Buy low, sell high. This simple concept is far from easy because it is often difficult to assess whether or not a potential investment is being offered at a low value or high value. Just ask Rupert Murdoch.
In 2005, his conglomerate News Corp. bought arguably the hottest social media company among young internet users, My Space, for $580 million. Shortly after the purchase, My Space signed a $900 million, three year deal with another internet giant, Google. This got Murdoch, a 20th century media mogul, a wave of publicity as he was lauded for adapting to the rapid change of the digital age and hailed as a 21st century mogul of new media. Advertising revenue at My Space quickly jumped from $1 million to $50 million per month.
Yet only six years later, according to the Financial Times, what had been the top company in social media lost over $500 million in its fiscal year and Murdoch sold it for $35 million, a mere 6% of its purchase price. What had seemed a great value became a bust and a massive loss.
Diversification can keep one from getting wiped out by such poor value assessments about a single stock, but gauging whether the market is under or overvalued is almost an obsession with some of the financial press. There are many measures of valuation in the marketplace which compare the current price to some other data point.
When the P/E ratio is relatively low, people will say that stocks are undervalued and conversely when P/E ratios are high, many will say that stocks are overvalued. If only it were that simple.
The most common valuation method used for stocks is the price earnings multiple or “P/E ratio”. This ratio is calculated and compared to P/E ratios during other time periods or the P/E ratios for other groups of securities. When the P/E ratio is relatively low, people will say that stocks are undervalued and conversely when P/E ratios are high, many will say that stocks are overvalued. If only it were that simple.
First, not all P/E ratios are the same. Obviously, the current price is the same for all forms of P/E ratios. It is the earnings or “E” in the ratio that is problematic. Some P/E ratios quoted will be the price to estimated future earnings. The subjectivity involved with making these estimates is clear. Other P/E ratios compare the price to the prior 12 months earnings. In recent years, more attention has been paid to cyclically adjusted price earnings ratios, or CAPE ratios, which is the current price relative to an average of the earnings over the last 5 or 10 years. This helps smooth the impact of the sometimes volatile changes in the earnings of companies.
For instance, it is quite common for even well-established companies to have periods where profits are low or nonexistent. Such times produce high P/E ratios because the E or earnings are low. Yet these lean times are often followed by prosperous periods for the same companies. Not only will these different methodologies produce different numbers for the P/E ratio, they can be interpreted in vastly different ways.
A recent example of this was highlighted in a presentation by noted economist and Professor Jeremy Siegel at a conference in Orlando put on by TD Ameritrade and attended by several of the Moisand Fitzgerald Tamayo team. Siegel believes that current prices represent a market that is 20% undervalued if high inflation does not strike. If the current low inflation environment persists, he believes the market could rise 50%.
Siegel contrasted this with the assertion of his friend, Dr. Robert Shiller, who believes the market is 30% overvalued. Shiller is the primary advocate of CAPE ratios. The result is we have two well-regarded experts looking at the exact same price level for the market yet coming to radically different conclusions about the market’s prospects.
This isn’t particularly surprising to us as most of the time markets are not clearly undervalued or clearly overvalued and differing opinions abound. Other valuation methods, such as price-to-book and so-called “fundamental” measures like price-to-sales or price-to-revenue, typically produce similar discord among prognosticators. At all times, as we are fond of pointing out, you can’t be a buyer unless you find a seller and you can’t be a seller unless you find a buyer. Difference of opinion is normal and this is a significant reason why trying to time markets is folly. What about the times when markets are “clearly” over or undervalued?
…you can’t be a buyer unless you find a seller and you can’t be a seller unless you find a buyer.
Even points of valuation extremes are not particularly useful as timing mechanisms. When markets are cheap they can stay cheap a long time or continue to get even cheaper. Likewise when markets are expensive, they can continue to rise substantially or stay expensive for a long time. By most measures, stocks had become expensive on a historical basis in early 1996. If one took that as a sell signal, they would have missed out on the four most profitable consecutive years in the history of the US markets.
Since the crisis of 2008, many people have pointed to the historically high prices of US government securities and recommended abandoning these holdings. In fact, Bill Gross, arguably the most famous bond fund manager in the world, sold out of treasuries entirely last year for fear of rising interest rates. Rates did not rise and Gross’ funds dramatically lagged, damaging his reputation as a savvy exploiter of interest-rate changes.
Rather than taking an all or nothing position as a speculator might do, we believe a better way to handle the mixed messages valuation measures can send is to reject behaving like a speculator and embrace acting as a true investor. When stock or bond markets are up, they often demonstrate high valuations. We will not abandon broadly diversified holdings but we will consider reducing exposure to these more expensive segments of the market. Currently, we are lightening up on most US government bonds. In essence, we are taking some profits after we have been rewarded for taking on the risk.
When stock or bond markets fall, they often demonstrate low valuations. In these cases, we do not sell everything else in order to load up on what appears to be cheap asset classes but we will consider increasing our exposure to these more attractively valued segments of the market. In essence, we are committing some additional capital after the risks have shown their ugliness and before the next rise in prices.
Valuation can be important over the long term but relying on any valuation measure as a short term timing mechanism is unreliable. By investing, not speculating, we essentially eliminate unnecessary risks while increasing our clients’ chances of long term profitability and success.
Moisand Fitzgerald Tamayo, LLC is an Orlando, Tampa and Melbourne, Florida based fee-only financial planner serving central Florida and clients across the country. Moisand Fitzgerald Tamayo, LLC specializes in providing objective financial planning, retirement planning, and investment management to help clients build, manage, grow, and protect their assets through all phases of one’s life and the many transitions in between. If you have any questions or would like to discuss anything further, please give us a call or send us a note. If you are not a client and wish to receive emails notifying you of new posts – no more than once per month – fill out the subscription information in the sidebar to the right. For more frequent updates, follow us on Facebook, LinkedIn, or Twitter.
Important Additional Information & Disclosures
Please remember that past performance may not be indicative of future results. Different types of investments involve varying degrees of risk, and there can be no assurance that the future performance of any specific investment, investment strategy, or product (including the investments and/or investment strategies recommended or undertaken by Moisand Fitzgerald Tamayo, LLC-“MFT”), or any non-investment related content, made reference to directly or indirectly in this blog will be profitable, equal any corresponding indicated historical performance level(s), be suitable for your portfolio or individual situation, or prove successful.
Due to various factors, including changing market conditions and/or applicable laws, the content may no longer be reflective of current opinions or positions. Moreover, you should not assume that any discussion or information contained in this blog serves as the receipt of, or as a substitute for, personalized investment advice from MFT.
Please remember that if you are a MFT client, it remains your responsibility to advise MFT, in writing, if there are any changes in your personal/financial situation or investment objectives for the purpose of reviewing/evaluating/revising our previous recommendations and/or services, or if you would like to impose, add, or to modify any reasonable restrictions to our investment advisory services. To the extent that a reader has any questions regarding the applicability of any specific issue discussed above to his/her individual situation, he/she is encouraged to consult with the professional advisor of his/her choosing. MFT is neither a law firm nor a certified public accounting firm and no portion of the blog content should be construed as legal or accounting advice. Tax advice is given only to clients and only when agreed to by MFT. A copy of the MFT’s current written disclosure Brochure discussing our advisory services and fees is available for review upon request.
Please Note: MFT does not make any representations or warranties as to the accuracy, timeliness, suitability, completeness, or relevance of any information prepared by any unaffiliated third party, whether linked to MFT’s web site or blog or incorporated herein, and takes no responsibility for any such content. All such information is provided solely for convenience purposes only and all users thereof should be guided accordingly.
Please Note: Limitations: While MFT does NOT pay for recognition, awards, or publicity, neither rankings and/or recognition by unaffiliated rating services, publications, or other organizations, nor the achievement of any designation or certification, should be construed by a client or prospective client as a guarantee that he/she will experience a certain level of results if MFT is engaged, or continues to be engaged, to provide investment advisory services. Rankings published by magazines, and others, generally base their selections exclusively on information prepared and/or submitted by the recognized adviser. Rankings are generally limited to participating advisers. No ranking or recognition should be construed as a current or past endorsement of MFT by any of its clients. ANY QUESTIONS: MFT’s Chief Compliance Officer remains available to address any questions regarding rankings and/or recognitions, including providing the criteria used for any reflected ranking.
Historical performance results for investment indices, benchmarks, and/or categories have been provided for general informational/comparison purposes only, and generally do not reflect the deduction of transaction and/or custodial charges, the deduction of an investment management fee, nor the impact of taxes, the incurrence of which would have the effect of decreasing historical performance results. It should not be assumed that your MFT account holdings correspond directly to any comparative indices or categories. Please Also Note: (1) performance results do not reflect the impact of taxes; (2) comparative benchmarks/indices may be more or less volatile than your MFT accounts; and, (3) a description of each comparative benchmark/index is available upon request.