As always before we look at the CAPE let us first look at other key FTSE 100 metrics:
- The FTSE 100 Price is currently 6,338 which is a gain of 5.2% on the 01 January 2013 Price of 6,027 and 9.5% above the 01 February 2012 Price of 5,791.
- The FTSE 100 Dividend Yield is currently 3.47% which is down against the 01 January 2013 yield of 3.64%.
- The FTSE 100 Price to Earnings (P/E) Ratio is currently 12.96.
- The Price and the P/E Ratio allows us to calculate the FTSE 100 As Reported Earnings (which are the last reported year’s earnings and are made up of the sum of the latest two half years earnings) as 489. They are down 4.6% month on month and down 11.7% year on year. The Earnings Yield is therefore 7.7%.
So we find ourselves in an interesting situation. Nominal Earnings are falling and have been consistently since October 2011’s Earnings of 628 yet Prices are rising.
The first chart below provides a historic view of the Real (CPI adjusted) FTSE 100 Price and the Real FTSE 100 P/E. Look at the trend line of the Real Price. After you strip out the effects of inflation the perceived market value is doing not much more than oscillating above and below a flat line which we are now sitting on. The second chart provides a historic view of the Real Earnings along with a rolling Real 10 Year Earnings Average for the FTSE 100.
Click to enlarge
Click to enlarge
As always let us now turn our attention to the FTSE 100 Cyclically Adjusted PE. This is also shown in the first chart above. For completeness let me also detail the usual reminders. I do not use P/E ratio’s to make investment decisions from and instead use this CAPE. This is because the P/E ratio does not take the business cycle into account which the CAPE tries to adjust for. The method used is similar to that developed by Professor Robert Shiller for the S&P500. The calculation is the ratio of Real (ie after inflation) FTSE 100 first possible day of the month Price to the 10 Year Real (CPI adjusted) first possible day of the month Earnings. Unfortunately the dataset I have created only goes back to July 1993. Therefore to get a meaningful set of numbers I have had to average in to a PE10 for the first 10 years. What this means is that July 1994 is actually a PE1, July 1995 is a PE2 and so forth until July 2003 when we have a full FTSE 100 PE10.
The key FTSE 100 CAPE/PE10 metrics are:
- FTSE 100 PE10 is 13.1 which is up against the 01 January 2013 PE10 of 12.5.
- The FTSE 100 Average PE10 is 19.1. Assuming this is “fair value” it indicates that the FTSE 100 is 31% undervalued. As I always say I don’t actually believe this and think that this is a function of the fact that the dataset is quite short but more on this later.
- The FTSE 100 Median PE10 = 19.3
- The FTSE 100 20th Percentile = 14.2
- The FTSE 100 80th Percentile = 23.1
- The correlation between the FTSE 100 Price and the FTSE 100 PE10 is 0.22. This is considered a weak or low correlation. The correlation between the FTSE 100 Real Price and the FTSE 100 PE10 is a much more impressive 0.66. This is considered a moderate correlation bordering on a strong or high correlation.
The chart below is why I use the FTSE 100 CAPE to drive a tactical portion of my Retirement Investing Today asset allocation. It shows the relationship between the FTSE 100 PE10 and the Nominal 5 Year Capital Gains from August 1993 to February 2008. Ideally this would be a 5 Year Total Return Chart, ie including dividends, however this dataset is not yet mature enough to allow this given my dividend data only goes back to 2006. Even so just looking at 5 Year Nominal Capital Gains we see a correlation of -0.46 with an R^2 of 0.15 which is considered moderate. With the FTSE 100 PE10 at 13.1 the trendline suggests a future Nominal 5 Year Capital Gain of 54%. In contrast the Real (inflation adjusted) 5 Year Capital Gain (not charted today) trendline implies a return of 37%.
Click to enlarge
As always do your own research.
- UK CPI inflation data for February 2013 is estimated.
I am no maths buff so I am impressed by your ability to work the above figures and percentages!
One aspect leaves me a little confused which is the reducing of your UK allocation from 19.6% in December to 19.3%.
I imagine that the majority of your UK will consist of large FTSE 100. Although listed in London, most companies will derive a large percentage of their profits from all corners of the globe - maybe 80%. In one sense, they could equally be part of your international allocation.
I suppose I'm left wondering whether there is much distinction between the two? If equities and returns are closely correlated, maybe one global equity low cost tracker would suffice?
By the way, the costs on that Vanguard UK tracker are hard to beat!
@johnhulton (on Twitter)
My UK Allocation is currently a majority allocation to the FTSE All Share using the Vanguard fund you mention. Agreed very attractive costs. Additionally I have my HYP which is in its infancy covering FTSE100 companies.
My technique here is not related to where the profits come from but is simply about Earnings over a "business cycle" (10 years), rather than a year as is the case with PE and then comparing current Pricing to those Earnings. I then look at history to compare this current PE10 with the average PE10 over the length of my dataset (including some extrapolation). It's nothing more than an attempt to mechanically (rather than emotionally) value the market.
To your question. If I was just starting out today I'd be very tempted to just buy a single Vanguard LifeStrategy Fund that reflected my risk tolerance today based on my age, then derisk it with a Vanguard Bond Fund each year on my birthday. Stick it all in a low cost Pension/ISA and the job would be done. That would probably give me more than 95% of what I'm currently achieving in terms of performance.
The negative to this... Portfolio management would then take about 15 minutes a year which would mean I wouldn't need this Site and I would be looking for a new hobby :-)
"The negative to this... Portfolio management would then take about 15 minutes a year which would mean I wouldn't need this Site and I would be looking for a new hobby :-)"ReplyDelete
Thanks John for your work on a 10 year and longer than present annual scenario. I've begun to look at it for the past 3 months and find it useful. Please keep up your hobby!ReplyDelete