I haven't seen anyone logically explain why the markets will not go back to the historical averages in terms of PE ever again. If we must see a bottom before an extended bull market again of say, 1-3 years, why would that bottom not AT LEAST be to a historical PE ratio? The S & P is like somewhere near 25-26 I believe, while the historical figure is like 17-18. Is this not true? For people to say April 3 was the low, don't they have to believe we are rewriting history? Someone tell me why the markets (all of them) can't go back to historical averages they have ALWAYS done before? Is Greenspan a God unlike the world has ever seen? Can he undo all of history? If you are betting on Greenspan to negotiate a quick turnaround with no major recession, then you ARE betting against history for the first time. Are people so greedy that they don't care what the PE is -- they will NEVER accept returns (at least by choice) of 4-7% again? With earnings slowing down and recession traveling the globe, who are the "fools" paying a 300+ PE for CIEN right now? That is one of dozens of examples. Can a person be anything but insane to pay over a 100 PE for a DONUT SELLER (KKD)??? It's a brave new world, and perhaps there is so much money flowing into retirement accounts that they will be able to simply keep it all afloat until a recession danger passes, but then you have to believe that the history of the markets is being rewritten right now, and there will be no history to point to from here on out. I'd love to hear a RATIONAL explanation. Analysts are selling stocks. That is their job.
I remain,
SOROS |
