T-Bills vs. Fed Funds: A Recessionary Tale 4 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
A tasty tidbit. Earnings yield of the S&P is historically in
mid-range, but relative to fixed income assets, its quite cheap.
Currently, peak 2007 earnings (which are likely to fall short in 2008)
mean the S&P end of year '07 at closing price of 1468 are priced at
a 22% discount (78%) to the ten year bond yield of the same period.
Bottom of the range occurred in 1974 with S&P earnings yield
trading at 45% discount (or 55%) to the 10 year note.
The ten year note price taken in 2007 is 4.63%, which must be a weighted average (this is from Federal Reserve Data).
Interestingly enough, the Tuesday intraday bottom of 1250 (assuming we get a 15% drop in earnings to total $74 as reflected here) value for 2008 on the S&P against a record low 10 year yield of 3.3%, also achieved this week, put the S&P at a 45 year low price to nearly match the 1974 number, of 45% discount on price for S&P versus the 10 year. If S&P earnings don't fall 15% this year, and drop only 2%, Tuesday traded a record low valuation related to 10 year notes at 49%!
The ten year note price taken in 2007 is 4.63%, which must be a weighted average (this is from Federal Reserve Data).
Interestingly enough, the Tuesday intraday bottom of 1250 (assuming we get a 15% drop in earnings to total $74 as reflected here) value for 2008 on the S&P against a record low 10 year yield of 3.3%, also achieved this week, put the S&P at a 45 year low price to nearly match the 1974 number, of 45% discount on price for S&P versus the 10 year. If S&P earnings don't fall 15% this year, and drop only 2%, Tuesday traded a record low valuation related to 10 year notes at 49%!
T-Bill Versus Fed Funds
This is yet another interesting relationship.
Fed funds rates tend to lag 90
day T-Bill rates in direction, by the appearance of these charts. This
relationship is interesting because the markets in flight to safety
often guides the fed via demand for 90 day T-Bills. Notice how 1974 is
a trough in both the spread ratio: (T-Bill - Fed Funds)/Fed Funds as
well as S&P valuation. This coincided with a deep recession
coincident with oil shocks.
The
ratio is a more normalized picture, adjusting for periods where yields
were much larger and more volatile (12-20% in the early 80s):
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
TraderMark
-
2
Don Dion
-
3
Cliff Wachtel
-
4
Mike Havrilla
-
5
James Quinn
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 4 comments:
About drop in earnings to the first poster -- its fascinating to look at GAAP versus operating (higher) earnings. My #s are based off of operatiang measures. In actuality, GAAP earnings of 2000-2002 reflected at peak a 49% y/y drop on the S&P. Huge divergence from operating numbers. Just another wrench in the toolbox of analysis. The Shiller #s are GAAP based earnings, while S&P (service) provides both. Take a look www2.standardandpoors....