- The Big Picture - http://www.ritholtz.com/blog -
Why ‘Peak-Earnings Models’ Are Nonsense
Posted By Barry Ritholtz On January 21, 2014 @ 8:15 am In Earnings,Investing,Really, really bad calls,Valuation | 3 Comments
Lately, there has been a spate of research, analysis and commentary telling us that earnings are at a cyclical high and must revert. Stock valuations, therefore, are elevated and earnings will soon begin to fall, bringing stocks down with them.
This is neither a credible analysis nor a method of valuing equities. Rather, it is an interesting narrative containing two predictions, and generally fails to acknowledge multiple unknowns and variables. (Let’s hold the question of whether anything as complex as the markets can be predicted with a single variable  for another time).
Allow me a few more words to explain. Many of the traditional valuation methods rely on two or more variables. For example, price-to-earnings ratio uses both stock prices and earnings to determine if a company or market is cheap or expensive. This raises the obvious problem — obvious to anyone who is not innumerate — of forecasting one unknown by using a second unknown.
Why is that? . . .
Article printed from The Big Picture: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog
URL to article: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2014/01/why-peak-earnings-models-are-nonsense/
URLs in this post:
 predicted with a single variable: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2005/05/single-vs-multiple-variable-analysis-in-market-forecasts/
 Continues here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-21/why-peak-earnings-models-are-nonsense.html
Copyright © 2008 The Big Picture. All rights reserved.