<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Review: The Fed Model&#8217;s Flawed Valuation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/review-the-fed-models-flawed-valuation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/review-the-fed-models-flawed-valuation/</link>
	<description>Macro Perspective on the Capital Markets, Economy, Geopolitics, Technology, and Digital Media</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:30:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Merkel</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/review-the-fed-models-flawed-valuation/comment-page-1/#comment-152917</link>
		<dc:creator>David Merkel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:01:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=21151#comment-152917</guid>
		<description>The Fed Model is misspecified.  I derived a different version of it starting with the Dividend Discount Model.  

http://alephblog.com/2007/07/09/the-fed-model/

For what it is worth, the model said switch from stocks to corporate bonds in August 2008.  It still says bonds are better now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Fed Model is misspecified.  I derived a different version of it starting with the Dividend Discount Model.  </p>
<p><a href="http://alephblog.com/2007/07/09/the-fed-model/" rel="nofollow">http://alephblog.com/2007/07/09/the-fed-model/</a></p>
<p>For what it is worth, the model said switch from stocks to corporate bonds in August 2008.  It still says bonds are better now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark E Hoffer</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/review-the-fed-models-flawed-valuation/comment-page-1/#comment-151873</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark E Hoffer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 04:15:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=21151#comment-151873</guid>
		<description>Clem, 

these cats may get a little closer, though they don&#039;t get to 401(k)-level granularity..

http://www.trimtabs.com/research_description.html

and, re: Fidelity, I&#039;d imagine the same, if they were paying attention, they&#039;d monetize that info stream by offering subscriptions to that data, not to say that they aren&#039;t..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Clem, </p>
<p>these cats may get a little closer, though they don&#8217;t get to 401(k)-level granularity..</p>
<p><a href="http://www.trimtabs.com/research_description.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.trimtabs.com/research_description.html</a></p>
<p>and, re: Fidelity, I&#8217;d imagine the same, if they were paying attention, they&#8217;d monetize that info stream by offering subscriptions to that data, not to say that they aren&#8217;t..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clem Stone</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/review-the-fed-models-flawed-valuation/comment-page-1/#comment-151853</link>
		<dc:creator>Clem Stone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 02:28:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=21151#comment-151853</guid>
		<description>Steve &amp; Mark, 

Thanks for those retirement info links.    The one sentence that said the most to me was, &quot;Fidelity’s survey also found that just 6.1% of plan participants made exchanges among investment options in the fourth quarter [of  2008].&quot;   

The available data is too old.   Ideally, it would be nice to track daily changes in real time.  I imagine Fidelity does exactly that, but i doubt they freely cough up the information.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Steve &amp; Mark, </p>
<p>Thanks for those retirement info links.    The one sentence that said the most to me was, &#8220;Fidelity’s survey also found that just 6.1% of plan participants made exchanges among investment options in the fourth quarter [of  2008].&#8221;   </p>
<p>The available data is too old.   Ideally, it would be nice to track daily changes in real time.  I imagine Fidelity does exactly that, but i doubt they freely cough up the information.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: WaveCatcher</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/review-the-fed-models-flawed-valuation/comment-page-1/#comment-151831</link>
		<dc:creator>WaveCatcher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 01:18:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=21151#comment-151831</guid>
		<description>The only valuation model I trust is John Hussman&#039;s Prior Peak Earnings Model (PPEM).    PPEM now has the SPX at a multiple of 8.05 X PPEM.  This is close to the market&#039;s trough valuation during the 1970s bear market, but nowhere near the trough valuation of the 1930s bear market. 

The PPEM calculates the SPX P/E by dividing the SPX price by Prior
Peak Earnings, a method developed by John Hussman, manager of the Hussman
Funds. (hussmanfunds.com) It orients valuations to the long-term
rising trend of earnings growth as defined by peak-to-peak earnings.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The only valuation model I trust is John Hussman&#8217;s Prior Peak Earnings Model (PPEM).    PPEM now has the SPX at a multiple of 8.05 X PPEM.  This is close to the market&#8217;s trough valuation during the 1970s bear market, but nowhere near the trough valuation of the 1930s bear market. </p>
<p>The PPEM calculates the SPX P/E by dividing the SPX price by Prior<br />
Peak Earnings, a method developed by John Hussman, manager of the Hussman<br />
Funds. (hussmanfunds.com) It orients valuations to the long-term<br />
rising trend of earnings growth as defined by peak-to-peak earnings.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: microcap</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/review-the-fed-models-flawed-valuation/comment-page-1/#comment-151825</link>
		<dc:creator>microcap</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 00:39:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=21151#comment-151825</guid>
		<description>I always felt the Fed Model was one of the dumbest pieces of crap ever foisted on the investment public.

Back in 2004-2005,  I used to say, &quot;Well, if interest rates go to 1%, should we just put a 100 PE on the market then?  Because we will be in the Great Depression part two.&quot;

I was being facetious at the time--little did I  know....

BTW, Clifford Asness at AQR Capital also did some very good work on the stupidity of the Fed Model thesis.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I always felt the Fed Model was one of the dumbest pieces of crap ever foisted on the investment public.</p>
<p>Back in 2004-2005,  I used to say, &#8220;Well, if interest rates go to 1%, should we just put a 100 PE on the market then?  Because we will be in the Great Depression part two.&#8221;</p>
<p>I was being facetious at the time&#8211;little did I  know&#8230;.</p>
<p>BTW, Clifford Asness at AQR Capital also did some very good work on the stupidity of the Fed Model thesis.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dunnage</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/review-the-fed-models-flawed-valuation/comment-page-1/#comment-151797</link>
		<dc:creator>dunnage</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 20:52:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=21151#comment-151797</guid>
		<description>When yesterday&#039;s numbers suggest stocks need to go down to match past major recessions, and forward looking numbers are going down as we write -- well, I&#039;m not confused.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When yesterday&#8217;s numbers suggest stocks need to go down to match past major recessions, and forward looking numbers are going down as we write &#8212; well, I&#8217;m not confused.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark E Hoffer</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/review-the-fed-models-flawed-valuation/comment-page-1/#comment-151786</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark E Hoffer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 20:08:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=21151#comment-151786</guid>
		<description>http://www.ici.org/stats/mf/retmrkt_update.pdf

3Q &#039;008 update on &#039;retirement fund&#039; biz, incl. 401(k)

from an academic research POV: http://w4.stern.nyu.edu/salomon/docs/assetmanagement/asset_management_abstracts.htm</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.ici.org/stats/mf/retmrkt_update.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.ici.org/stats/mf/retmrkt_update.pdf</a></p>
<p>3Q &#8217;008 update on &#8216;retirement fund&#8217; biz, incl. 401(k)</p>
<p>from an academic research POV: <a href="http://w4.stern.nyu.edu/salomon/docs/assetmanagement/asset_management_abstracts.htm" rel="nofollow">http://w4.stern.nyu.edu/salomon/docs/assetmanagement/asset_management_abstracts.htm</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark E Hoffer</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/review-the-fed-models-flawed-valuation/comment-page-1/#comment-151785</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark E Hoffer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 20:02:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=21151#comment-151785</guid>
		<description>Clem, 

try this, as well:  http://www.ici.org/stats/mf/index.html#TopOfPage

ICI is the industry organ..

http://www.ici.org/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Clem, </p>
<p>try this, as well:  <a href="http://www.ici.org/stats/mf/index.html#TopOfPage" rel="nofollow">http://www.ici.org/stats/mf/index.html#TopOfPage</a></p>
<p>ICI is the industry organ..</p>
<p><a href="http://www.ici.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ici.org/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Barry</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/review-the-fed-models-flawed-valuation/comment-page-1/#comment-151770</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Barry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 19:23:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=21151#comment-151770</guid>
		<description>@Clem:

This article has a lot of info for you...from LA Times:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2009/01/401k-wall-stree.html

Highlights:

Boston-based Fidelity, the administrator for 401(k) plans covering more than 11 million workers at 17,100 companies, said the average plan balance tumbled to $50,200 last year from $69,200 in 2007.

The totals include contributions workers made during the year. So actual investment losses were worse than the 27% drop in the average balance. The average U.S. stock mutual fund slid 36% for the year; the average foreign stock fund plunged 44%.

Still, most people continued to add to their accounts in the fourth quarter, even as markets dived, Fidelity said.

Fidelity’s survey also found that just 6.1% of plan participants made exchanges among investment options in the fourth quarter, suggesting that there was no rush out of stock funds and into safer options.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Clem:</p>
<p>This article has a lot of info for you&#8230;from LA Times:</p>
<p><a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2009/01/401k-wall-stree.html" rel="nofollow">http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2009/01/401k-wall-stree.html</a></p>
<p>Highlights:</p>
<p>Boston-based Fidelity, the administrator for 401(k) plans covering more than 11 million workers at 17,100 companies, said the average plan balance tumbled to $50,200 last year from $69,200 in 2007.</p>
<p>The totals include contributions workers made during the year. So actual investment losses were worse than the 27% drop in the average balance. The average U.S. stock mutual fund slid 36% for the year; the average foreign stock fund plunged 44%.</p>
<p>Still, most people continued to add to their accounts in the fourth quarter, even as markets dived, Fidelity said.</p>
<p>Fidelity’s survey also found that just 6.1% of plan participants made exchanges among investment options in the fourth quarter, suggesting that there was no rush out of stock funds and into safer options.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clem Stone</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/review-the-fed-models-flawed-valuation/comment-page-1/#comment-151747</link>
		<dc:creator>Clem Stone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:45:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=21151#comment-151747</guid>
		<description>Does anyone have access to 401-k data?  I think it would be very informative to know what people are doing with their 401-k investments.  In other words, have they bailed out of stock funds yet?  I&#039;m guessing not, but who knows.

Shouldn&#039;t this data be available somewhere?  Either from employers or whoever runs the employer 401-k plans?    Seems like it would be very easy to track the investment changes at one large company and get a good idea of what employees are doing throughout the country.

Re: the Fed Model...i think Jim Stack has put the dagger in that theory more than a few times.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Does anyone have access to 401-k data?  I think it would be very informative to know what people are doing with their 401-k investments.  In other words, have they bailed out of stock funds yet?  I&#8217;m guessing not, but who knows.</p>
<p>Shouldn&#8217;t this data be available somewhere?  Either from employers or whoever runs the employer 401-k plans?    Seems like it would be very easy to track the investment changes at one large company and get a good idea of what employees are doing throughout the country.</p>
<p>Re: the Fed Model&#8230;i think Jim Stack has put the dagger in that theory more than a few times.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

