Warning signs at the punchbowl
"Tapering" was the culprit for last week's 11 per cent rout on the Nikkei and a 4 per cent slide in the local share index.
Some poor numbers out of China didn't help either, but it was the sheer dread that the chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, might be impudent enough to whisk away the punchbowl that really spooked the punters.
The punchbowl is "QE" - or quantitative easing, another superlative euphemism that means the US government has been busy buying its own debts to the tune of $85 billion a month. The mere suggestion that this money-printing program might be "tapered" by some indeterminate amount and at some indeterminate time was enough to send markets into a tailspin.
The tailspin was merely a reality check in a bubble-market bull run. Yet the savage reaction every time there is a hint that QE might end seems enough to dissuade policy makers from ever stopping the presses.
If they called it "printing money" instead of QE, Wall Street might not have been scaling "fresh record highs" for the past few months. Share valuations, both in the US and here, look too high vis-a-vis economic fundamentals.
This reporter is not averse to pointing out when the market represents good value, as we noted last July when the ASX 200 was around 4100 points.
It has since put on 1100 points, then it handed back 200 this month. For investors, the easy 20 per cent gain has gone. It has already been made.
Australian shares have risen about 9 per cent a year for the past 20 years, on an accumulated basis counting fully franked dividends and ignoring transaction costs.
But this has been fuelled by a historic rise in household debt, indeed global debt, which is no longer sustainable.
So valuations are stretched. We now have bank PE ratios at 12 to 15 times 2013 earnings (ANZ at 12 and CBA at 15). Granted, banks are now explicitly backed by government, but the traditional bank multiple used to be closer to 11 times.
Consumer services stocks such as Invocare, Crown and Dominos Pizza are trading on PERs above 20. Perennial blue chip performers Coke, Origin and Amcor are changing hands on 17x, 19x and 20x respectively and premium healthcare offerings CSL and Cochlear trade on 24x.
Resources giants Rio Tinto and BHP are above long-term multiples too, at 11x and 14x 2013 earnings despite the pull-back in demand from China and commodities' deteriorating outlook.
Overall, the market PE ratio is 17x, just too high to be justified by the fundamentals, let alone factoring in the time bomb of QE.
Money printing, which has also been going on furiously in Britain and Japan, may well have fired up markets, but its ultimate purpose had been to fire up the economy and create jobs. So, while financial markets have quickly become addicted to the punchbowl, growth is still faltering and slow, even five years out from the financial crisis. In recent weeks, US jobless claims have been on the rise.
The Fed's monumental injection of cash was supposed to have led companies to expand and create jobs. But rather than spending money on new plants, many are buying back their own stock and issuing special dividends. Some $US102 billion has been sent offshore to boot.
This has been great for Wall Street, great for shareholders, and terrific for executives and their bonuses. But the trickle-down has been a big disappointment.
For now, we are stuck with a global economic policy that is barely working and for which there seems no credible alternative, and no way out without a monumental market meltdown.
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
Tapering refers to reducing the central bank's quantitative easing (QE) program — in this article the US Fed's bond-buying of about US$85 billion a month. Even the suggestion that QE might be tapered triggered sharp falls (for example an 11% rout on the Nikkei and a 4% slide locally) because markets have become highly dependent on that cash 'punchbowl'.
According to the article, QE — effectively money printing — has helped push Wall Street and local markets to fresh record highs. That cash boost lifted share valuations well above what economic fundamentals would justify, leaving the overall market price-to-earnings (PE) ratio around 17x and many stocks trading on elevated multiples.
The article argues the easy gains have already been made. It notes the ASX200 climbed about 1,100 points from around 4,100 last July and then gave back 200 points this month, and that Australian shares have risen roughly 9% a year over 20 years on an accumulated basis. But with stretched valuations and high household debt, the reporter says the easy 20% upside is largely behind investors.
The article lists several examples: banks such as ANZ (around 12x) and CBA (around 15x on 2013 earnings) compared with a traditional multiple nearer 11x; consumer services like Invocare, Crown and Dominos Pizza trading above 20x; blue chips Coke, Origin and Amcor at about 17x, 19x and 20x respectively; premium healthcare CSL and Cochlear at about 24x; and resources giants Rio Tinto and BHP at roughly 11x and 14x on 2013 earnings.
Not according to the article. While QE boosted financial markets, it has not reliably led to strong growth or job creation. The piece notes US jobless claims have been rising and many companies used the cash for buybacks and special dividends rather than expanding operations — with about US$102 billion reportedly sent offshore — so the 'trickle-down' to the real economy has been disappointing.
The article highlights several risks: stretched share valuations (market PE around 17x), heavy household and global debt that may be unsustainable, dependence on ongoing QE (a 'time bomb' if it ends), and the potential for a large market meltdown if policy changes spook investors.
A market PE of roughly 17x, as cited in the article, is described as 'just too high' to be justified by fundamentals. For everyday investors, that generally signals that stocks are trading at elevated valuations relative to earnings, and that caution may be warranted given the other headwinds the article outlines (debt levels and QE dependence).
The article states that decades of share-market returns have been supported by a historic rise in household (and global) debt. That increased borrowing helped sustain consumption and asset prices, but the piece warns this debt-fuelled growth is no longer sustainable and contributes to stretched valuations.

