending Feb. 5. By the close on Friday, the index had risen 4.7% to notch still another record at 3887. Wall Street banks almost universally predict the good times to keep rolling; Goldman Sachs foresees another 10.6% jump to 4300 by year-end. Obviously, it's tempting to jump on a train whose momentum not only refuses to flag, but keeps building.
Investors, however, should consider how much they have to lose if, by the standard metrics, stock prices simply shift from what appear to be excessively pricey levels to just moderately pricey. It's a big, scary number.
Let's look at four versions of the price/earnings multiple used to measure whether stocks are a bargain or overpriced. They're all measures of what investors pay for each dollar in earnings. What varies is how best to measure earnings.
Current P/E
We'll start with the S&P's current P/E. Right now, it's 40.3 based on $96.45 in GAAP net earnings per share over the past four quarters ended in December; I'm including the analysts’ estimates for Q4, since only half the members had reported when S&P posted its most recent data. That multiple is huge, but it's not terribly relevant. It's artificially inflated by the midyear collapse in profits driven by the COVID crisis.
P/E before COVID
So what's a better measure? I'll suggest three. The first is the P/E based on what the big-caps were earning before the cataclysm. You could argue that those are "normalized" earnings. Since the Congressional Budget Office now predicts that national income will regain 2019 levels in mid-2021, it's not daft to posit that profits will return to where they left off before the deluge. At the close of 2019, S&P EPS stood at an all-time high of $139.47. If profit indeed rescales those peaks sometime this year, a reliable P/E would be 28 (the S&P's current "price" of 3887 divided by earnings of $139.47).
Getting back to almost $140 per share would be a steep, hard climb. Even so, paying $28 for each dollar in profits is really, really expensive. A 28 P/E is 15% above the highest reading since the 2009 crash that decimated profits (and inflated P/Es, as we're witnessing today). That was the peak of $24.34 posted in September of 2016.
CAPE
But is $139.47 per share really the right benchmark for profits? Not according to our third yardstick, the famous cyclically adjusted price/earnings multiple, or CAPE, developed by the great Yale economist Robert Shiller. Earnings follow an erratic course. In years where they're flying high, they make P/Es look artificially low, and when they're temporarily depressed, the S&P looks like a bargain, but really isn't. To correct for those swings, Shiller uses not the last 12-month earnings, but a 10-year average, adjusted for inflation.
The CAPE formula shows that pre-COVID earnings were unusually high versus history, and therefore probably due to reset at more normal levels, as measured, for example, as a share of GDP or revenues. Today, CAPE earnings measure $109. Hence, Shiller's P/E (3887 over $109) is 35.7. It has been that lofty only once in history, prior to the tech collapse in 2000. Every time it has even approached those heights, a steep selloff followed.
Adjusted CAPE
To calculate how much stocks could fall, it's best to adjust the CAPE. That's because it uses "real," or inflation adjusted, profits. The earnings investors put in their pockets grow with overall prices, because the companies whose stocks they own are selling their cars and groceries at prices that rise each year. On average over 10 years, profits would be 7.5% to 10% higher if inflation were included. We'll pick the 10% that's more favorable to the bulls.
Add 10%, and CAPE profits come to $120. That's a good estimate for where earnings will settle once national income returns to its pre-pandemic plateau. What P/E should apply? Since 1990, the S&P multiple has averaged 21.8. That's far higher than the 17.1 reading since 1950, but since low-20s P/Es have lasted a long time, it's at least reasonable to expect them to remain in that range, though a return to earlier norms is a risk.
If earnings reset at $120, and the multiple is 21.8, the S&P would sell at around 2620. That is 1270 points, or 33%, below today's record 3887. The numbers show a significant risk that a diversified basket of big-cap stocks could drop by one-third. Keep in mind that in March, the S&P cratered to 2237, almost 400 points below my best estimate of its fair value.
The bulls have a point in arguing that earnings will jump way beyond the 2019 record this year, and soar from there. But it's not a strong argument. Earnings have never grown to the sky before. The more stock prices keep spiking from towering to more towering peaks, the more likely they are to tumble. If you're fully invested in stocks, the crash could cost you a third of the portfolio that the Wall Street pros are saying can only grow from here.