Give a Gift

Your Tax Questions Answered

Stocks: Why You Can Still Bank
On an 8% Return

Investors shun stocks at their peril. Attractive returns are in the cards.

By Richard DeKaser, Contributing Economist, The Kiplinger Letter

April 26, 2010
Text Size T T
  • Comments
  • Print This Article
  • Order a Reprint
  • Ask a Question
  • Advertisement

Soured on stocks? It’s understandable that many investors have, after watching their assets founder for so long. If you invested $100 in the Standard & Poor’s 500 in April of 2000, you have only about $97 today. That figure, which includes reinvested dividends, amounts to an annualized return of -0.3%. Ouch! Since 1926, annual returns have averaged nearly 10%.

Many investors now question whether expecting those kinds of gains is realistic anymore. But avoiding equities would be a mistake. Stocks still present an attractive investment, despite the past decade’s historically dismal showing, and even after the past year’s spectacular 70% gain. You might think that the time to buy has passed. After all, it stings to pay $100 for something that traded at $59 just 12 months ago. But investing based on the recent past is like driving a car while focused on the rearview mirror: stupid and dangerous.

Related Links


Looking ahead, annual returns of 7% or so is likely in the coming decades ... and perhaps 8% to 9% over the next 10 years or so.

To understand why, start by considering what kind of profit growth can realistically be expected, since common equity is ultimately a claim on a company’s earnings. For any given company, answering the question is daunting. Aside from revenue prospects, financial condition, the competitive landscape, the cost outlook and management competence must all be considered. But for the market as a whole, the calculus is simpler: Profits grow about as fast as the economy overall.

Since 1947, corporate profits have averaged 9.4% of gross domestic product, narrowly ranging between a high of 12.1% (1950) and a low of 6.3% (1982). Moreover, the growth rates for profits and GDP hang tight. Over that time span, GDP has grown 8% a year on average, while profits increased 7.9%. During the past decade, corporate profits and GDP each increased at exactly a 4.3% annual rate.

This past decade, of course, wasn’t an especially good 10-year span. It started at the pinnacle of the 1990s expansion and ended in the depths of the Great Recession. Going forward, an average of 5% annual economic growth is more likely -- with inflation of 2.25% and real growth of about 2.75%.

Next we need to factor in dividends. Over the past 50 years, the dividend yield for the S&P 500 averaged 3.1%, ranging from a high of 5.7% (1982) to a low of 1.1% (2000). Let’s conservatively assume a 2% dividend yield. With a trend of 5% earnings growth, that boosts the expected total return on stocks to 7% over the long run.

But as an economist once famously quipped, “In the long run, we’re all dead.” Time horizons measured in decades may make sense for the youngest among us, but mature investors aren’t quite so patient. So let’s assume a 10-year investment horizon -- long enough to abstract from unforeseeable events, but short enough to be relevant for musing about retirement. In this case, valuation must be considered as well as earnings and dividends. Naturally, an overvalued market will tend to underperform the long-term trend and an undervalued market will tend to outperform it. So: Is today’s market overvalued or undervalued?

The standard tool for judging valuation is the price-to-earnings multiple, essentially a measurement of what investors are willing to pay for each dollar of corporate earnings. And since investors shouldn’t be looking in the rearview mirror, it’s expected future earnings that matter most. With the S&P 500 index now hovering around 1200, and analysts predicting $78 in operating earnings over the next year, that translates into a price-to-earnings multiple of roughly 15. That’s strikes me as cheap, especially since the average multiple since 1988 is 19. Even excluding the frothy years of 1998 though 2000, the average multiple is 18. A gradual expansion of the P/E ratio to 18 over the next decade means the total return to stocks will be even higher than the 7% long-term average. So,at least for the coming decade, an average annual total return 8% to 9% is a fair bet.



DISCUSS

Permission to post your comment is assumed when you submit it. The name you provide will be used to identify your post, and NOT your e-mail address. We reserve the right to excerpt or edit any posted comments for clarity, appropriateness, civility, and relevance to the topic.
View our full privacy policy

Reader Comments (10)

Posted by: Nomen at 04/26/2010 04:52:53 PM

8% long term??? It's going to take a heck of a lot to offset the past 10 years. The only way there will be a sustained 8% is if inflation takes off like I'm sure it will. Then we will be lucky to break even. What's that saying? There's an investor born every minute. Make that two.

Posted by: eric at 04/26/2010 07:53:55 PM

Basing people buying earnings growth on previous history. No time in previous history has this amount of tax payer and future tax payer potential wealth been spent on bailouts. Yes the earnings growth is good and should be with this kind of help.In the next 10 years national debt is projected to be 90% of GDP, this truly is historical and believe me the amount of money the government sucks out of the private sector to finance the debt combined with high inflation growth will more than offset market returns. Sounds like he's selling something I don't want to buy

Posted by: JD at 04/26/2010 08:10:31 PM

If you go back over the last 40 years it's been averaging over 10%, so 8% seems easy enough. It's comical how many people act like the last couple years tell us more than much longer history. Ignorance and poor math skills...

Posted by: John at 04/27/2010 08:25:10 AM

Perhaps this might be the case but I still think a balanced portfolio 60% equity 40% bond is the best way to invest. I rolled over all my 401k savings into a rollover IRA from a leading brokerage firm and chose a balanced mutual fund. I the depths of the great recession when most all stock mutual funds lost over 50% of their value mine lost 33%. More importantly, during the great recovery I actually gained more than I lost. Meaning I am now in the black. I have more than my principle in the investment and it keeps going up so I'm happy. This experience has shown me clearly that a balanced portfolio is the best portfolio for me. It may not grow the fastest but it tends to smooth out the ups and downs making returns a tad more predictable. It does indeed work as they say it does. It is unfortunate that it takes a calamity like this recent recession to demonstrate the merits of it though.

Posted by: curious at 04/27/2010 11:51:24 PM

...I simply do not believe anymore anything I hear or read, and only half of what I actually see... This site simply supports my theory.

Posted by: Brian at 04/28/2010 10:00:54 AM

The largest credit bubble in the history of the universe has not finished deflating. Get short or get out of the way.

Posted by: Weiwen Ng at 04/30/2010 11:33:46 PM

Jeremy Grantham is considerably more bearish, predicting just under 4% annualized returns. Morningstar cites a number of other managers who do forecasting who are more bearish than your 8% - but M*'s own discounted cash flow analyses peg the S&P's expected return at 8-10% annualized. It's going to be interesting to see how it shakes out. I'm on the pessimistic side, but I think higher quality blue chips are going to be able to return in the region of 8% a year, imho. I can't include URLs, but the M* video is titled Four Takes on the S&P's Return Prospects

Posted by: Bruce at 05/01/2010 05:50:06 AM

One difference that needs to be be noted though is that we are an older, demographically, country than in past decades. Just the U.S. population tilted towards being older and increasing in age may well have a negative impact on stock ownership, and cause stock price dampening in the future.

Posted by: MellowGuy at 05/03/2010 11:22:25 AM

Book value is the standard for valuing corporations. The investor loses by buying over book value in the short run. The ROE shows the profitability of a company and a buy and hold investor isn't going to do better than that in the long run with some exceptions. The ROE for the S&P 500 is 11.14% currently.

Posted by: FPPC at 05/11/2010 09:44:44 PM

ALSO LOOK AT PREFERRED STOCKS THAT OFTEN PAY 8% OR MORE AND ARE CALLABLE AT A HIGHER PRICE THAN CURRENT




Connect With Kiplinger

E-mail Updates: Select the Kiplinger columns and topics to be delivered to your inbox.

email-sign-up

Featured Videos From Kiplinger




facebook
twitter
RSS