SALTA, ARGENTINA – Today, we write about corporate earnings.

Unless you’re playing the game of “greater fool” – buying in the hope that someone out there is willing to pay a higher price – the only reason to buy a stock is for its earnings.

As a shareholder, you participate in the business’s profits. All else being equal, as earnings rise, so do stock prices.

Weighing Machine

Investors have their moments of darkness and their periods of euphoria.

Over the short term, this changes the “multiple” investors are willing to pay for each dollar of earnings.

When investors expect higher future earnings, price-to-earnings (P/E) ratios rise. When they expect lower earnings ahead, P/E ratios fall.

But when all is said and done, hope and despair give way to the reality of earnings. You pay for a stock. You expect to get some money back.

Over the long run, stock markets rise and fall, more or less… sort of… on earnings.

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett famously described the stock market as a “voting machine” over the short run… and a “weighing machine” over the long run.

Earnings are what investors are putting on the scales.

According to figures from Yale economist Robert Shiller, over the history of the S&P 500, investors have paid an average of $15.65 for each dollar of underlying earnings.

With the S&P 500 trading at 25.4 times earnings, investors today are willing to pay 60% more than the historical average for each buck of earnings.

Fed Model

Is that “too high”?

The so-called Fed model – which compares how much investors are willing to pay for stock market earnings to how much they’re willing to pay for income on long-term government bonds – tells investors not to worry about it.

Because interest rates are so low, it makes sense that stocks should be high. If you have to pay $40 for every dollar of earnings from a government bond, you shouldn’t mind paying $25 for a dollar of corporate earnings.

That’s the theory.

But government bond yields are low because the Fed pushed them down by diktat. This pushed up the amount investors were willing to pay for stocks without any need for increased earnings.

Ultimately, prices are the only reliable measure of what a stock is worth. But they are subject to change without notice.

And when investors get around to “weighing” earnings, they are likely to begin selling stocks.

Accounting Tricks

Years ago, when we were still young, naïve, and intelligent, we asked our company accountant a simple question: “How much money did we make last year?”

“How much do you want to make?” came the follow-up question.

Then, and even more so now, accountants could bend the numbers as much as a government statistician.

A “9” can be turned on its head so it becomes a “6.” A “5” can be straightened into a “1.” A “3” can be welded to another “3”… and turned into an “8.”

You get the idea. Numbers don’t lie. But if you beat on them hard enough, they’ll tell any tale you want to hear.

Over the last 17 years, corporate earnings have been hammered from both directions: Revenues have been pounded up… and costs have been smashed down.

In the 1990s, the SEC (the stock market regulator) changed the rules, allowing corporations to express their earnings in more imaginative ways.

It permitted them to take out of their operating costs items that they regard as “special” or “non-recurring.” This leaves them substantial latitude to increase “earnings” using accounting tricks.

According to one estimate, if earnings since 1999 were expressed using the old-fashioned rules, half the increases of the 21st century would disappear.

That would leave P/E ratios even more out of whack. Based on honest earnings, the P/E ratio for the S&P 500 might be 30 or 40… putting the stock market in dizzy, dippy, disastrously overvalued territory.

Flat Earnings

Not only do corporate accountants distort the figures; so does the phony-money system.

Like everything else, company earnings have been flattered by the Fed’s cheap credit.

Auto companies, for example, were able to use cheap credit to sell more cars and trucks. Universities and colleges used cheap loans from the feds to increase student debt. The oil industry used cheap loans to buy more rigs and pump more oil.

All of these things ended up as additional sales and profits on corporate reports.

Cheap credit also drove up stock prices in a more direct way. Corporations borrowed cheap money to buy back their shares.

When companies buy back their shares, they cancel them.

This reduces the overall share count and increases the earnings per share of the remaining shares. Stock prices go up without the need for higher earnings.

If the numerator won’t budge, C-suite execs calculate, we’ll roll the denominator!

But wait…

Despite spending some $2.5 trillion on share buybacks over the last three years…

…despite huge new inputs of buying, selling, investing, and speculating with cheap credit…

…and despite crackerjack accounting folderol, removing billions of dollars’ worth of “ex-items” from the cost side of the ledger…

…earnings per share are lower today than they were in 2013!

So why pay 25 times earnings for stocks?

Beats us.





Market Insight: A Novel Way to “Beat the Indexes”


bill bonner

When is an index not an index?

It’s a question investors have been asking in increasing numbers.

Take the S&P 500…

It’s a “cap-weighted” index. In other words, it allocates the most money to the most valuable companies (the companies with the largest “market cap”).

Right now, the top five of the 500 stocks in the S&P 500 – Apple, Alphabet (Google’s parent company), Microsoft, Facebook, and – make up 13% of the index.

That means the performance of these five companies has an outsized effect on the performance of the S&P 500. If they do well, it tends to do well, and vice versa.

But cap weighting is not the only way to create an index.

A simple alternative is to weight each of the 500 stocks in the S&P 500 equally.

This means smaller, less popular – and less expensive – stocks have a larger influence on the overall performance of the index.

And it’s proved to be a winning strategy.

For example, fund provider Guggenheim Investments launched its S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF (RSP) in 2003.


And as you can see from today’s chart, since then, the equal-weighted S&P 500 gained 258% versus a 162% gain from the cap-weighted S&P 500.

Chris Lowe

Featured Reads

Is Wall Street’s “Fear Gauge” Broken?
Last Thursday, Chris Lowe showed you that the VIX, Wall Street’s “volatility index,” was reaching historic lows. Are stock markets in calm seas? Or is the VIX on the fritz?

How to “Teleport” Your Life Savings
In case of an emergency, how would you flee with your wealth? Gold and cash would likely be confiscated. But colleague Greg Wilson shows how to “teleport” your life savings with the click of a mouse.


Today, readers respond to Bill’s comparison of Donald Trump’s America to the Spanish Empire of the 16th century.

And what, may I ask, is a “Trumpish” decision, and what does it have to do with any decisions made 600 years ago by the Spanish? I sometimes think you make excellent sense on certain subjects, then you say something so asinine it makes me wonder if you have half the intelligence of those you mock!

– George E.

Enjoyed the article, but I don’t see any connection to America First as used by President Trump. I know that you dislike him, but the article doesn’t support the connection.

– Wesley W.

Meanwhile, one reader proposes a possible answer to why the 21st century has been a big, fat flop

There is a simple and obvious reason for why the 21st century has been a big, fat, flop. The reason for the insane state of the world is human overpopulation.

Hear me out… The world over, we have seen our personal liberties stripped from us by onerous laws and authoritarian politicians. Why? They have to control the herd. If everyone was free to run about, doing whatever they wanted in order to make their lives — and the world — better, we would have chaos.

Just as you and your horses and dogs and gauchos maintain tight control over the cattle, the Deep State use government regulation, the police and their military forces to control the human herd and maintain an order which benefits them.

So, we get authoritarian politicians like “The Donald,” Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un to maintain dominance over us. If we had a world population of, say, 1 billion people, would we be any better off? Would we have more freedom to live our lives as we see fit?

I think so, but who knows? Only God, and He ain’t tellin’.

– Dale A.

In Case You Missed It…

Our colleague Teeka Tiwari has made it his mission to learn everything he can about cryptocurrencies. He’s traveled the globe and met with high-level industry insiders.

Here’s what he discovered…

Teeka believes that three unstoppable trends are pushing the value of cryptocurrencies higher, and 2017 could be the year they really take off. Learn more here.