What You Might Not Know About The FTSE 100 At 6,000

Published in Investing on 4 January 2013

The FTSE 100 index first topped 6,000 on 1 April 1998.

The FTSE 100 (UKX) index breached 6,000 for the first time since 2011 this week, after American politicians agreed a last-minute deal to avoid the so-called 'fiscal cliff'.

While this week's upward move was welcomed by many investors, it also put into perspective the index's performance during the last decade or so. You see, the FTSE 100 index first closed above 6,000 on 1 April 1998 -- almost fifteen years ago.

A brief history

In a minute, I'll tell you about a free guide that could help your blue-chip portfolio prosper regardless of whether the FTSE 100 stays above 6,000 or not.

But first, let me recount some stats that you might not know about the FTSE 100 during those near-15 years.

I'll begin by revealing the index has spent more time below 6,000 than it has spent above 6,000. This table outlines the disappointing numbers:

FTSE 100 levelTrading days
6,000 or more967
Between 5,000 and 6,0001,740
Between 4,000 and 5,000837
Below 4,000181

Source: Yahoo UK Finance

Sadly, just 26% of the 3,725 trading days since April 1998 have witnessed the FTSE close at 6,000 or higher. What's worse, that 26% figure is outweighed by the 27% of trading days that have seen the blue-chip index trade below 5,000.

During the rest of the time -- some 48% -- the index has bounced between 5,000 and 6,000.

The bull-run years

My second table confirms how the FTSE trading above 6,000 has been concentrated in the bull-run years of 1999/2000 and 2006/2007.

YearTrading days with FTSE 100 at 6,000 or more
20132
201141
20101
200847
2007252
200689
200139
2000251
1999223
199822

Source: Yahoo UK Finance

Although we're less than a week into 2013, this year has already scored two days of the FTSE above 6,000 -- which is two more days than 2012! (Other years that scored zero days since 1998 are 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2009)

While two consecutive days above 6,000 is at least something -- especially as the index last breached 6,000 during July 2011 -- the FTSE still has a way to go to match its past consistency.

Indeed, the last good run of consecutive trading days of 6,000 or more occurred two years ago, with 11 straight days achieved during February 2011.

However, the all-time record occurred during both 2000 and 2007, when the index kept above 6,000 for almost an entire year. A repeat of that consistency would be most welcome, as I'm sure you'd agree!

Opportunities for FTSE 6,000

Of course, individual shares can go up or down regardless of what the FTSE 100 does.

The last 15 or so years have provided wonderful multibaggers and investment disasters in equal measure, so you still have to work hard to pick your stock-market winners.

But I can offer you some help, through that free guide I mentioned earlier. The guide itself reviews the major holdings of Neil Woodford, the ace large-cap investor who has beaten the market by 200%-plus during the 15 years to October 2012.

Whether the FTSE 100 was raging above 6,000 -- or even plunging below 4,000 -- Mr Woodford's record shows he has a regular knack of identifying blue-chip winners. Indeed, his portfolios boast a nine-year run of beating the wider market!

If you, like me, are now hunting for the best opportunities with the FTSE 100 above 6,000, you can swot up on Mr Woodford's 2013 share positions for free by clicking here. Good luck… and happy investing!

> Maynard does not own any share mentioned in the article.

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.

goodlifer 04 Jan 2013 , 11:41am

"During both 2000 and 2007...the index kept above 6,000 for almost an entire year. A repeat of that consistency would be most welcome, as I'm sure you'd agree!"

Why would I agree?

It would obviously suit a dividend reinvestor like me for footsie to sink to 4000 or below.
How would it help me by staying above 6000?

Only if I'm minded to get out of the market

salmo365 04 Jan 2013 , 11:49am

Agreed!

I am sitting on my christmas bonus, waiting for the a market collapse (around the time of the debt ceiling negotiations?) for me to buy.

As a buy & hold value investor, I don't like these highs.

BarrenFluffit 04 Jan 2013 , 12:11pm

Looking at how the index is constructed I'm not convinced that comparing the price of the constituents (based of different weights) says anything useful about even price levels. Ok its relevant if your trading a specific instrument explicitly based on a exact level. For measuring how the cost of share capital changed when the constituents are basically the same then yes it can show something. Time is not kind to using the ftse in this fashion.

Excel35 04 Jan 2013 , 1:15pm

Would be interesting to know the market p/e and yields, comparing now to previous historical p/es and yields each year the FTSE 100 has hit 6000.

F958B 04 Jan 2013 , 1:48pm

In 2000, FTSE traded in the 6000's, with a 25x P/E and 2% yield - peaking around 30x P/E and 1.7% yield.

In 2007, FTSE traded for about half that valuation and almost twice that yield.

Now it trades for a broadly similar P/E and yield to the peak in 2007.

I expect that by the time the 2000-???? bear is done (I'd guess a few years time), valuations will probably trade for a quarter of 1999-2000's peak; about 7x P/E and 7% yield.
I think the price low was seen in 2009, but the P/E low and yield peak is yet to come, as markets consolidate for a few years while earnings catch up.

Excel35 04 Jan 2013 , 2:44pm

@F958b - thanks for that :)

reinvestmentman 04 Jan 2013 , 7:50pm

Well said F985B.
I still like the idea of 15years worth of dividend return by sitting in the market wherever the index may have gone in that time.

SevenPillars 04 Jan 2013 , 11:09pm

Some companies in the FTSE 100 back in 1999.

Marconi
Bank of Scotland
Colt Telecom
Cable and Wireless
Abbey National
Amvescap
Halifax
Hays
Dixons
Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation
Bass
Rentokil
Logica
CMG
Misys
BOC Group
Boots
Railtrack
Corus

spinquark 05 Jan 2013 , 1:51am

7pillars,
Wow that is real food for thought.
I guess many of the underlying businesses/brands live on under a different company name.
Have always thought the obsession with the ftse100 kind of strange. I wonder how the all share compares over similar periods.

jaizan 05 Jan 2013 , 9:44am

From the Seven Pillars list of 1999 companies, I purchased P&O & C&W in the early 2000s.
P&O turned a tidy little profit when taken over.
I somehow managed to take profits on C&W, before the shares turned south.

Other holdings I had included Jennings, Hardys & Hansons, RAC, BAA & Sainsburys. All were taken over at a premium, except Sainsburys which I sold out of when there was a generous bid on the table.

Shares that disappear can be highly profitable. Just wish I could find the same quality of opportunity in the market right now.

goodlifer 05 Jan 2013 , 11:41am

salmo365

"I am ...waiting for the a market collapse."

Is that wise?

Cocksure experts have been forecasting a collapse for what seems like ages, yet footsie keeps on staggering vaguely upwards, albeit wobblily,

Reminds you of the humble bumble bee.
Aerodynamicists have apparently proved that nothing of the weight and wing area of a bumble bee can possibly fly, but the insect in question doesn't seem too bothered.

andrewboswell 05 Jan 2013 , 12:27pm

goodlifer, look up "dynamic stall" if you want to get an idea of how a bumblebee can fly.

F958B 05 Jan 2013 , 12:40pm

goodlifer

With the FTSE median at 13-14x forward P/E, I'm not hurrying to deploy capital. FTSE will, at some point, be much better value for money; bear markets end at cheap valuations around 7x P/E; bull markets do not begin from high valuations.
The "legendary" stockmarket returns of the 1980's and 1990's came about significantly due to valuation expansion. From a cheap P/E of 7x in the early 1980's to a ridiculously expensive P/E around 30x in the year 2000.
Current valuations (13-14x P/E) are double what would be expected at a major low. The cheapest it got to in recent years was about 10x P/E; still significantly higher than the usual bear-killing cheap valuation around 7x P/E.

In 2009-10, when shares were at prices low enough to be worth buying, I funded 35-40 percent of my portfolio holdings with cheap borrowed money; returns being amplified 1.6x as a result.
In 2012, with few companies at really attractive prices, I reduced that gearing down to around 10% of portfolio, and my de-leveraging continues; now into the single digits percent gearing, planned to be zero gearing very soon.

When markets pull back - and they will - (the longer this tired old multi-year uptrend continues, and the more excited investors get, the bigger the eventual correction) - then I'll look to redeploy the
mostly paid-back borrowings at rock-bottom prices again.

During 2012 I suggested that FTSE will top around 6150, but may not get past 6000. I suggested 1550 for the S&P500. I suggested a euphoric buying spike - we've certainly got that now, judging by all the puffed-out chests and buzzing discussion boards.

With the Fed now backtracking on its autumn promise of market-fuelling QEternity, the only prop under the markets looks set to soon be removed.
Each time the Fed took away the monetary adrenaline in recent years, markets tanked 20-25%.

The present, and the next few weeks is a time to take profits and
savour the memories of a great ride from 2009-2013 (the last one being 2003-2007, and the prior one being 1996-2000 - and the FTSE running from 3500 to 6500 on both prior occasions).

I don't intend to move heavily to cash because I need an income (my investments provide all my income as I'm not old enough to draw pension). So I'll be fully invested, but with no gearing.
I'll gear-up again when shares look like genuine value for money in the long-term, rather than tradeable pieces of paper looking for a bigger fool to pay an ever-rising price without due regard for what they get for what they paid.

F958B 05 Jan 2013 , 1:15pm

I guess what I'm saying is that all the essential ingredients and pre-requisites are in place for a significant market correction - perhaps even another bear market - all it needs is a trigger.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not always gloomy. The following topic shows my optimistic side, *after* mid-2011's major correction.

http://boards.fool.co.uk/bottled-it-or-wise--12374095.aspx?sort=whole#12374233



F958B 05 Jan 2013 , 1:20pm

Date: 08/10/2011
Time: 10:36
Post Number: 17830 of 22084
[Quote=F958B]

"...... it is just the beginning of a multi-month uptrend which should run into next spring. Barring a "bolt out of the blue" such as a terrorist incident or another major natural disaster, FTSE will at least get back to the 5700-6000 range by next spring. ......."

goodlifer 05 Jan 2013 , 9:47pm

andrewboswell
"Look up "dynamic stall" if you want to get an idea of how a bumblebee can fly."

Thank you for that.
I should have said "traditional aerodynamicists."

goodlifer 05 Jan 2013 , 9:54pm

F958B
"Don't get me wrong: I'm not always gloomy."

If you're right, I don't find you gloomy at all.
I can't wait for your "significant market correction."

I only wish I could share your confidence.

elispace 06 Jan 2013 , 1:11am

Love the heads up on 'dynamic stall', more or less the only thing of use or interest I've learnt from the Motley Fool for a few months! Can we have more insights like this.

I wonder if Buffet or Woodford are into Bumblebees or aerodynamics? That would assure their place on the Motley Fool!

Apparently, Warren reckons his family rejoices when the price of Hamburgers go down because he likes burgers and he can buy more of them when they're cheaper. Food for thought!

ANuvver 06 Jan 2013 , 4:30pm

F:
Interesting observations. I too am staying in for the purposes of stodgy ongoing income generation, but am also happy sitting on 20% in cold-hard for now.

Still, some stumbles in Feb or so would be nice - the ISA needs feeding, and I'd rather do it before everyone from Doctor Who to Ant and Dec starts banging on about the looming deadline...

BigJC1 07 Jan 2013 , 11:32am

Some interesting points been made particularly around P/E's and yields. I'd be interested to understand the other side of the P/E ratio, i.e. Earnings. Have average earnings risen sharply since 2000, that would seem likely if it was above 6,000 at that stage with a P/E of 30 and then 2007 was above 6,000 with a P/E of 15.

Corporate earnings have been extremely robust during the market turmoil. If they continue to hold strong then remaining above 6,000 seems likely. At the same time a key component of the FTSE 100 is the banks (4 of which sit in the top 20) and if they have genuinely turned the corner in terms of earnings then that will power the motor even harder.

I appreciate that many think that there will be a major market fall but I've been hearing "chicken-licken the skys falling in" for 5 years now and the World Economy (where our FTSE 100 trade) has been pretty robust and certain parts of it are steaming ahead in terms of growth. Faster growth tends to drive higher P/E's (because we are all buying future cashflows) so it could be that 6,000 is an arbitrary barrier that will be long forgotten when we pass 7,500?

F958B 07 Jan 2013 , 11:47am

Hi big JC.

To pick just on large, successful company as an example:
Earnings for Mc.Donald's went from 27c/shr in 1975 to 55c/shr by 1980.
It didn't stop the shares slipping from $6 to $4 due to valuation mean-reversion.
From a P/E of 22 in 1975 to a P/E of 7 in 1980.

Earnings advanced to 65c in 1981, 74c in 1982, 85c in 1983.

Yet the strong historic and future growth didn't prevent the shares selling for a cheap price.

The reason is valuation mean-reversion.
If the long-term market average P/E is about 14x, then if it spends a period of time at 25-30x, it must spend an equal and opposite time a proportional amount below "fair value".
That is where markets are heading since the bubble of 2000.
Valuations started in the 25x P/E range (like McDonalds of the mid-1970's), then gradually drifted down to high-single-digit P/E's to complete the cycle - this being significantly due to the government-induced economic troubles of the time, which, today, are just as bad as they were in the 1970's.

F958B 07 Jan 2013 , 11:58am

I could give other examples:

Merck, earnings per share rising from 50c to 92c between 1975-1980, but the shares slipping from $12 to $9.
P/E of 24x dropped to a P/E around 10x, yet earnings continued to climb on balance after a small dip in 1981....89c, 93c, 102c, 126c by 1985.

Procter & Gamble:
Earnings from 97c to 194c
Share price from $22 to $12
P/E from 22x to 6x, even though earnings subsequently increased to 202c, 235c, 261c.......and so on in the early 1980's.

...............

Valuation mean-reversion - currently underway since the year 2000 and likely to persist for a few more years, until quality companies can be bought for prices so cheap it'll make your eyes water.
Unbelievable? Well, it didn't stop people piling in, believing shares to be a bargain at high valuations around 1999/2000, so why should the uneducated masses be any less inclined to run for the hills just as shares slump to ultra-low "once-in-a-lifetime" cheap valuations - the kind of valuations where 1982-2000 types of super-bull market begin.

Again, I'll re-state that I think the price lows were seen in 2008-9, but we should now expect a choppy period of rangebound markets - alternating 25% falls and 25% rises (FTSE roughly trapped between 4000-6500 for several more years) so earnings can catch up and make shares the same kind of bargain that they have been after all previous bear markets.

F958B 07 Jan 2013 , 12:23pm

Here's a very long term summary of the highs and lows in the historic P/E ratio of the S&P500, average for each year:

Currently: 16x (market peak?)

2008-9*: 9x* / 70x* (market low)

2007: 17x (market peak)

2003: 13x (market low)

2000: 33x (market peak)

1982: 7x (market low)

1974: 8x (market low)

1968: 17x (market peak)

1942: 8x (market low)

1929: 18x (market peak)

*
Earnings collapsed so fast in 2008-9 that the market had a P/E ratio around 70x, but, compared to prior peak earnings, the P/E ratio was about 8x.

The "normal" market peak being around the high teens P/E ratio (where we are now). the "super-bubble" peaks being around twice the normal peaks.
Major market lows tending to be with a P/E around 7x.

Over the next few years,, we need stockmarket prices to halve, or earnings to double, or something in-between. I favour the in-between option - unless "it's different this time".

BigJC1 07 Jan 2013 , 12:28pm

Not sure if taking individual shares and looking at earnings shines any light, for example look at Apples earnings and valuation over the 1995 - 2013 period. The 2000 dotcom boom seems to be the anomaly when businesses with little or no earnings had enormous valuations leading to a distortion of the FTSE P/E's and constituents. Since then P/E's have declined to more supportable levels.

2007 seems a more reasonable example of a genuine frothy market with easy debt funding stoking hot valuations.the question I was posing is that since then have FTSE earnings risen or declined. If they have risen and are at the start of a gradual acceleration then you would expect P/E's to follow over time ?

I agree that the next few years will be choppy but I think the band will be 5,500 to 7,000 with a resilient move upwards as money moves from bonds (and eventually gold) back into equities.

F958B 07 Jan 2013 , 1:28pm

You can find the S&P500 earnings history here:
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/spearn.htm

Earnings progressed solidly from the market peak in 1968 until it decisively broke to new highs again in 1983.
Yet despite progressive growth, from earnings of 5.7 in 1968 to earnings of 13.29 in 1983; a near-tripling of earnings, it didn't prevent the overvaluation of the late 1960's mean-reverting during difficult economic times, with several bear-bull stockmarket cycles, until by 1982-3 the market P/E was into high-single-digits and the market average dividend yield up to around 5%.
Fifteen years after the initial peak, markets were finally "good to go" on a new eighteen-year bull market.
A good bull market must begin from low valuations and end at high valuations. Without valuation expansion the scope for capital gains is very limited.
The S&P500 increased about fourteen-fold in value from 1982-2000. Without the huge P/E expansion, the 1982-2000 bull market capital gains would have been closer to threefold.

F958B 07 Jan 2013 , 1:42pm

I consider the year 1968 to be roughly equivalent to the year 2000. Both saw major market peaks which took over a decade to decisively break, during a turbulent economic period.

I consider the 1974 low to be roughly equivalent to the 2008/9 low.

We're now roughly equivalent to the late-1970s. Markets had bounced from the 1974 (2008/9) lows and chop around for a few years.
Maybe, fifteen years on, after being in a volatile trading range from 1968-1983 (2000-2015) markets can finally break to new highs.

Given the greater degree of overvaluation in 2000 (30x P/E) compared to 1968 (17x P/E), the probabilities favour a longer and/or deeper consolidation, than that seen in 1968-1983.

Given the strong (almost record-breaking) run-up from 2009-2013, and the weight of mean-reversion tendencies, I think it's very likely that stockmarkets will be available at either the same price in several years time, or a noticeably lower price in a year or two.

So in the last few months I've been repaying the borrowings I took out to buy shares at 2009/10's low prices. Profits banked. Now I wait - for a few years if I have to - for a profitable time to use those borrowings again. Buying after markets have risen two-fold in four years seems akin to buying in 2007 or 2000 after similar price/time uptrends.

In the meantime, I hold a defensive set of high-yield shares because they provide my income.

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.