Why the Equity Naysayers Are Dead Wrong

Recs

8

Though a dose of optimism has crept into the news lately, there are still plenty of people who seem to be declaring the death of stock investing, suggesting that returns from equities over the long term haven't lived up to the hype. But fear not, dear Fool: Rumors of the death of equities have been greatly exaggerated.

Major global financial institutions like Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) and American Express (NYSE: AXP) are facing once-in-a-lifetime challenges in their sector; quasi-government lender Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) (despite the increase in its stock price) is on very shaky footing; and even Berkshire Hathaway's debt ratings were downgraded. Yet I'm sticking by stocks.

Am I deluded, looking at the wrong numbers, or just plain crazy? 

None of the above
Take, for instance, a Financial Times article from earlier this year titled "Is it back to the Fifties?" The author cites a paper by Robert Arnott that asserts: "Anyone who started saving 40 years ago, when the postwar 'baby boom' generation was just joining the workforce, has found that stocks have performed no better than 20-year government bonds since then."

One of the main problems with statements like this is that nobody invests the way this assumes. What ready-to-be-retirees do you know who plopped down a big chunk of money one day 40 years ago and have been counting on that one investment to carry them through their golden years? Not many, I'd imagine.

As the statement above suggests, an investment made back in 1969 hasn't exactly been a barn-burner. Assuming the investment was in an S&P 500 index, the compounded annual returns were around 6%. But most baby boomers didn't stop investing in 1969.

Had they invested some more a year later, that investment would have brought an even better 6.8% compounded annual return today. Fast-forward to 1974, and investments would have shown a 7.4% CAGR. And investments made in mid-1982 would have returned nearly 8.5% per year over the next 27 years.

Perhaps an even bigger problem is that if we're focusing on the time period ending today, we're looking at a stretch that ends with stocks crashing and bonds inflating in a bubble of historic proportions. In fact, today may be one of the most favorable times ever for touting the returns of bonds versus stocks.

But there's more
There's an even bigger issue that often gets overlooked when people start to get calculator-happy, tabulating annual stock market returns. I happen to think this is also one of the most important lessons investors can learn from the current market collapse: valuation matters.

Yale's Robert Shiller has made a study of past valuations nice and easy for us by keeping a store of information dating all the way back to 1871. He has even wisely calculated his price-to-earnings ratios based on a 10-year average of earnings to smooth the data. 

Using Shiller's P/E calculations alongside estimates of 10-year forward stock performance, it becomes abundantly clear that there is a definite negative correlation between valuation and future stock market performance. In other words, when the market's valuation is significantly above average, the highway signs read "low returns ahead."

We've seen this at work with individual stocks. While a great company and strong growth can sometimes justify a high valuation, most of the time, you'll be fighting against the tide when you jump on stocks with sky-high multiples.

Investing in General Electric (NYSE: GE) in 2000 when its P/E was hovering around 50 wasn't such a savvy move. Chasing Verizon (NYSE: VZ) and its big valuation in 2005 hasn't worked out so well, either. Occasionally, companies are good buys at "rich" valuations, but often, "rich" just makes you poor.

The same holds true for the market as a whole. During the dot-com bubble, Shiller's 10-year P/E measure for the market went well beyond 40, which is way above the historical average. The result? Terrible returns since then.

Shiller's P/E measure fell to the mid-to-upper 20s in 2007, which was significantly down from 40, but still well above the long-term average. The result? You know that story all too well.

In fact, if we look back to 1969, when that 40 years of lackluster performance began, what do we find? If you said "a market multiple that was above average," then you win a tasty chocolate chip cookie. I don't think it can be said enough: Valuation matters.

A brave new equity world
So it seems like odd timing to me that now that Shiller's valuation measure has finally dropped and is vacillating around its historical average, we're seeing story after story decrying equity investing. To me, this seems like exactly the time to be investing for the long term.

And while investing in a broad market index today might produce good returns, there are plenty of high-quality companies out there, trading at multiples below the rest of the market, that could produce great returns.

Petrobras (NYSE: PBR), for example, an oil and gas powerhouse out of Brazil, is changing hands at less than 10 times its trailing earnings. Meanwhile, health insurance giant UnitedHealth (NYSE: UNH) trades at a similar single-digit multiple.

Of course, there are few places where valuation matters more than at our Motley Fool Inside Value newsletter service. Philip Durell and the rest of the team seek out the best companies trading at the absolute best prices. In doing so, they've managed to best the rest of the market over the past four-and-a-half years. You can check out what stocks the team likes in this environment by taking a free 30-day trial of Inside Value.

But even if you don't check out Inside Value, don't forget to take this important lesson with you. Say it with me now: Valuation matters.

Already subscribe to Inside Value? Log in at the top of this page

This article was originally published May 20, 2009. It has been updated.

Fool contributor Matt Koppenheffer owns shares of American Express and Berkshire Hathaway, but does not own shares of any of the other companies mentioned. Berkshire Hathaway and UnitedHealth Group are Motley Fool Stock Advisor picks. American Express, Berkshire Hathaway, and UnitedHealth Group are Inside Value picks. Petroleo Brasileiro is an Income Investor selection. The Fool owns shares of Berkshire Hathaway and UnitedHealth Group. The Fool's disclosure policy knows that investing without paying attention to valuation is like trying to pitch in the major leagues without a fastball.

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On September 02, 2009, at 12:55 PM, kamuirei wrote:

    You make an argument for valuation at a time when the market (SPY) is up 50% in 6 months. Some of my assets, (emerging markets, small cap international) are up 80-90% in the same time frame.

    I know that the Fool's stated purpose is continual investment in high quality companies at a discount, which I fully agree with. However this is not the message that has been coming across.

    The way this article reads you're suggesting stocks over bonds in.. this.. market.. right.. now. This is not a good time to be ignoring macroeconomic factors. This rally makes no sense and eventually we're going to run out of faerie dust.

    (Personally, I went from 100% stocks to 50/50 stocks & bonds 3 weeks ago... I consider myself an aggressive investor - I really cannot complain about taking 50-90% returns since the bottom.)

    All of the analysts I value have been urging caution... congrats fool, you're now in the same camp as CNBC and Cramer.

    Does the Fool not realize that it is destroying both its reputation and its credibility by constantly pumping out articles in the hopes of garnering more subscriptions? I don't think it's any individual writer that's the problem but how the culture at the Fool has changed over the years.

    The Fool went from giving advice to pumping a product using all the same tools as Fox news. (Ex: "Why Wal-Mart us Doomed" is in 4 places on my screen!!!) Sure, it works, Fox is the most watched news channel. People love fear and drama. But it's also a bunch of.... Quality of quantity guys.

    P.S. What ever happened to that ticker that showed all Fool newsletter performance vs the market?

  • Report this Comment On September 02, 2009, at 2:35 PM, TMFKopp wrote:

    @kamuirei

    Thanks for the comment, but what you're saying makes me believe that you've been watching too much Fox or CNBC. If there's one thing that the Fool has always been about, it's investing for the long term rather than trying to time quick ups and downs in the market.

    Everyone will read this article through their own lens, but the point of the article isn't "buy stocks no matter what," it's "valuation matters." I was worried I repeated that too many times in the article, but maybe I didn't repeat it enough.

    Can we fret about short term corrections? Sure, but there are a lot of great companies out there right now with stocks that are selling at very cheap prices. Pay attention to the valuation you're paying and you can pick up some great deals right now.

    As for stocks versus bonds... Yes I'm suggesting stocks over bonds! I can't speak to anyone's individual financial position (sometimes bonds are the only appropriate vehicle), but from an objective standpoint do you really want to buy bonds when the Fed has its target rate at 0% - 0.25% and Treasuries have absurdly low yields?

    That message of valuation holds true for bonds just as it does for stocks, and in my estimation, the valuation on bonds right now is far from attractive.

    Matt

  • Report this Comment On September 23, 2009, at 6:35 PM, stan8331 wrote:

    Those articles proclaiming how folks who bought at a high point took decades to make their money back after a crash drive me nuts. If you're going to insist on investing when prices are at their very highest and steadfastly refuse to invest when prices are cheap, you DESERVE to have horrible returns.

    Valuation does matter, and I agree that comparing current valuation against historical norms is a good way of measuring how much downside risk exists in the market. It can be tricky with individual stocks, because there will often be a small number of great companies whose business model is so strong that it can justify a very high multiple over an extended period of time.

    But when you start seeing the overall market P/E run on up into the mid-20's and beyond, you know something will eventually have to give. Either the high price ends up being justified and earnings rise, lowering the P/E back toward the historical norm, or prices drop, accomplishing the same thing.

    When there's a crash, everything gets sold and little discrimination is made between good and bad companies. The case for buying good companies in March was extremely strong, unless one believed we were heading into a new Great Depression and were willing to bet the farm on it - never a wise strategy, IMO. The case to buy right now isn't quite as compelling after the run up we've seen, but there are still many good companies out there sporting single-digit P/E's. Going to mostly or all cash right now would be a very high-risk strategy.

    If we do see a major pull-back, I'll have enough cash on hand to take advantage of the bargains. If we don't see another big drop, I have a nice basket of stocks that have been doing pretty well. If we do start to see P/E acceleration toward unusually high levels, I'll start taking more profits and looking for whatever bargains I can still find.

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

TD AMERITRADE
more info
ShareBuilder
more info
Power E*Trade

more info
Scottrade
more info
Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 975669, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 9/5/2010 9:42:49 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated 2 days ago Sponsored by:
DOW 10,447.93 127.83 1.24%
S&P 500 1,104.51 14.41 1.32%
NASD 2,233.75 33.74 1.53%

Related Tickers

9/3/2010 4:00 PM
PBR $37.48 Up +1.49 +4.14%
Petroleo Brasileir… CAPS Rating: *****
UNH $33.91 Up +1.05 +3.20%
UnitedHealth Group CAPS Rating: ****
VZ $30.20 Up +0.09 +0.30%
Verizon Communicat… CAPS Rating: ****
GS $147.29 Up +7.51 +5.37%
Goldman Sachs Grou… CAPS Rating: ***
AXP $41.80 Up +0.92 +2.25%
American Express C… CAPS Rating: ***
FNMA.OB $0.40 Down +0.00 -0.77%
Fannie Mae CAPS Rating: **
GE $15.39 Up +0.24 +1.60%
General Electric C… CAPS Rating: ****

Community: Investing Wiki

Term Of The Hour

Bio-Rad Laboratories: Bio-Rad Laboratories (AMEX: http://caps.fool.com/Ticker/BIO.aspx BIO) manufactures and supplies the life science research, healthcare, analytical chemistry, and other markets with products and systems used to separate chemical and biological materials, and to identify, analyze and purify their components.

Want to learn more or edit this definition?
Click here to read more!