S&P 500 Sept 9, 2019

[Thailand J]

S&P 500 Index at last market closing : 2987
Forward 12 months earnings=177.22
P/E = 2987/177.22 =16.8, higher then 10 yr average of 14.8, but lower then what it was in 2016 and 2017.

 

2020 earning is estimated to be 183.35 compared to 164.61 in 2019, about 11% growth, much better then the historic rate of 5-7% since 1978.

 

S&P 500 Index returns:
+ 20.24% since January 2019
+ 14% since January 2018
+ 38% since January 2017.
A wild ride through high volatility since January 2018 but impressive longterm performance nevertheless.

 

Yaderni S&P Weekly Fundamental: https://www.yardeni.com/pub/peacockfeval.pdf
Growth Path https://www.yardeni.com/pub/spxgrowthpath.pdf
Charts https://stockcharts.com/freecharts/

 

 

 

 

 

[fletchsmile]

I wouldn't say under 3 years is long term.

 

I'm also more impressed with the performance records of my actively managed holdings in Baillie Gifford American and T.Rowe. US Large Cap rather than something like Vanguard's S&P500 tracker 

 

5 years:

BG: +191.7%

TSR: +161.5%

S&P500: 117.6%

(all rebased to GBP)

 

Cheers

Fletch :)

 

BG_TSR_S&P500 Compare.pdf

[fletchsmile]

BTW On US markets generally:

 

Why did you post only P/Es and EPs going back to 2000. But then post the S&P from only 2017?

 

Had you done so with the S&P Index going back to 2000, you would have seen that:

 

1 Jan 2000 S&P500 = 1,469

31 Dec 2012 S&P500 = 1,426

So after 12 years it was lower than when it started.

Only in the 13th year and onwards did it start picking up

 

Today it is around 2,980 give or take.

 

So that means that nearly 19 years later S&P is only about double where it started from. 

 

If you used charts that were consistent in time frame with the first couple you did. That wouldn't look impressive. Not really a balanced picture to show differing time frames.

 

This decade has been nice for the US. Last decade was a lost decade and terrible performance. Overall this century across the two decades (one possible long term view), S&P has been far from impressive.

 

Great last few years though ????  

 

 

 

 

 

[Thailand J]

23 hours ago, fletchsmile said:

I wouldn't say under 3 years is long term.

 

I'm also more impressed with the performance records of my actively managed holdings in Baillie Gifford American and T.Rowe. US Large Cap rather than something like Vanguard's S&P500 tracker 

 

5 years:

BG: +191.7%

TSR: +161.5%

S&P500: 117.6%

(all rebased to GBP)

 

Cheers

Fletch :)

 

BG_TSR_S&P500 Compare.pdf 78.7 kB · 1 download

If you prefer managed fund you should invest in managed fund instead of S&p 500 index.

Most managed fund failed to beat S&P500 consistently.

Dispite of the turbulant 2018 S&P500 return impresive 3 yr return. I am pleased.

[Thailand J]

19 hours ago, fletchsmile said:

BTW On US markets generally:

 

Why did you post only P/Es and EPs going back to 2000. But then post the S&P from only 2017?

 

Had you done so with the S&P Index going back to 2000, you would have seen that:

 

1 Jan 2000 S&P500 = 1,469

31 Dec 2012 S&P500 = 1,426

So after 12 years it was lower than when it started.

Only in the 13th year and onwards did it start picking up

 

Today it is around 2,980 give or take.

 

So that means that nearly 19 years later S&P is only about double where it started from. 

 

If you used charts that were consistent in time frame with the first couple you did. That wouldn't look impressive. Not really a balanced picture to show differing time frames.

 

This decade has been nice for the US. Last decade was a lost decade and terrible performance. Overall this century across the two decades (one possible long term view), S&P has been far from impressive.

 

Great last few years though ????  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S&p500 was only 500 in 1995.

The market went through two major catastrophic events from 2000-2012: The dot com bubble bust and the real estate collapse.

Obviously S&P 500 is not your choice of investment. You've pick the worst time frame to offer a skewed view.

 

 

[fletchsmile]

On 9/10/2019 at 4:17 PM, Thailand J said:

 

 

S&p500 was only 500 in 1995.

The market went through two major catastrophic events from 2000-2012: The dot com bubble bust and the real estate collapse.

Obviously S&P 500 is not your choice of investment. You've pick the worst time frame to offer a skewed view.

 

 

No. I didn't pick the worst time to offer a skewed view. I picked a time frame that was consistent with your first chart.

 

It was your charts that were skewed to highlight the good points only  So only fair for someone to highlight what happens if consistent data was presented to avoid misleading people

 

Your first chart showed the P/E s as at start of 2000 to today. This would make S&P look cheap compared to the starting point you chose of 2000. 

= of course today looks cheap compared to your start of 2000, because 2000 was significantly overvalued and just before markets crashed. Very unfair to compare to today

 

You then jumped forward 3 to start your EPS chart at 2003. 

= No doubt to avoid showing what happened to earnings in those intervening 3 years when your dot.com and RE came in and EPS dropped LOL

Had you more honestly shown 2000 onwards again it would have been fairer

 

Your last chart then cherry-picked a time frame of the last 3 years, and called it "long term performance" LOL

= Again your choice of end of 2016 start 2017 gives a more favourably skewed view compared to say end of end 2014/ start of 2015 which would have been a less steep rise.

Plus: 5 years-ish is more reasonable to call longer term performance than 3 years if long equity investing. Even then 5 years is just scraping what most people would think of as the beginning of even starting to call long term

 

So basically you presented 3 skewed charts and time frames to stretch a point and claim impressive long term performance   LOL

 

(The 40 year chart BTW has some meaning. But being non-coterminous with the other 3 tends to be somewhat irrelevant)

 

-----------------------------------------------

 

BTW I've nothing against the S&P 500. I largely avoided anything to do with it last decade. But this decade exposure to it has been useful and continues to be so in the environment we are in at the moment ????

 

I have a core US exposure via a US index tracker. But as said I prefer the 2 actively managed funds exposures I have to either S&P 500 or the tracker.

 

 

[fletchsmile]

On 9/10/2019 at 4:03 PM, Thailand J said:

If you prefer managed fund you should invest in managed fund instead of S&p 500 index.

Most managed fund failed to beat S&P500 consistently.

Dispite of the turbulant 2018 S&P500 return impresive 3 yr return. I am pleased.

Indeed. Don't invest in most managed mutual funds. There are over 10,000 and that would be a bit silly

 

Be selective if choosing active managed funds. I would avoid well over 90% of them.

 

If a novice investor or not willing to put the time and effort in then trackers are fine, low cost vehicles.

 

Glad you're pleased with your 3 years. That's the main thing for any investor ????

[swissie]

All fine and good. But stocks and precious metals can not move in the same direction indefinitely. Both fueled by "Helicopter-Money". Sooner or later something will prove to be massively "overpriced".

What will it be?