This blog is about data analytics, statistics, economics, and investment issues. The "Warp" in the title refers to the nonlinear nature of investment instrument variations.
Showing posts with label Shiller PE ratio. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Shiller PE ratio. Show all posts
Sunday, March 20, 2022
Is there a relationship between interest rates and PE ratios?
Summary
- We look at the relationship between 10y Treasury yields () and Shiller PE10 ratios () from 1971 to 2021.
- When these two measures are compared and correlated, without time lags, there seems to be no relationship.
- When we consider time lags, a relationship becomes apparent: periods of tightening, when yields go up, seem to be followed by contractions in Shiller PE10 ratios.
10y Treasury yields vs. Shiller PE10 ratios from 1971 to 2021
The graph below shows the relationship between 10y Treasury yields and Shiller PE10 ratios during the period going from 1971 to 2021. The low Shiller PE10 ratios shown at the bottom generally occur during market crashes. The R-squared for the relationship is shown next to the best-fitting inverted J curve.
As we can see, the 10y Treasury yield explains only 5.1 percent of the variance in the Shiller PE10 ratio, even after nonlinear function transformation (aka “warping”). The relationship is weaker if it is modeled as a linear association. This goes against the idea that there is a relationship between 10y Treasury yields and Shiller PE10 ratios.
Arguably the time period considered is too large to be representative of what might happen today. Notably, the S&P 500 has been much more strongly influenced by high growth companies since 2003, after the crash of the “tech bubble” and the emergence of a few large and very successful technology companies.
10y Treasury yields vs. Shiller PE10 ratios from 2003 to 2021
The graph below shows the relationship between 10y Treasury yields and Shiller PE10 ratios during the more recent period going from 2003 to 2021. Again, the low Shiller PE10 ratios at the bottom occur during the market crash of 2008 (those ratios did not drop as much during the COVID crash), and the R-squared for the relationship is shown next to the best-fitting J curve.
As we can see, the 10y Treasury yield explains 12.3 percent of the variance in the Shiller PE10 ratio, with nonlinear function transformation (aka “warping”). Still, this is a small number, which goes somewhat against the idea that there is a relationship between 10y Treasury yields and Shiller PE10 ratios.
However, closer inspection of the data suggests that market corrections and crashes, where typically Shiller PE10 ratios contract quickly, follow periods of tightening (top-right part of the graph). Also, PE10 expansion appears to occur after easing (top-left part of the graph).
Time series of 10y Treasury yields vs. Shiller PE10 ratios from 2003 to 2021
The graph below shows a time series with 10y Treasury yields in blue and Shiller PE10 ratios in orange, during the period going from 2003 to 2021. Since this is a time series graph, with time varying along the x axis, we can more easily spot lagged relationships.
Here we can see that periods of tightening (blue arrows up) appear to be followed by periods where the Shiller PE10 ratios drop (orange arrows down). This suggests that there is a relationship between 10y Treasury yields and Shiller PE10 ratios.
Conclusion
There seems to be a relationship between 10y Treasury yields and Shiller PE10 ratios. Periods of tightening, when yields go up, seem to be followed by drops in the Shiller PE10 ratios drop. And, given that yields rising precede PE10 ratios dropping, there is a predictive “flavor” to the relationship.
The problem is that as yields go up, so do PE10 ratios, until a point is reached where PE10 ratios drop precipitously. While it is not clear when the tipping point is reached, it seems to occur after a 1 to 2 percent point rise in yields.
Sunday, November 4, 2018
Next S&P 500 bottom? Maybe 1468
Summary
- The S&P 500 index (SP500) has been recently dropping.
- The Shiller (PE10) has also been dropping.
- We can estimate the bottom of the SP500 based on historical PE10 values.
- This estimated SP500 bottom is 1468.94.
Faster moving averages chase slower ones
This picture illustrates one import point: faster moving averages usually “chase” slower ones. This is, of course, a figure of speech.
The fastest moving average of all is the index itself; e.g., the 1-month moving average of the index measured on a 1-month basis.
The corresponding 5-month moving average is slower, and the 10-month is even slower.
The slowest moving average of all is the average (or mean) of the index over its entire history.
History tells us that, as the gap between the fastest and slowest moving averages increases, so does the likelihood that they will converge with a “vengeance” – at a wide angle.
The Shiller PE ratio
The Shiller PE ratio (PE10) () is based on average inflation-adjusted earnings from the previous 10 years. As such it removes the “contamination” of inflation and other factors that artificially influence the denominator of the standard PE ratio. This is why we use it here.
In October 2018 the PE10 reached 33.01, the second highest peak in its history. Since then it has been going down, presumably chasing a moving average. If it were to bottom, history suggests that it would go down to around the slowest moving average: its historical average of 16.58 (approximately, in October 2018).
The SP500 bottom
The PE10 going from 33.01 to 16.58 would be a drop of 49.77 percent.
The SP500 was 2924.59 in October 2018. A drop of 49.77 percent would take it to 1468.94.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



