Buffett's Ratio Says Stocks Are Getting Interesting

Published in Investing on 17 August 2011

The art of cheap.

A version of this article originally appeared on our US site, Fool.com.

One of the hardest things to grasp in investing is that when the present turns the darkest, the future becomes the brightest. Warren Buffett once captured this with a famous and oft-repeated quote: "I will tell you how to become rich: Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful."

There's another, more specific Buffett rule that gets less attention. In 2001, Buffett wrote an article for Fortune magazine laying out a few investing truisms. In short, you want to buy stocks when the total market capitalization of all public companies looks cheap in relation to that country's gross national product (similar to gross domestic product, or GDP). He called this technique "probably the best single measure of where valuations stand at any given moment."

He even threw around some numbers. "If the percentage relationship falls to the 70% or 80% area, buying stocks is likely to work very well for you."

Tallying up the total market value of all listed stocks isn't easy. Different analysts come up with different numbers. The most widely used method is the full capitalization version of the Wilshire 5000 index, which tracks the market cap of all U.S. companies "with readily available price data." Divide that index by gross national product, and you get Buffett's ratio.

Where are we today? After the market bloodbath of the past few weeks, the ratio of U.S. stocks to GNP recently hit 79% -- just below what I'd call Buffett's comfort zone.

anImage

Source: Dow Jones, St. Louis Fed, author's calculations.

Understand what this does not mean:

  • It does not mean stocks are bound to go up in the short run. No metric can predict that.

  • It does not mean stocks won't fall further from here. A ratio becoming mildly attractive doesn't rule out the possibility of it becoming much more attractive. In fact, that's usually how it works. The history of bear markets is that of stocks becoming not just a little cheap, but obnoxiously cheap.

And importantly, other valuation metrics, such as the cyclically adjusted P/E ratio created by Yale professor Robert Shiller, still peg stocks as slightly overvalued.

But Buffett's metric means things start getting interesting. Forty years of data show there's a fairly strong correlation between Buffett's ratio and stock returns two years hence. At 79%, today's ratio is in a range that has historically set investors up for decent future returns:

U.S. Stocks as
% of GNP
Average Subsequent
2-Year Return
< 60%21%
60%-80%24%
80%-100%13%
> 100%(4%)

Source: Dow Jones, St. Louis Fed, author's calculations. Data since 1971.

There are no certainties. There are no promises. But investing gets interesting when the odds of success are in your favour. Buffett's ratio suggests those odds are now pretty good. If you were excited about stocks a month ago, you should be thrilled about them today. Indeed, many of us are. 

"The lower things go, the more I buy," Buffett said last week. How about you?

More on US shares:

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

F958B 17 Aug 2011 , 10:01am

I like ratios and use them considerably, but most investors seem to find it hard to swallow the pre-destiny that ratios imply.

CantEatValue 17 Aug 2011 , 10:07am

What other ratios do you track, F958B?

mcturra2000 17 Aug 2011 , 10:30am

Very educational article, I like it.

It's a pity it's difficult to construct this graph ourselves.

Another statistic that would be interesting to know about is the "equity risk premium". I think it's supposed to be "risk-adjusted", but i don't know the mechanics of how to do that. I guess one of of calculating it without the tisk adjustment is to take the "earnings yield" for an index, and lop off a risk-free yield. If we take the PER of the Footsie as being 10 (I'm compromising between my calculation of 12.3 and TMF's estimate of under 9), then that would give an earnings yield of 10% ( 100%/10). Chose a suitable "risk free rate". I'll choose the 10-year uk gilt yield, which can easily be obtained from the FT. Currently it's 2.5%. Take the difference: 2.5% from 10%, and hey presto, you get an equity premium of 7.5%. Alas, I don't have a nice graph which shows things historically, but I reckon that 7.5% would be at the very high end. In other words, investors are demanding very high premiums to be in equities, which ought to be an indicator that prices are very cheap. I'm guessing that a more usual equity premium would be around 3%-3.5%.

Another interesting point is that at the end of the 90's, Greenspan talked about an irrational exuberance in equities. At that time, the earnings yield of the Dow was actually less than could be obtained from long-dated treasuries, which must have been something of a historical rarity. We all know what happened next, of course.

Last up: I see from Bloomberg's 5-year graph (I wish they did 10, or even longer) shows the Baltic Dry Index at a very low point. It's close to the low at end 2008. So it ought to be quite a bullish indicator.

So, fingers crossed! (I'm still convinced that equities will be lower at year-end than they are now, though.)

F958B 17 Aug 2011 , 10:48am

Can'tEatValue

To name just a few which I track:

Debt:GDP
House price:earnings
Stockmarket P/E
Gilt:Equity yield
Tobin's Q
Stockmarket:GDP (or GNP)
Stockmarket Bullish Percent
Equity put:call
Dow:Gold
Gold:Oil
Gold:Silver
House:Gold

Each ratio is a piece of a much larger economic jigsaw (and not all ratios are equally useful). No ratio is 100% reliable, but when lots of ratios point in the same direction it pays not to be over-exposed to the potential reversal which is likely to follow.

Note that some ratios appear to have a mild underlying uptrend or downtrend within the longer-term ranges.

progressivefool 17 Aug 2011 , 12:56pm

I find it interesting that for a period of 20 years in the 1970/90 era the ratio was consistently under 60 and at 40 for a large portion. Whilst the only time it hit 60 of late (as brief as it was) was in the 2008 crash - Oh to be an investor in the 80s!

CantEatValue 17 Aug 2011 , 2:48pm

F958B,

Thank you very much for that list. May I also ask what resources you use to track all these various indicators? I've recently found the FT's Data Archive which is wonderful but I'm on the lookout for more sources of data.

F958B 17 Aug 2011 , 3:28pm

CantEatValue

Often simply running an internet search will bring up the ratios - kindly posted by others on the internet.

The following sites should give you plenty of ability to research most of the above ratio data (which you may have to chart in Excel for yourself):

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/default.asp

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/

http://www.gold.org/investment/statistics/

http://www.digitallook.com/

http://www.bloomberg.com/quickview/

http://www.advfn.com/

http://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/

Some may require signing-up for basic-level (free but with occasional email advertising).

Join the conversation

Please take note - some tags have changed.

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: [b]bolded text[/b], [i]italicised text[/i]. All other tags will be removed from your post.

If you want to add a link, please ensure you type it as http://www.fool.co.uk as opposed to www.fool.co.uk.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.