fb-pixelThe stock market is expensive again; time to worry about bubbles? - The Boston Globe Skip to main content
Personal finance

The stock market is expensive again; time to worry about bubbles?

With relatively little fanfare, the stock market has become expensive again.

While the rest of the economy has been growing frustratingly slowly for almost five years, stocks have been rising at a boomlike clip. An investment in the Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index would have doubled from early 2009 through early 2013 — and then gained an additional 18 percent over the past year.

Relative to long-term corporate earnings — and more in a minute on why that measure is important — stocks have been more expensive only three times over the past century than they are today, according to data from Robert Shiller, a Nobel laureate in economics.

Advertisement



Those other three periods are not exactly reassuring, either: the 1920s, the late 1990s, and in the prelude to the 2007 financial crisis.

Wall Street, of course, can always come up with justifications for high stock prices. Remember: The Internet changes everything. Or: The business cycle has been repealed. Some of the current justifications even have a ring of reality to them.

Today’s economy seems almost perfectly built to raise stock prices. Economic growth is weak enough to keep interest rates low, which both reduces corporate costs and makes stocks seem more appealing than safe, low-return investments.

And despite the mediocre economy, corporate profits are fairly strong, because companies have the upper hand on workers and wage growth is modest. Inequality, in other words, tends to be good for stocks.

It’s possible that a world of rising inequality and low interest rates is here to stay — and that stocks have reached a permanently high plateau. In that case, whatever our other economic worries, the stock market’s valuation doesn’t need to be high among them.

Yet any argument that depends on the notion of a new paradigm is one you should treat with a healthy amount of skepticism. Those arguments are usually wrong.

Advertisement



They were wrong in the 1920s, when economist Irving Fisher coined the phrase “permanently high plateau” to describe stocks. They were wrong in 1999, when the book “Dow 36,000” appeared. They were wrong in 2007, on the eve of the financial crisis.

“You can always think of reasons of why now is different,” Shiller told me, when I called him recently to ask his view of today’s stock prices. “But maybe the mind is too creative in thinking of how it’s different.”

As John Campbell, a Harvard economist who has collaborated with Shiller, puts it, “One should be skeptical of ‘This time is different’ arguments.”

We obviously can’t know where stock prices are headed. But the evidence, as I read it, suggests that they are now high.

The best assumption — for retirees, future retirees, other investors, pension-plan managers, federal budget analysts, and anyone else whose life depends on stock prices — is that returns in coming years will be modest, at best.

If the historical comparisons here surprise you, it may be because you are used to a different yardstick for the market’s valuation. The most commonly cited measure is a price-earnings ratio that compares the current price of stocks to the earnings of the underlying companies over the past year.

The problem with this measure (which also shows that stocks are expensive, but less severely) is that a year isn’t a very long time. Judging a company’s long-term future based on the past 12 months puts too much weight on fleeting factors, like the current state of the economy or a company’s latest product.

Advertisement



That’s why the classic 1934 textbook “Security Analysis,” by Benjamin Graham, a mentor to Warren Buffett, and David Dodd, urged investors to compare stock prices to earnings over “not less than five years, preferably seven or 10 years.”

Ten years is enough time for the economy to go in and out of recession. It’s enough time for faddish theories about new paradigms to come and go.

Shiller picked up the Graham-Dodd thread and has long published on his website a version of the price-earnings ratio that compares current stock prices to average annual earnings over the past decade. He shared the Nobel Prize in economics last year for “empirical analysis of asset prices.”

The 10-year price/earnings ratio has as good a record of any stock market measure in warning about excess. More broadly, when the ratio reaches 25, roughly where it is now, disappointment tends to follow. The average inflation-adjusted return since 1871 (the first year for which Shiller has data) in the five years after the ratio equals 25 or higher is negative 12 percent. After stocks get expensive, a correction typically follows.

I’m not predicting that the market is going to fall 12 or 50 percent. (And if I did, you should stop reading this column.) As Shiller says, “There is no way to predict the future.”

Sometimes, the economy really can change in important ways. Maybe stock prices will be somewhat higher in the 21st century than in the 20th. Campbell, for example, notes a couple of plausible explanations for higher stock prices: the lack of recent world wars, for example, and the spread of stock ownership to a larger group of investors, which distributes risk more broadly.

Advertisement



But none of these changes are likely to rewrite the rules of economics in a fundamental way. Based on history, stocks look either very expensive or somewhat expensive right now.

Shiller suggests that the most likely outcome may be worse returns in coming years than the market has delivered over recent decades — but still better than the returns of any other investment class.

So don’t be tempted (or terrified) by the siren song of a rising market. For most people, the sensible path is still to find a low-cost way to save for retirement, typically through diversified index funds. And given where the market now is, you should err on the side of conservatism.

The fact that the past three decades have witnessed one bull market after another shouldn’t fool you into thinking that the next three decades will.