<?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: Historical Data Disproves &#8220;Trough P/E Multiple on Trough Earnings&#8221; Myth</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.peridotcapitalist.com/2009/03/historical-data-disproves-trough-pe-multiple-on-trough-earnings-myth.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.peridotcapitalist.com/2009/03/historical-data-disproves-trough-pe-multiple-on-trough-earnings-myth.html</link>
	<description>Stock market and investing blog published by Chad Brand, Founder/President of Peridot Capital</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:26:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Typical Stock Market Valuations at Secular Bear Market Bottoms &#8211; P/E Ratio and Earnings — The Contrary Investing Report</title>
		<link>http://www.peridotcapitalist.com/2009/03/historical-data-disproves-trough-pe-multiple-on-trough-earnings-myth.html/comment-page-1#comment-2764</link>
		<dc:creator>Typical Stock Market Valuations at Secular Bear Market Bottoms &#8211; P/E Ratio and Earnings — The Contrary Investing Report</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:55:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.peridotcapitalist.com/?p=1228#comment-2764</guid>
		<description>[...] Founder and President of Peridot Capital Management, wrote a VERY timely piece on March 6, 2009 denouncing the &#8220;trough P/E multiple on trough earnings myth.&#8221; Doug Kass, a hedge fund manager dedicated to short selling and frequent guest on CNBC, made a call [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Founder and President of Peridot Capital Management, wrote a VERY timely piece on March 6, 2009 denouncing the &#8220;trough P/E multiple on trough earnings myth.&#8221; Doug Kass, a hedge fund manager dedicated to short selling and frequent guest on CNBC, made a call [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jason</title>
		<link>http://www.peridotcapitalist.com/2009/03/historical-data-disproves-trough-pe-multiple-on-trough-earnings-myth.html/comment-page-1#comment-1752</link>
		<dc:creator>jason</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:18:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.peridotcapitalist.com/?p=1228#comment-1752</guid>
		<description>umm, looks like this fund manager guy was right. time for a prospectus!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>umm, looks like this fund manager guy was right. time for a prospectus!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chad Brand</title>
		<link>http://www.peridotcapitalist.com/2009/03/historical-data-disproves-trough-pe-multiple-on-trough-earnings-myth.html/comment-page-1#comment-1439</link>
		<dc:creator>Chad Brand</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 17:20:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.peridotcapitalist.com/?p=1228#comment-1439</guid>
		<description>Nathan,
I don&#039;t know if historical earnings estimates for that long ago are available. I suspect not, but would be happy to be proved wrong. Without them though, we can&#039;t really test your theory.

As for inflation&#039;s effect on P/E&#039;s, I think interest rates are more relevent there. Whether investors choose stocks or bonds has a lot to do with expected return, so if interest rates are low, stocks will be more attractive than bonds even with high inflation. 

It&#039;s not a perfect model for sure, but I think the data does debunk the idea that we should think fair value on the S&amp;P 500 today is 350-400 ($50 times 7-8).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nathan,<br />
I don&#8217;t know if historical earnings estimates for that long ago are available. I suspect not, but would be happy to be proved wrong. Without them though, we can&#8217;t really test your theory.</p>
<p>As for inflation&#8217;s effect on P/E&#8217;s, I think interest rates are more relevent there. Whether investors choose stocks or bonds has a lot to do with expected return, so if interest rates are low, stocks will be more attractive than bonds even with high inflation. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s not a perfect model for sure, but I think the data does debunk the idea that we should think fair value on the S&amp;P 500 today is 350-400 ($50 times 7-8).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nathan</title>
		<link>http://www.peridotcapitalist.com/2009/03/historical-data-disproves-trough-pe-multiple-on-trough-earnings-myth.html/comment-page-1#comment-1432</link>
		<dc:creator>Nathan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:40:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.peridotcapitalist.com/?p=1228#comment-1432</guid>
		<description>Chad,

I’d suggest that for two reasons your trough P/E analysis is not quite “apples to apples,” given that the data represent Dec. 31 closing price and LTM reported earnings.

First, generally speaking equities trade on future expectations rather than events in the past.  To accurately represent S&amp;P500 valuation at any year-end we need to use forward earnings estimates, not reported numbers.  This data would not necessarily yield the same conclusion.  I don’t have access to these historical projections, but let’s consider the implications.

For instance, take the ’73/’74 crash, which began Jan. 11, 1973.  This Time article was published Jan. 8: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910532,00.html.  Needless to say forward expectations were optimistic until days before the crash.  If you were calculating the forward multiple at year-end 1972 it would be considerably lower than 19.1x due to grossly inflated expected earnings.  Similarly, the forward multiple at year-end 1974 would in all likelihood be well above 7.3x, as mid-crash expectations for 1975 would probably be south of the actual post-crash report of $7.71.  The upshot is that when using the appropriate valuation approach, your conclusion may not hold.

Second, you compare a relative multiple (“trough P/E”) to a nominal price (“trough earnings”), and conclude that they are not simultaneous.  This is not an apt comparison because P/E is independent of inflation, while nominal earnings are not.  Furthermore, from a valuation standpoint the market will pay less for high reported and projected earnings if it fears high inflation.  In the two “trough P/E” years, 1974 and 1981, inflation was 11% and 10% respectively – near peak for each timeframe.

- Nathan</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chad,</p>
<p>I’d suggest that for two reasons your trough P/E analysis is not quite “apples to apples,” given that the data represent Dec. 31 closing price and LTM reported earnings.</p>
<p>First, generally speaking equities trade on future expectations rather than events in the past.  To accurately represent S&amp;P500 valuation at any year-end we need to use forward earnings estimates, not reported numbers.  This data would not necessarily yield the same conclusion.  I don’t have access to these historical projections, but let’s consider the implications.</p>
<p>For instance, take the ’73/’74 crash, which began Jan. 11, 1973.  This Time article was published Jan. 8: <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910532,00.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910532,00.html</a>.  Needless to say forward expectations were optimistic until days before the crash.  If you were calculating the forward multiple at year-end 1972 it would be considerably lower than 19.1x due to grossly inflated expected earnings.  Similarly, the forward multiple at year-end 1974 would in all likelihood be well above 7.3x, as mid-crash expectations for 1975 would probably be south of the actual post-crash report of $7.71.  The upshot is that when using the appropriate valuation approach, your conclusion may not hold.</p>
<p>Second, you compare a relative multiple (“trough P/E”) to a nominal price (“trough earnings”), and conclude that they are not simultaneous.  This is not an apt comparison because P/E is independent of inflation, while nominal earnings are not.  Furthermore, from a valuation standpoint the market will pay less for high reported and projected earnings if it fears high inflation.  In the two “trough P/E” years, 1974 and 1981, inflation was 11% and 10% respectively – near peak for each timeframe.</p>
<p>- Nathan</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bear Market Valuation Indicators? &#124; Income Trust &#124; Personal Finance &#124; Real Estate SEO</title>
		<link>http://www.peridotcapitalist.com/2009/03/historical-data-disproves-trough-pe-multiple-on-trough-earnings-myth.html/comment-page-1#comment-1410</link>
		<dc:creator>Bear Market Valuation Indicators? &#124; Income Trust &#124; Personal Finance &#124; Real Estate SEO</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:47:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.peridotcapitalist.com/?p=1228#comment-1410</guid>
		<description>[...] science and applying past trough P/E ratios to today’s trough earnings may not be appropriate. The Peridot Capitalist points out that in 1974, the S&amp;P 500 had a P/E of 7 but earnings were at record highs for the time. I’ve never heard of the dividend yield on the Dow [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] science and applying past trough P/E ratios to today’s trough earnings may not be appropriate. The Peridot Capitalist points out that in 1974, the S&#38;P 500 had a P/E of 7 but earnings were at record highs for the time. I’ve never heard of the dividend yield on the Dow [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

