Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : All Clowns Must Be Destroyed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (33004)	5/15/2000 2:57:00 PM
From: wlheatmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42523

MO and RJR are doing nicely...-g-

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (33004)	5/15/2000 6:47:00 PM
From: hdl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42523

heinz, what do you know about the study re p/es, its author, methodology, reliability, accuracy?

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (33004)	5/15/2000 7:00:00 PM
From: RocketMan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42523

More recently, professors Robert J. Shiller of Yale and John Campbell of Harvard reported in a series of papers since 1988 that market P/E ratios are a reasonably good predictor of real stock market returns over subsequent periods of 10 years. There was an article in Barron's last week (of all places) that thought Shiller was a bit too bearish. Instead of a 10-year trailing average for earnings, they took 5 year periods, as that was consistent with the 5-10 year earnings they suggested as the best predictor. This brought the S&P p/e down somewhat, maybe 10-20%, I forget the exact number. They called it "Shiller Light." Of course, whether you shave 10 or 20% off the Naz's p/e is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. However, as I have told you before, "we don't care p/e any more."