John Hussman: 2.3 Sigmas Above The Norm

|
Includes: DIA, IWM, QQQ, SPY
by: John Hussman

Excerpt from the Hussman Funds' Weekly Market Comment (5/4/15):

While the S&P 500 Index is about 12% above April 2014 levels, my impression is that it may be surprising how quickly that gain is erased as the present cycle is completed. That initial erasure will likely be nothing but a very minor warm-up. At present, the most reliable measures we identify indicate that the S&P 500 is about 128% above the levels that would be historically associated with 10% long-term returns, and imply a net loss, including dividends, for the S&P 500 over the coming decade. Including a broader range of alternate (if slightly less reliable) measures brings that overvaluation to about 114% above historical norms, and results in our expectation of S&P 500 nominal total returns averaging just 1.5% annually over the coming decade.

I should emphasize that our total return projections embed the assumption of future growth in nominal GDP and S&P 500 revenues of 6% annually, despite the fact that these measures have grown at a rate of only 3.4% annually over the past 10-15 years. The reason we haven’t slashed our assumed growth rates is that historically, nominal growth and interest rate effects tend to cancel out in these projections. Specifically, if we get continued slow growth over the coming decade, we’re also likely to see depressed interest rates go hand-in-hand with that. The slower growth would negatively affect returns, but the lower interest rates could positively affect returns by encouraging somewhat higher terminal valuations. Historically, the 10-year Treasury yield has a positive correlation with nominal GDP and S&P revenue growth over the preceding decade, while stock valuations based on market cap/GDP or price/revenue have a negative correlation with nominal growth rates over the preceding decade. What we observe across a century of history is that those two effects repeatedly cancel out.

A brief primer on mean reversion

We see a great deal of misunderstanding about mean reversion in current financial discussions. Probably the most frequent error is the idea that one can determine whether or not market variables (such as valuation multiples or profit margins) are mean reverting simply by eyeing a chart or running a trendline through the data. As I discussed in my 2014 Wine Country Conference talk, Very Mean Reversion (which remains relevant to current market conditions), the correct test for mean reversion is to examine the relationship between present levels and subsequent changes in a given variable.

For example, suppose F is some relatively smoothly growing fundamental that is a representative and sufficient statistic for the stream of long-term cash flows that stocks are expected to deliver to investors over time. Value investors would tend to believe that price is mean-reverting relative to F. The question is how one tests for that. The improper strategy is to simply examine a long-term chart or to run a trendline through the data. Why? For the same reason that one can’t determine that a sine wave is mean reverting by running a trendline from its low point to its high point. It may be that your data hasn’t captured the complete cycle.

...

Benjamin Graham, the father of value investing, advised investors to smooth out those cyclical variations by averaging profits over a number of years, which is the logic behind the Shiller P/E (the S&P 500 divided by the 10-year average of inflation-adjusted earnings). Some analysts have found that 16-year averaging improves on the measure (see What Does that Difference Mean?). Our own work indicates that the most reliable variant comes from adjusting the Shiller P/E explicitly for the embedded profit margin (see Margins, Multiples, and the Iron Law of Valuation). The following chart provides a nice illustration of how multiples and margins work together. The worst situation possible is when investors are paying elevated multiples on earnings that are already bloated by record profit margins. That is the situation in which we find ourselves today.

A similar observation extends to individual stocks, particularly those that have enjoyed unusual margin expansion or have unstable revenue bases. To quote Benjamin Graham, “Observation over many years has taught us that the chief losses to investors come from the purchase of low-quality securities at times of good business conditions. The purchasers view the good current earnings as equivalent to ‘earning power’ and assume that prosperity is equivalent to safety.”

...

Two Point Three Sigmas Above the Norm

One of the things that may slightly comfort investors here is Jeremy Grantham’s recent observation that while the Shiller P/E and Tobin’s Q are 1.5 and 1.8 standard deviations above their long-term averages, respectively, they are not yet overvalued by “two sigmas.” Now, I respect Grantham more than virtually anyone else in the investment world, but I also believe that these figures understate current extremes for several reasons I’ll detail below. I’ll summarize our own assessment first. Based on the most reliable valuation measures we identify, stock market valuations are already 2.3 sigmas above reliable historical norms.

The following chart provides a good illustration of the present situation. The chart shows the ratio of market capitalization to GDP, which has a nearly 90% correlation with actual subsequent S&P 500 total returns over the following decade. I’ve presented the left scale in terms of standard deviations (see the section on mean reversion to understand why we take logarithms first). Actual subsequent total returns for the S&P 500 are shown by the red line, on an inverted right scale, so higher levels imply lower subsequent 10-year market returns.

In a 2001 Fortune article, Warren Buffett correctly identified market cap to GDP as “probably the best single measure of where valuations stand at any given moment.” While Buffett hasn’t mentioned this ratio in quite a while, it remains highly correlated with other historically reliable valuation measures. As we’ve seen throughout history, the transient “errors” in these measures are actually quite informative. Our valuation concerns certainly don’t rely on this particular metric, but it nicely summarizes the current situation.

...

Conversely, in 1990, the market was undervalued from the standpoint of historical norms, so one would have expected 10-year returns well above a run-of-the-mill 10% annual return. As it happened, though, the endpoint of that 10-year horizon was 2000 – the climax of the most extreme valuation bubble in history. As a result, actual 10-year returns from 1990-2000 were far higher than even the above-average returns one would have anticipated. Investors reaped the whirlwind in the plunge that followed.

Which brings us to the present, when the 2005-2015 total return of the market has been higher than one would have projected based on 2005 valuations. With current valuations 2.3 sigmas above the norm, it should be clear that this “error” is precisely the result of extreme valuations at present, and is highly informative about the risks that investors face ahead. While our baseline expectation for 10-year total returns is currently 1.5% on a broad range of measures, we should not be at all surprised if the actual total return ends up being negative. Market returns will only surprise to the upside over the coming decade to the extent that valuations fail to correct to levels that they’ve corrected to even in recent cycles – and neither of those declines have taken valuations anywhere near levels historically associated with secular undervaluation.

So why do we find a 2.3 sigma overvaluation while Grantham’s figures are in the 1.5-1.8 range? Two reasons. First, as noted above, the raw Shiller P/E and Tobin’s Q are historically dominated by other valuation measures, including the margin-adjusted Shiller P/E, market capitalization to GDP, and price/revenue. At present, the profit margin (Shiller earnings/current S&P 500 revenues) embedded into the Shiller multiple is currently about 6.8% versus a historical norm of just 5.4%. At normal margins, the Shiller multiple would not be 27 but 34. By contrast, the embedded margin at the March 2000 peak was 5.1%. At normal margins, the Shiller multiple would not have been 43 but 41. Valuations are currently much closer to the 2000 peak than the raw Shiller multiple would imply.

...

The following chart illustrates the “norm” concept. The blue line is nonfinancial market capitalization in $billions on a log scale. The pre-bubble norm for market capitalization to GDP is about 0.55 (the current ratio is about 1.32), so the red line tracks 0.55 times nominal GDP. The green line on the right scale shows the actual subsequent 15-year total return of the S&P 500 as a proxy for “long-term” returns. The yellow markers identify points where the S&P 500 actually went on to achieve an ordinary 10% long-term total return over that horizon. Notice that those markers correspond fairly well to points where the blue and red lines intersect. Put simply, the pre-bubble valuation norms of historically reliable valuation indicators do a fairly good job of identifying points where stocks were priced to achieve “run-of-the-mill” long-term returns of about 10% annually.

For our part, we think a decade is quite a long-time to assume away any event that would provoke investors to demand something close to a normal, run-of-the-mill 10% prospective market return at some point in that decade. Even in depressed interest rate environments, prospective equity returns tend to be weakly correlated with interest rates and rate movements (and are often negatively correlated). The only span in history where the correlation was clearly positive was during the inflation-disinflation cycle from the mid-1960’s to the mid-1990’s. If you’re waiting for stocks to become overvalued by 2 standard deviations, we’re already past that, and we would not be at all surprised to observe another decade of negative total returns on the S&P 500, as we observed the last time valuations were similar on the most reliable measures.

The enormous problem for investors here is that they have nowhere to hide. The absence of places to hide emphatically does not make the prospects for stocks any better – it simply means that conventional portfolios are likely to achieve total returns of next to nothing over the coming 8-10 years. At the 2000 extreme, large-capitalization stocks were breathtakingly overvalued, but 10-year Treasury bonds yielded 6.5%, and numerous smaller stocks were reasonably valued, especially on a relative basis. Presently, the price/revenue ratio of the median stock is at the highest level in history (see my friend Meb Faber’s post Stocks are the Most Expensive, Well, Ever). The outcome of yield-seeking speculation on the financial markets seems glorious in hindsight, precisely because security prices have been chased to untenable valuation extremes. The completion of this cycle is likely to be an equally extreme mirror image.

...

Learn this lesson during the bubble, or you’ll learn it during the crash: what distinguishes a bubble that continues higher from a bubble that crashes with little additional warning is the condition of investor risk preferences as inferred from market internals, credit spreads, and other risk-sensitive measures. I’ve learned that lesson twice in my investment career – once during the late-1990’s bubble when we adapted by introducing those measures of internals, and again in the recent half cycle since 2009 because the ensemble methods that emerged from our stress-testing against Depression-era data didn’t emphasize those features strongly enough (we ultimately imposed them as an overlay in mid-2014). Overvaluation always matters for long-term returns – it’s just that it only reliably matters over the shorter-run once market internals indicate a shift toward risk-aversion. At that point, overvaluation matters with a vengeance, though the precise timing can still be unpredictable and abrupt. That’s the risk we observe here. Our valuation concerns won’t vanish if market internals and credit spreads were to improve materially, but the immediacy of those concerns would be deferred.

Regardless of near-term conditions, recognize the risk of negative equity returns for a decade, as we projected in 2000 even under optimistic assumptions, and consider alternative assets and hedged vehicles more heavily here than you might if stocks were not overvalued, as was true in late-2008 (despite my later stress-testing inclinations that began our significant stumble in the recent half-cycle). Having completed and addressed that awkward transition in mid-2014, we’re more confident today than we’ve ever been in our methods, and my expectation is certainly that we’re well-prepared to navigate the coming cycle. Agree or disagree, we do believe that the present remains an ideal moment to align your portfolio with your actual tolerance for risk and your true investment horizon.

About this article:

Expand
Want to share your opinion on this article? Add a comment.
Disagree with this article? .
To report a factual error in this article, click here