Introduction
Over
long periods of time, the S&P 500 outperforms most financial assets; but
paradoxically, no one knows its proper price and therefore its projected rate
of return.
Existing economics either assumes that the
“equilibrium” quoted price is always right, and thus there are no markets; or
that its proper price in fluctuating markets is unfathomable.
With one minor change in assumption, our research
demonstrates it is possible to derive the proper price of the S&P 500, and
thus its prospective rate of return, in real financial markets.
Ronald Soong
Horizon Capital Research, Inc.
“Valuation (and therefore investment
rates of return) is the central concept of
finance. While investors believe that the process is difficult and
fraught
with errors and assumptions…valuation (ought to be) approached with
rigor
and care. Without methods to assess value, capital budgeting (investing)
becomes
impossible.”
A
Quote
Portfolio Returns in Real Financial
Markets
This
discussion is about real financial markets, not a market conforming to a
short-term theoretical statistical model nor to a state of equilibrium, with
lots of algebra, but no markets. This discussion is about real portfolios in
real markets, which offer people the opportunities to buy or sell according to
their needs.
Value
investor are concerned not with the short-term technical pattern of asset
prices, but with the long-term value of their investments, which as we shall
show, are best expressed by the rates of return of bonds and by the implicit
rate of return of large, but riskier, portfolios of stocks. This analysis
therefore ties the contingent cash flows of the S&P 500 stock market
directly to the contractual cash flows of the bond markets and then shows the
former ought to be regarded as a markup upon the latter.
Historical
Difference Between Stocks and Bonds
In
portfolio management, stocks and bonds have traditionally been regarded as
separate entities. Stocks were for capital appreciation and bonds were for
income. Stocks have therefore been endowed with a separate aura from the more
traditional and staid bond markets. During the market crash of the 1929, the
stock and bond markets exhibited the following behaviors:
Table I
Comparison of
the Stock and Bond Markets
S&P Stock Index * Earnings/Share Corporate AAA
Bond Rate **
Year
(1941-1943=10) (adj. to index) P/E (Annual Average Yield to Maturity)
1928 24.35 1.38 17.64 4.55
1929 21.45 1.61 13.32 4.73
1930 15.34 .97
4.55
1931 8.12 .61
4.58
1932 6.89 .41
5.01
* “Standard
& Poor’s Security Price Index Record”; 1992 ed.; p. 120.
**
U.S. Census Bureau; Statistical Abstract of the United States 2003; No. HS-39.
If
you were a bond investor you did well enough. If you were a stock investor…. It
is also useful to note that the stock market crash between 1929-1932 was not
caused by an egregiously high market valuation. It was caused by a failure of
the entire international economic system after W.W. I.
Current
Similarities Between Stocks and Bonds
The
actual return of bonds held to maturity can be obtained directly from daily
quotes in the bond market, since bond cash flows are fixed by contract. What
makes the S&P 500, with a risk premium, nearly equivalent to a bond is the fact that it is diversified;
and linked both to the Fed’s monetary policy and to models that trade between
stocks and bonds.
Stocks
consist of 50 % of the U.S. securities market; and the S&P 500 accounts for
79% of that. The index is diversified among eleven industry groups. The Fed’s
administrative control of liquidity affects both the levels of the bond and
stock markets – most timely at this 11/22 writing. Moreover, the commonly used
Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) model assumes stable average returns of stocks
and bonds, in order to then reduce portfolio risk. Given the above, we can
generally say that stock and bond returns are related.
Why
do we choose the S&P 500? There is also a very practical reason. Provided
its entry price is well chosen, (we are value investors), it is one of the best
long-term investments around, partaking of long-term innovation in the economy.
The 12th edition of Professor Burton Malkiel’s
book, “A Random Walk Down Wall Street (2020),” contains the following table:
Table II
Percentage of
Actively Managed Funds
Outperformed by Benchmarks *
One
Year Five Years Fifteen Years
All
Large-Cap Funds vs S&P 500 63.08 84.23 92.33
Global
Funds vs. S&P Global 1200
50.21 77.71 82.47
* Malkiel (2020); p. 177.
The
above table strongly suggests that over the long-term, index funds outperform
managed funds. The above is particularly relevant if you are interested in
other things besides markets and stocks. (We are fascinated by these, but
that’s us.)
We
think the long-term superiority of the index is simply due to its
diversification among different industries, and thus tricky sector rotation is
not necessary. Professor Malkiel writes, “Every time
I do a revision of this book, the results are similar (to the above).…(but)
What (Efficient Market Hypothesis) implies is that no one knows for sure if stock
prices are too high or too low.” (p.p. 177,181) So what we have is a outperforming asset, whose realized returns and volatility
(risk) are known, but whose price for a prospective required return is not.
It
is possible to use the principles of corporate finance to derive this price for
a single stock. It is also possible to use the same principles to derive the
required price for the S&P 500, with just one minor change in assumption.
It is then possible to compare the long-term returns of the S&P 500 at a
current or required price with those of bonds, whose prices are always known,
and to judge whether this is adequate for the future.
The
Value of the Future
The
MPT model assumes the future will be like the past, some kind of natural law of
average asset returns and Gaussian volatility having been discovered.
The
financial present value model values the future, in real markets. Neither model
nor real market can be “right,” and it is up to the investor to decide whether
the pricing available from real markets is reasonably right for him. The
reason for this subjectivity is simple. Bond markets, and thus interest rates,
vary all over the place; depending upon circumstances. Markets are sort of like
the Grand Central Station, where all economic influences converge.
It is a great advantage for investors to be able to
directly compare the return of bonds in actual markets to the return of the
S&P 500, a portfolio of stocks. We suggest a simple assumption, applicable
to large companies, that converts reported operating earnings according to GAAP
into cash flow. The simple assumption is this: annual capital expenditures (a
cost) approximately equals annual depreciation (an
expense). This simple assumption converts earnings into cash flow, that can
then be used to value the S&P 500.
S&P 500 Operating
Earnings
Standard & Poors
publishes detailed earnings estimates of the S&P 500, that is used in
finance as a diversified reference portfolio. Crucial to this, that we show per
S&P report, Table I,
is the distinction between “operating” and “as reported” earnings. One would
normally think of “operating earnings” as the direct costs on the factory floor
of producing goods, excluding corporate overheads such as interest paid on
debt, marketing costs, r&d and so on. However,
the intent of the S&P definition is to exclude only extraordinary items
such as fixed asset writedowns and gains or losses on
the sale of assets. This enables the summation of diverse company results into
a single figure, S&P 500 operating earnings that includes the cost of
leverage.
For large companies, yearly capital
expenditures approximately equals annual depreciation.
Therefore S&P 500 operating earnings approximately equals S&P 500 cash
flow available to shareholders. This emphasis on cash flow is crucial, because
it also enables the assumptions of company level corporate finance to be
applied to the valuation of the S&P 500. We can then simply capitalize
annual S&P 500 operating earnings.
The Operating Earnings
Yield Model
But how? Remember that the duration
(payback) period of a stock is approximately 36+ years. This implies that in a
fluctuating economy, one year earnings results, which
we will also discuss later, are less accurate than some form of long-term
average. In 1988, Yale economist Robert Shiller published “Stock Price, Earnings and Expected Dividends.”
Campbell and Shiller found, “Long historical averages of real earnings help
forecast present values of future real dividends (i.e. stock prices factoring out inflation).” This is the
famous CAPE (cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings ratio model). Those who are
further interested in how we derived the level of the S&P 500, or who would
like to do the calculation themselves, click here.
The 8/22/22 level of the S&P
500 is 4138.
The calculated level of the S&P 500
a/o 8/22/22 for a 7% annual return: P = (10
year average operating earnings/annual return) X 1.33
Ps&p
500 = (137.78/.07) X 1.33 = 2617
As we shall see, a 7% annual rate of
return is what is reasonably required to compensate investors for the long-term
risk of investing in equities.
The Gordon Model
It is a tenet of corporate finance that the total
value of the company to shareholders equals the present value of the stream of
dividends it produces, discounted at the rate of return required by investors
(a cost of equity capital to a company). For companies with a constant growth
in dividends, the Gordon model discounts those dividends back to the present.
Thus:
Ps&p 500 = __kE__ = .3573
X 220.53/(.07-.04) = 2626
( r – g)
P = price
k = the dividend payout
ratio=.3573 per NYU Stern School S&P statistics 2000-2020.
E = S&P operating
earnings=220.53 per S&P report, Table I. Calculated dividends
= $71.64. Actual dividends =
$64.80
r = the
rate of return of the investment=7%
g = the
rate of growth in dividends (earnings)=2% real + 2% inflation
We first encountered this model in a
stock market course; it struck us as very difficult to implement because what
do you assume for (r), what do you assume for (g), and where do you find (k)?
What this model requires is an interpretation in context, and that context is
the realities of real financial markets. As in the above, we assume for
economic growth 2% real and 2% inflation and that investment rates of return
should be a 1% markup over the 10 year bond rate of
return.
At a 7% rate of return, the two models
are within 0.34% of each other. We prefer the first model because it is
not dependent upon current dividend statistics. The dividend may be cut, as it was
in 2009, in the event of a severe recession. Both models show that
the current 8/22/22 level of the S&P 500 = 4138 is very unrealistic.
The Context of Markets
Both present value models need to
operate within the context of the economy and markets. On 8/22/22 here is how
equity looks according to the first model:
Table III
Logical
Expectation 8/22/22 Actual
Market 8/22/22
2% Policy Rate
2.33%
2% 10 year treasury premium
.70%
2% BAA
corporate bond premium
2.24%
1%* Equity risk premium (S&P
500=4138) ( .85%)
7% 4.42%
In response to Fed policy rate increases, the 10 year treasury is beginning to invert; and market traders
(and computers) are buying the dips. Markets are apparently assuming a return
of the low interest rate, low inflation, low growth environment of the past.
The Fed policy rate is currently way below the current 5.90% rate of inflation
in the core CPI, that excludes food and energy.
The Effect of Inflation
Another
advantage of a quantitative method to evaluate the S&P 500 is to analyze
the effect of unanticipated inflation. If the central banks were to tolerate a
4% inflation, rather than a 2% inflation, the further effect of this upon the
equilibrium value of the S&P 500 would, for most people, negate a
substantial lifetime of work.
8/22/22
current level of the S&P 500 = 4138
Predicted
level with a 2% inflation = 2617, 7% return.
Predicted
level with a 4% inflation = 2036, 9% return.
A
9% return sounds great, if you neglect inflation, but the predicted level of
the S&P must drop by another 22%; the factors ROC/R and LTG/R remain close
to their former values.
Portfolio
Spending
From
Keynes onward, it has been noted although stocks are clearly very long-term
assets, with a payback duration of over 36 years, their pricing in markets is
very short-term. If portfolios are structured
for the long-term, then a longer-term view is necessary. That longer-term
portfolio view, particularly for those interested in other things, is inflation
protected income – stocks for long run inflation protection.
The
bond markets, but not yet the stock market, are beginning to make it possible
for a 50/50 portfolio to reach a cash return of around 4%, which can be either
spent or saved. We are therefore now concerned with bond interest rather than
stock market dividends, which presently refer to a different world. The 4% rule
generally applies to portfolios managed in the U.S. or the U.K. which have
similar economic systems. This article
from the 5/8/15 NYT indicates that Bill Bengen, a
former financial planner and M.I.T. aerospace graduate, has worked out the
implications of this rule, with the provision that the future will be like the
past. In dealing with the present, this 4/19/22 WSJ article
writes that he is now mainly in cash. The rule-of-thumb is exactly equal to our
assumption for long-term economic growth – 2% inflation and 2% real. Stated in
terms of our model, the remaining balance of the portfolio (2% inflation and 2%
real) should last a long time, provided the U.S. economic system does not fall
apart due to great changes. Our 50/50 portfolio should eventually look like
this:
Table
IV
Asset Cash Return Weight Portfolio Cash Return
Bond 5.5% 50%
2.75%
Stock 2.5% * 50% 1.25%
4.00%
* S&P at 2617 a/o 8/22/22.
In real markets, we may be a few
10ths of a percent off; and the
S&P dividend level of $64.80
may be temporarily cut.
When
to Buy and Hold
The
following graph from Minack Advisors is really useful, for it charts the entire
S&P 500 in terms of Professor Shiller’s cyclically adjusted earnings model. It shows that most of
the time, say 90%, the conventional mantra of staying invested and adding to
one’s stock investments is correct – when the cyclically adjusted P/E is less
than 24. But when the CAPE P/E is greater than 24 (10% of the time, and
provided the economy does not change drastically from the past) we would not
add to our stock holdings and would think of trimming back; even though the
market might be soaring. With inflation now out of control, we are now in the
throes of a large market correction.
Conclusion
This study places the S&P
500 in the context of the bond markets, and thus its prospective rate of return
to investors. We hope that this has been helpful to you.
We encourage you to speak
with a qualified financial advisor about your specific situation.