Stocks are trading near their cheapest levels in almost three decades. It's a buying opportunity if you're brave enough to face the risks that have scared off investors lately.
S&P 500 stocks are trading at a price-to-earnings ratio of about 13 times their expected earnings for the next 12 months, according to the research firm Birinyi Associates. Going back to 1990, the average has been around 19; the lower the P/E ratio, the cheaper the stock is considered.
Except for the market meltdown from late 2008 to early 2009, stocks haven't traded at such a cheap level since 1982, when the price was about eight times expected earnings.
***
[8/2/10] Or is the market overvalued?
***
[8/13/10] gurufocus says market is fairly valued (as of this writing)
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Sunday, July 18, 2010
voodoo economics
Now there are many things one could call the Bush economy, an economy that, even before recession struck, was characterized by sluggish job growth and stagnant family incomes; “vibrant” isn’t one of them. But the real news here is the confirmation that Republicans remain committed to deep voodoo, the claim that cutting taxes actually increases revenues.
It’s not true, of course. Ronald Reagan said that his tax cuts would reduce deficits, then presided over a near-tripling of federal debt. When Bill Clinton raised taxes on top incomes, conservatives predicted economic disaster; what actually followed was an economic boom and a remarkable swing from budget deficit to surplus. Then the Bush tax cuts came along, helping turn that surplus into a persistent deficit, even before the crash.
But we’re talking about voodoo economics here, so perhaps it’s not surprising that belief in the magical powers of tax cuts is a zombie doctrine: no matter how many times you kill it with facts, it just keeps coming back. And despite repeated failure in practice, it is, more than ever, the official view of the G.O.P.
***
Where did the term voodoo economics come from? It was George Bush (Sr.) describing Reaganomics.
Before Reagan's election, Reaganomics was considered extreme by the moderate wing of the Republican Party. While running against Reagan for the Presidential nomination in 1980, George Bush had derided Reaganomics as "voodoo economics".[35] Similarly, in 1976, Gerald Ford had severely criticized Reagan's proposal to turn back a large part of the Federal budget to the states. Since Reagan's presidency, however, Republican federal politicians have for the most part continued to support his program of low taxes and private sector growth.
***
[8/11/10 looking up the Laffer curve as mentioned by buddy in response to my response to his tax hike chain mail]
If there's one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it's that slashing taxes brings the government more money. "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase," President Bush said in a speech last year. Keeping taxes low, Vice President Dick Cheney explained in a recent interview, "does produce more revenue for the Federal Government." Presidential candidate John McCain declared in March that "tax cuts ... as we all know, increase revenues." His rival Rudy Giuliani couldn't agree more. "I know that reducing taxes produces more revenues," he intones in a new TV ad.
If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.
The yawning chasm between Republican rhetoric on taxes and even informed conservative opinion is maddening to those of wonkish bent. Pointing it out has become an opinion-column staple. But none of these screeds seem to have altered the political debate. So rather than write yet another, I decided to find out what Arthur Laffer thought.
Laffer is a bona fide economist with a doctorate from Stanford. He's also largely responsible for the Republican belief that tax cuts pay for themselves. Now 67, Laffer runs economic-consulting and money-management firms in Nashville. About the best I could get out of him on the question of whether the Bush tax cuts have paid for themselves was "I don't know."
It’s not true, of course. Ronald Reagan said that his tax cuts would reduce deficits, then presided over a near-tripling of federal debt. When Bill Clinton raised taxes on top incomes, conservatives predicted economic disaster; what actually followed was an economic boom and a remarkable swing from budget deficit to surplus. Then the Bush tax cuts came along, helping turn that surplus into a persistent deficit, even before the crash.
But we’re talking about voodoo economics here, so perhaps it’s not surprising that belief in the magical powers of tax cuts is a zombie doctrine: no matter how many times you kill it with facts, it just keeps coming back. And despite repeated failure in practice, it is, more than ever, the official view of the G.O.P.
***
Where did the term voodoo economics come from? It was George Bush (Sr.) describing Reaganomics.
Before Reagan's election, Reaganomics was considered extreme by the moderate wing of the Republican Party. While running against Reagan for the Presidential nomination in 1980, George Bush had derided Reaganomics as "voodoo economics".[35] Similarly, in 1976, Gerald Ford had severely criticized Reagan's proposal to turn back a large part of the Federal budget to the states. Since Reagan's presidency, however, Republican federal politicians have for the most part continued to support his program of low taxes and private sector growth.
***
[8/11/10 looking up the Laffer curve as mentioned by buddy in response to my response to his tax hike chain mail]
If there's one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it's that slashing taxes brings the government more money. "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase," President Bush said in a speech last year. Keeping taxes low, Vice President Dick Cheney explained in a recent interview, "does produce more revenue for the Federal Government." Presidential candidate John McCain declared in March that "tax cuts ... as we all know, increase revenues." His rival Rudy Giuliani couldn't agree more. "I know that reducing taxes produces more revenues," he intones in a new TV ad.
If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.
The yawning chasm between Republican rhetoric on taxes and even informed conservative opinion is maddening to those of wonkish bent. Pointing it out has become an opinion-column staple. But none of these screeds seem to have altered the political debate. So rather than write yet another, I decided to find out what Arthur Laffer thought.
Laffer is a bona fide economist with a doctorate from Stanford. He's also largely responsible for the Republican belief that tax cuts pay for themselves. Now 67, Laffer runs economic-consulting and money-management firms in Nashville. About the best I could get out of him on the question of whether the Bush tax cuts have paid for themselves was "I don't know."
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Senate passes financial overhaul bill
The Senate passed the financial overhaul package in a final vote Thursday, ending more than a year of wrangling over the shape of the landmark legislation. The focus now shifts to the monumental task of implementing the new regulations over coming weeks and months.
The 60 to 39 decision came just before 3 p.m, only a few hours after Democrats cleared a final procedural hurdle by securing enough votes to break a GOP filibuster. The bill now goes to the White House for President Obama's signature.
Three Republicans -- Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine -- joined 57 members of the Democratic caucus in supporting the bill. Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin was the lone Democrat to oppose the measure, saying it failed to go far enough in reining in the financial recklessness and regulatory failures that led to the recent financial crisis.
The House passed the bill late last month, shortly after a House-Senate conference committee had merged earlier versions of the bill into a final, 2,300-page product.
Obama probably will sign the legislation into law next week, aides said, solidifying his second major legislative victory of the year behind the revamp of health care.
The 60 to 39 decision came just before 3 p.m, only a few hours after Democrats cleared a final procedural hurdle by securing enough votes to break a GOP filibuster. The bill now goes to the White House for President Obama's signature.
Three Republicans -- Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine -- joined 57 members of the Democratic caucus in supporting the bill. Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin was the lone Democrat to oppose the measure, saying it failed to go far enough in reining in the financial recklessness and regulatory failures that led to the recent financial crisis.
The House passed the bill late last month, shortly after a House-Senate conference committee had merged earlier versions of the bill into a final, 2,300-page product.
Obama probably will sign the legislation into law next week, aides said, solidifying his second major legislative victory of the year behind the revamp of health care.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
large cap stocks look cheap
Based on Morningstar indexes, over the past 10 years, large-cap stocks have lost 2.7% per year while small caps have gained 4.8% per year. This outperformance of small caps has caused them to look more expensive relative to large caps. On a price/earnings basis, small caps currently trade at about 15.6 times earnings while large caps trade at about 14.1 times earnings. Thus, small caps trade at about an 11% premium to large caps. This is wide by historical standards, as over the past 10 years, small caps have traded at a slight discount to large caps on average.
In the midst of the tech bubble, large caps traded at a P/E of 31 times while small caps traded at 16 times. Part of the reason that small caps currently trade at a premium is that analysts expect them to have better earnings growth over the next three to five years. However, we feel that GDP growth is likely to disappoint, which will impact stocks with higher growth expectations more severely than stocks with more muted expectations.
In the midst of the tech bubble, large caps traded at a P/E of 31 times while small caps traded at 16 times. Part of the reason that small caps currently trade at a premium is that analysts expect them to have better earnings growth over the next three to five years. However, we feel that GDP growth is likely to disappoint, which will impact stocks with higher growth expectations more severely than stocks with more muted expectations.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Doug Kass calls the bottom for the year
New York City is in the midst of a serious heat wave, but on Wall Street the stock market is on a major cold streak. Stocks are down 9 of the past 11 sessions. Even Tuesday's higher close was still well off the highs of the day.
Doug Kass of Seabreeze Partners, famous for calling the market bottom in March 2009, isn't worried. In fact, he's bullish. "I think we've seen the lows of the year," he tells Tech Ticker guest host Jon Najarian of OptionMonster.com. "The market's are traveling on a path of fear and share prices have significantly disconnected from fundamentals," he says.
Kass predicts stocks will rise 10%-12% by year's end on the back of strong earnings and a better-than-expected economic recovery. He says positive trends in the ISM manufacturing and non-manufacturing index and improved labor market conditions point to "moderate domestic economic expansion, not a double dip."
Trading at around 11 times earnings, stocks are fairly inexpensive, says Kass. He notes stocks generally trade at around 15 times future earnings, and even higher in periods of tame inflation and low interest rates, as we're currently experiencing.
It may not be a V-shaped rally like that of 2009, but Kass says we've just started building a base, which could lead to a fundamentally stronger and longer-lasting rally in the future.
[via bdparts]
Doug Kass of Seabreeze Partners, famous for calling the market bottom in March 2009, isn't worried. In fact, he's bullish. "I think we've seen the lows of the year," he tells Tech Ticker guest host Jon Najarian of OptionMonster.com. "The market's are traveling on a path of fear and share prices have significantly disconnected from fundamentals," he says.
Kass predicts stocks will rise 10%-12% by year's end on the back of strong earnings and a better-than-expected economic recovery. He says positive trends in the ISM manufacturing and non-manufacturing index and improved labor market conditions point to "moderate domestic economic expansion, not a double dip."
Trading at around 11 times earnings, stocks are fairly inexpensive, says Kass. He notes stocks generally trade at around 15 times future earnings, and even higher in periods of tame inflation and low interest rates, as we're currently experiencing.
It may not be a V-shaped rally like that of 2009, but Kass says we've just started building a base, which could lead to a fundamentally stronger and longer-lasting rally in the future.
[via bdparts]