Skip to main content

Stock market getting cheaper (relative to bonds)

Several indicators are signaling an increase in the probability of a recession. Most of these indicators are variables that have shown to be statistically leading the recession but they cannot always be seen as the cause of one (for example, an inverted yield curve)

In the search of a cause for a recession we typically look for imbalances. One that has mattered in the past is asset price bubbles. Standard valuation metrics of the stock market suggest that in the last quarters the market has gotten cheaper and moved further away from bubble territory. The Financial Times reports that US companies dividend yield is now larger than the interest rates on a 30 year government bond (see image below). This is not at all a new phenomenon in Europe where the dividend yield has been larger than the interest rate on bonds for years and is now reaching record levels.



A good way to summarize the improvement in the valuation of stocks is to calculate the ex-ante risk premium. The image below shows the risk premium for the US stock market (S&P 500) from 1991 until today (see sources and methodology at the end of this post).


The risk premium has climbed back up to levels (around 4%) that are average for the post-2008 period and significantly higher than in previous decades (high risk premium means that stocks look cheaper relative to bonds - assuming risk attitudes or perceptions are not changing).

What is more significant is that the risk premium is much larger than in the quarters prior to the previous two recessions. In the quarters prior to the 2001Q1 recession the risk premium was negative. In the quarters prior to the 2007Q4 recession the risk premium was falling and below 2% for several quarters. We are now at 4%, far away from any of those magnitudes.

Similar calculations for Europe produce an even "cheaper" stock market (relative to bonds). P/E ratios are as low as 19 for Germany. Combined with a -0.7% yield on a 10 year government bond and assuming inflation around 1.5% means a risk premium of 7.5%. Almost as high as during the panic years of the last crisis (2009) in the US.


Antonio Fatas

____

Methodology: under certain assumptions the expected ex-ante real return of the stock market can be approximated by the inverse of the P/E ratio. The risk premium can then be calculated as the difference between this magnitude and the real yield on a 10-year government bond. See Blanchard and Gagnon for alternative calculations of the risk premium.

Sources of data: P/E ratios and nominal 10-year interest rates from Robert Shiller; forecasts of inflation from the survey of professional forecasters posted at the Philadelphia Fed.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What Happens When You Drink Enough Water

Tridona Bestsellers If you’re reading this: Drink a glass of water. You likely need it, as 75 percent of Americans are described as “chronically dehydrated.” While achieving a state of hydration might seem enviable and impossible, fret not because it’s doable. And the health benefits are not only encouraging, but they are also downright inspiring in the immediate short term, but especially in the long run. “Long-term hydration is the single best thing we can do to prevent chronic illness,” says Dr. Dana Cohen, an integrative medicine specialist in New York and coauthor of Quench: Beat Fatigue, Drop Weight, and Heal Your Body Through the New Science of Optimum Hydration . Though the eight-cup rule is popular, there is no one-size-fits-all number. Instead, it’s more of an individual approach. The new general rule of thumb is half your weight in ounces, according to Dr. Cohen. For example, if you weigh 120 pounds, you need to drink 60 ounces of water a day.
Post a Comment
Read more

The permanent scars of fiscal consolidation

The effect that fiscal consolidation has on GDP growth has probably generated more controversy than any other economic debate since the start of the 2008 crisis. How large are fiscal multipliers? Can fiscal contractions be expansionary? Last year, Olivier Blanchard and Daniel Leigh at the IMF produced a paper that claimed that the IMF and other international organizations had underestimated the size of fiscal policy multipliers . The paper argued that the assumed multiplier of about 0.5 was too low and that the right number was about 1.5 (the way you think about this number is the $ impact on GDP of a $1 fiscal policy contraction). While that number is already large, it is possible that the true costs of fiscal consolidations are much larger. In a recent research project (draft coming soon) I have been looking at the effects that fiscal consolidations have on potential GDP. Why is this an interesting topic? Because it happens to be that during the last 5 years we have been seriously re...
Post a Comment
Read more

The permanent scars of economic pessimism

Gavyn Davies at the Financial Times reflects on the growing pessimism of Central Banks regarding the growth potential of advanced economies. In the US, the Euro area or the UK, central banks are reducing their estimates of the output gap. They now think about some of the recent output losses as permanent as opposed to cyclical. It output is not far from what we consider to be potential, there is less need for central banks to act and it is more likely that we will see an earlier normalization of monetary policy towards a neutral stance. Why did they change their mind? Is this evidence consistent with the standard economic models that we use to think about cyclical developments? Measuring potential output or the slack in the economy has always been challenging. One can rely on models that capture the factors that drive potential output (such as the capital stock or productivity or demographics) or one can look at more specific indicators of idle capacity, such as capacity utilization or...
Post a Comment
Read more