Shiller P/E Bottoms Coincide with Major Lows, Downtrend Breaks Precede Rallies

Click for ginormous chart
Chart
Source: Merrill Lynch

 

Nice chart from Stephen Suttmeier & Co looking at how the Shiller P/E ratio compares to regular P/E at major lows, downtrend breaks, and before rallies:

The good news is that secular trading ranges lead to better valuations that limit late stage secular trading range pullbacks. So don’t panic – we don’t expect anything like the 2000 or 2008/2009 period. Note that during periods of market consolidation valuation levels as measured by price/earnings multiple reaches extreme cheapness – 5.3x December 1917, 5.8x June 1949, 6.8x April 1980 and so far 13.5x in September 2011. An important point is that the market bottoms before the price-earnings multiple does.

The Shiller Price to earnings ratio is based on average inflation-adjusted earnings from the previous ten years. Major bottoms for the P/E ratio coincided with major lows in 1920, 1932, 1982, and 2009. Breaks above the longer-term downtrend line in the Shiller P/E have preceded market rallies and higher valuations. These downtrend line breaks occurred in 1922, 1945, 1951, 1983, and 2011

Good stuff . . .

 

 

Source:
Stephen Suttmeier, MacNeil Curry, Jue Xiong
BOA Merrill Lynch, September 10, 2013

Category: Technical Analysis, Valuation

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

4 Responses to “Shiller P/E Bottoms”

  1. dctodd27 says:

    Why show S&P earnings multiples vs. the Dow? Shouldn’t they show vs the S&P? Not a huge difference, I know, but weird, right?

  2. swag says:

    Funny that this post gets tagged as “technical” even when it’s the most constipatedly “fundamental” stat still extant.