The graph shows that average valuations are generally better globally than they are in the US on a pure price - to -
peak earnings basis.
Not exact matches
Since that time, the market's P / E on «forward operating
earnings» has generally been substantially lower than the price /
peak earnings ratio
based on the highest level of trailing net
earnings to - date.
While the current price /
peak -
earnings multiple is already at an elevated level above 18, what I'll call the «P / E equivalent» multiples on other fundamentals are: 21 on the
basis of book values, nearly 23 on the
basis of enterprise value / EBITDA (which factors in the increasing share of debt on corporate balance sheets), over 25 on the
basis of revenues, and 29 on the
basis of dividends (largely because dividend payout ratios remain relatively low even on the
basis of normalized
earnings).
But valuations, even on a price /
peak -
earnings basis, are now in the same range as the 1929, 1972, and 1987
peaks.
Unfortunately, the market is now strenuously valued even on the
basis of price /
peak -
earnings.
I generally
base these P / E ratios on
peak -
earnings.
That was a bit worse than even the estimate
based on a terminal P / E of 7, because the brutal 1974 bottom formed a sharp but temporary «V.» In contrast, in the 10 years beginning in 1990 (when the price /
peak -
earnings ratio was close to 11), the S&P 500 achieved a total return of fully 20 % annually.
Based on newly released quarterly
earnings figures, the S&P 500's price /
peak earnings ratio is nearly 20.
Presently, the price /
peak -
earnings multiple on the S&P 500 is just over 10, but that is
based on
peak earnings of about $ 86 for the Index.
To illustrate, on the
basis of Robert Shiller's P / E ratio, the S&P 500 has tended to
peak at about 23 times trailing
earnings before declining (although in 1929 they rose above 30 and in 2000 they rose above 40).
Basing your lifestyle on this income assumption rather than your
peak earnings will allow you to save more for the future, while also subjecting you to less of a downshift in lifestyle as you grow older.
If you look at periods where the price /
peak earnings multiple was 16 or higher on the S&P 500, the final rate hike of a tightening cycle was actually associated with losses on an annualized total return
basis, averaging -7.18 % over the following 6 months, -9.94 % over the following 12 months, and -5.87 % over the following 18 months.
This chart is consistent with the valuation assessment of P / E ratios that are
based on
peak earnings, multi-year averages of
earnings, or
earnings that take into account the duration and extent of the
earnings cycle.
Based on Saga's operating & share price history, I'm confident we'll see another / higher cyclical
peak in sales &
earnings in due course, and a share price trajectory to match...
It appears to be significantly undervalued
based (mostly) on current metrics, and could potentially offer exponential upside
based on its prior share price history and a possible return to
peak revenues /
earnings.
Pensions are typically calculated
based on only 1.5 % of your
peak earnings, multiplied by years of service.
Thanks to unusually high debt levels and unusually low labor compensation in recent years, the
earnings peak in 2007 was
based on profit margins that were about 50 % above the historical average, and which have now collapsed.
«They may set an asking price
based on the firm's
peak earnings,» says Leclair, «but the buyer will likely argue that those
earnings are no longer achievable: many clients have moved on, and open files are stagnant.»
«REITs entered the year on
peak valuation [and]
earnings were decelerating,» says Stuart Axelrod, research analyst with New York -
based Lehman Brothers.