Posts Tagged ‘Stock Market Valuations’

Rebuilding client confidence in stocks

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

These days, there’s a cloud of uncer­tainty over mar­kets, with ques­tions about eco­nomic growth, gov­ern­ment deficits, the tim­ing and impact of inter­est rates increases, unem­ploy­ment lev­els and the US hous­ing market.

Com­bined with recent mar­ket volatil­ity and dis­ap­point­ing stock returns over the past ten years, it’s no sur­prise that many investors have lost con­fi­dence that stocks will be a good place to be over the mid and long term … espe­cially when they hear respected money man­agers like Bill Gross talk about a “new nor­mal” of slower eco­nomic growth and lower returns on stocks.

The result is that many investors have money earn­ing next to noth­ing in cash. That’s fine if some­one only needs a 1% or 2% return to hit their long term goals — but for many investors, their cur­rent allo­ca­tions mean it will be impos­si­ble to achieve their long term goals.

And it’s in this kind of an envi­ron­ment that advi­sors can bring value, by pro­vid­ing per­spec­tive on both sides of the debate about the value that stocks pro­vide at today’s levels.

Expert views on stock valuations

Today, the the lead­ing pro­po­nents that stocks are cheap and that they’re expen­sive are Wharton’s Jeremy Siegel, author of Stocks for the Long Run and Yale’s Robert Shiller, who wrote Irra­tional Exuberance.

Notably, both went on record in early 2000 to the effect that tech stocks were over­val­ued and at unsus­tain­able lev­els — but since then have diverged on their assess­ments of stock mar­ket valuations.

Ten days ago, I trav­elled to Philadel­phia and New Haven and spent an hour with each of Pro­fes­sors Siegel and Shiller, who coin­ci­den­tally are long-time friends who reg­u­larly vaca­tion together on the Jer­sey Shore.

Our con­ver­sa­tions on mar­ket val­u­a­tions are sum­ma­rized in my col­umn in today’s Globe and Mail, which is at the bot­tom of this email and which can be sent to clients.

The case for stocks as expensive

Robert Shiller looks at cor­po­rate earn­ings adjusted for infla­tion over the past ten years — look­ing back ten years elim­i­nates short term dis­tor­tions in any given year.

Over the past hun­dred and fifty year, stocks have traded at an aver­age mul­ti­ple of six­teen times an aver­age of the past ten year earnings.

Today, stocks trade at around twenty times their aver­age earn­ings. I make the point in my Globe col­umn that while not close to the peak level of forty times his­tor­i­cal earn­ings they hit in 2000, this is still his­tor­i­cally expen­sive — and sug­gests returns in the period ahead below the long term lev­els of 9% before infla­tion and 6% after inflation.

As an aside, In Jan­u­ary I spent 90 min­utes with Shiller over lunch, hav­ing for­tu­itously bumped into him at the Atlanta air­port. At that time, he made the com­ment that even when stocks are at 20 times aver­age ten year earn­ings, investors can still do respectably in the fol­low­ing period.

Today, he is more pes­simistic, as he’s con­cerned that erod­ing con­fi­dence by Amer­i­can con­sumers and busi­ness could lead to a down­ward spi­ral of reduced spend­ing, which in and of itself could trig­ger a dou­ble dip recession.

And he con­cluded our con­ver­sa­tion by say­ing that he’s uncer­tain whether investors will be bet­ter off in stocks or in bonds in the period ahead.

The argu­ment for stocks as cheap

Jeremy Siegel has a very dif­fer­ent take on the value in stocks.

In my Globe col­umn, I note that he uses a dif­fer­ent method to value stocks and reaches a dif­fer­ent con­clu­sion — his analy­sis sug­gests that com­pared to long term aver­ages stocks are under­val­ued by 25% to 30%.

The biggest dif­fer­ence between his approach and Robert Shiller’s is that his is for­ward look­ing, focus­ing on con­sen­sus earn­ings fore­casts for this year and next. Among his crit­i­cisms of Robert Shiller’s method­ol­ogy is that mega-writeoffs such as the $80 bil­lion write­down by AIG will dis­tort the earn­ings base from which back­ward look­ing cal­cu­la­tions are con­ducted for years to come.

Siegel has looked at U.S. stock mar­ket val­u­a­tions over a 200 year period. Dur­ing that time, the aver­age stock mul­ti­ple of earn­ings has been 15 times — that com­pares with a mul­ti­ple of con­sen­sus earn­ings fore­casts of 13 times for this year and 11 times for next year.

The impact of low inter­est rates

Siegel’s aver­age of 15 times earn­ings includes peri­ods of dou­ble digit infla­tion, when mul­ti­ples are typ­i­cally depressed — exclud­ing peri­ods of dou­ble digit infla­tion, the aver­age mul­ti­ple that the mar­ket paid for earn­ings was 17 times.

If earn­ings fore­casts for next year are accu­rate, then return­ing to that long term aver­age of 15 times earn­ings would see stocks increase by 30%, ris­ing to the his­tor­i­cal low infla­tion val­u­a­tion norm would see stocks rise by 50%.

Address­ing the new nor­mal of lower growth

We also dis­cussed some of the argu­ments by Bill Gross at PIMCO and oth­ers about a new nor­mal of slower eco­nomic growth, due to delever­ag­ing, re reg­u­la­tion and a reduc­tion in the pace of globalization.

His response was that these are legit­i­mate con­cerns but that they ignore the impact of inno­va­tion and espe­cially the effect of the internet.

Siegel points to the inter­net as a trans­for­ma­tive tool in accel­er­at­ing the pace of inno­va­tion, as sci­en­tists and researchers around the world are able to work together in real time.

And he went on to say that this will inevitably lead to faster eco­nomic growth.

Com­mu­ni­cat­ing your views to clients

In an indus­try where opin­ion often drowns out rea­son, Robert Shiller and Jeremy Siegel stand out for their care­ful, fact-based approaches.

Which view you and your clients favour will largely depend on your going-in biases — those who are cur­rently neg­a­tive will look to Robert Shiller’s approach, those who are more opti­mistic will side with Jeremy Siegel.

The good news is that these two views lay out clear para­me­ters for the upside and down­side case for stocks — and pro­vide the foun­da­tion for a rea­soned dis­cus­sion about the direc­tion of stocks in the period ahead.

And by shar­ing the argu­ments on both sides of the debate with clients, you posi­tion your­self as some­one who con­sid­ers all the facts before reach­ing con­clu­sions and mak­ing recommendations.

Two routes back into the market

A final com­ment on help­ing clients get back into the mar­ket, if after dis­cussing this you agree that it makes sense to increase their stock allocations.

At that point, you can go in one of two directions.

One is to imme­di­ately move to the tar­get allocation.

The advan­tage of mak­ing the full move now is that clients will ben­e­fit from any run-up in stocks and you won’t have to con­tend with hes­i­ta­tion to com­plete the com­mit­ment in six and twelve months.

The down­side to this approach is that if mar­kets see a short-term set­back, you risk height­ened anx­i­ety from your client and poten­tially los­ing that client entirely.

The alter­na­tive is to phase in that move in stages, with per­haps a third now, a third in six months and the final por­tion in a year.

For many clients this is a more com­fort­able approach than invest­ing the total amount right now.

Fur­ther, by sug­gest­ing that you phase in the com­mit­ment you reduce the risk of clients won­der­ing about whether your advice is influ­enced by the desire to earn higher com­pen­sa­tion from funds that are invested in the mar­ket rather than sit­ting in cash.

To watch two of the inter­views with Jeremy Siegel, click below — note that addi­tional videos are avail­able at www​.cli​entin​sights​.ca

Why stocks are undervalued:

http://​cli​entin​sights​.ca/​v​i​d​e​o​/​j​e​r​e​m​y​-​s​i​e​g​e​l​-​w​h​y​-​s​t​o​c​k​s​-​a​r​e​-​u​n​d​e​r​v​a​l​u​e​d​/​t​y​p​e​:​i​n​v​e​s​tor

Respond­ing to mar­ket concerns:

http://​cli​entin​sights​.ca/​v​i​d​e​o​/​j​e​r​e​m​y​-​s​i​e​g​e​l​-​r​e​s​p​o​n​d​i​n​g​-​t​o​-​m​a​r​k​e​t​-​c​o​n​c​e​r​n​s​/​t​y​p​e​:​i​n​v​e​s​tor


    Lat­est Advi­so­r­An­a­lyst Prac­tice Growth Sto­ries



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Dan Richards | Comments Off