Economist article on bubbles and exuberance

[steve321]

Just read this (available online if you sign in for free):
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-e ... an-science
It includes:

But the covid-induced economic slump has caused earnings to sink even as the Fed and other policymakers have helped buoy share prices. The obvious gauges of frothiness are not much use.

Without hard numbers to count on, they must interpret the market’s unusual behavioural signals in order to spot the froth.
One such sign is the mystifying moves in some stocks (like Tesla, Hertz)

Anecdotally at least, the frothiness in these stocks seems linked to a second phenomenon: a zeal for retail investing. Take, for instance, the popularity of Robinhood,

That exuberance has been matched by a third behavioural oddity: companies’ enthusiasm for issuance.

They basically suggest we are in a bubble, but that it's difficult/impossible to time the moment it bursts.
I am not thinking of selling my investments, but I think I may delay making new ones. But please tell me what you think.

And what do you think of the article? Do you sense irrational exuberance?

[Anon9001]

You just need to disable JavaScript to view it for free

I do think that it is hyperbolic to call it a bubble when you look at the 13 trillion dollar negative yielding bonds in the market.

[Seasonal]

Who knows? There are good stories you can tell either way. Which is so often the case.

Stay the course is most often the best idea. Avoiding these sorts of articles is highly recommended.

[Robot Monster]

Funny, only two days ago, I posted about another "bubble alarm!!" article (about bonds), published 10 years ago, that investors would have done well not to heed.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=323171&p=5440328#p5440328

[JackoC]

Just read this (available online if you sign in for free):
economist
And what do you think of the article? Do you sense irrational exuberance?

I read The Economist (on paper) pretty thoroughly each week, one of my main sources of info on the world. But, the coverage of US financial markets and stocks in particular has a consistently negative spin, for years. I say that as somebody who recognizes that US stocks are expensively priced and their expected returns commensurately lower IMO. But Economist was making offhanded comments in almost every article touching on the US stock market how it was 30 or 40 or whatever % 'overvalued' per Schiller CAPE for years, including suggesting it had much further to fall very near the 2009 bottom. But I guess that just got too embarrassing after awhile given actual returns and they don't say it as often now. But The Economist reading the current situations as 'bubble you can't see according to normal measures' is very much in character. It doesn't mean they are wrong of course, I don't know. If you can get WSJ I'd read James Mackintosh's column from yesterday, and various of this columns in recent times evaluating the market's response to COVID. He's no perma bull by any means but it's a different take. There are always different takes, of course.

[arcticpineapplecorp.]

Just read this (available online if you sign in for free):
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-e ... an-science
It includes:

But the covid-induced economic slump has caused earnings to sink even as the Fed and other policymakers have helped buoy share prices. The obvious gauges of frothiness are not much use.

Without hard numbers to count on, they must interpret the market’s unusual behavioural signals in order to spot the froth.
One such sign is the mystifying moves in some stocks (like Tesla, Hertz)

Anecdotally at least, the frothiness in these stocks seems linked to a second phenomenon: a zeal for retail investing. Take, for instance, the popularity of Robinhood,

That exuberance has been matched by a third behavioural oddity: companies’ enthusiasm for issuance.

They basically suggest we are in a bubble, but that it's difficult/impossible to time the moment it bursts.
I am not thinking of selling my investments, but I think I may delay making new ones. But please tell me what you think.

And what do you think of the article? Do you sense irrational exuberance?

can't read it, behind a paywall.

regarding your phrase irrational exuberance, while there may be more to the phrase irrational exuberance, it was partly used to describe people paying higher and higher prices for stocks that had no earnings (pets.com and the like). That bubble burst when companies who were only operating by selling stock couldn't operate once they couldn't issue more stock and/or credit lines/loans ran out. Companies have to sustain themselves with profits or they'll run out of runway.

is this what's happening today?

when the phrase irrational exuberance was first used, it was 12/5/1996 and used by Greenspan (https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... CAs&uact=5). If you'd have listened to Greenspan in 1996 and gotten out of the market, you'd have missed a doubling of your money between 12/5/1996-12/31/1999 (3/24/2000 was the apex before the bubble burst):

http://quotes.morningstar.com/chart/fun ... A%5B%5D%7D

If you still didn't pay attention to the last irrational exuberance on 12/5/1996 and invested to today, you'd have 7.2 times your original investment:

http://quotes.morningstar.com/chart/fun ... A%5B%5D%7D

you're trying to market time (get out of the market before it goes down). feeling lucky? The beginning of the article says it more of an art than a science. Do you consider yourself a market timing artist? Since it's not a science, there's no proven formula for successful, consistent market timing.

tell you what...play the following games:
https://www.prudential.com/cdn/tools/ou ... oolcta=OFF
https://qz.com/487013/this-game-will-sh ... right-now/
https://engaging-data.com/market-timing-game/

How'd you do? If you didn't beat the market with known, past data, what makes you think you'll do well with unknown, future data?

read this swedroe article "Better to face the correction":
https://www.etf.com/sections/index-inve ... nopaging=1

Shows you most people would do better holding than market timing because if you're out of the market during some of the best days (which are often close to the worst days) you get a worse return:

What many investors don’t know is that most stock returns come in very short and unpredictable bursts.
https://www.etf.com/sections/index-inve ... nopaging=1

The answer to all your market timing questions:

Q: When should I buy?
A: When you have the money.

Q: When should I sell?
A: When you need the money.

stop playing with your money. buy and hold works. more people should really try it sometime.

If I had a nickel for every market timing question I answered along these lines, I'd have many nickels.

[steve321]

Just read this (available online if you sign in for free):
economist
And what do you think of the article? Do you sense irrational exuberance?

I read The Economist (on paper) pretty thoroughly each week, one of my main sources of info on the world. But, the coverage of US financial markets and stocks in particular has a consistently negative spin, for years. I say that as somebody who recognizes that US stocks are expensively priced and their expected returns commensurately lower IMO. But Economist was making offhanded comments in almost every article touching on the US stock market how it was 30 or 40 or whatever % 'overvalued' per Schiller CAPE for years, including suggesting it had much further to fall very near the 2009 bottom. But I guess that just got too embarrassing after awhile given actual returns and they don't say it as often now. But The Economist reading the current situations as 'bubble you can't see according to normal measures' is very much in character. It doesn't mean they are wrong of course, I don't know. If you can get WSJ I'd read James Mackintosh's column from yesterday, and various of this columns in recent times evaluating the market's response to COVID. He's no perma bull by any means but it's a different take. There are always different takes, of course.

You're right, I saw other articles in which they were bearish for the US; and in fact this article too is about the US rather than the whole world (something I missed when I read it). So if there's a bubble, it might concern only US stocks. But in the meantime US stocks keep soaring, unlike those of other parts of the world, so FOMO makes you want to invest in the US (or at least invest some your money there).

[Fallible]

...
They basically suggest we are in a bubble, but that it's difficult/impossible to time the moment it bursts.
I am not thinking of selling my investments, but I think I may delay making new ones. But please tell me what you think ...

If your asset allocation is correctly based on your risk tolerance (i.e., you've taken into consideration your tolerance for inevitable and unpredictable bubbles) and you are in it for the long term, why would you delay investing new money? And if you delayed, for how long?

[steve321]

...
They basically suggest we are in a bubble, but that it's difficult/impossible to time the moment it bursts.
I am not thinking of selling my investments, but I think I may delay making new ones. But please tell me what you think ...

If your asset allocation is correctly based on your risk tolerance (i.e., you've taken into consideration your tolerance for inevitable and unpredictable bubbles) and you are in it for the long term, why would you delay investing new money? And if you delayed, for how long?

yep good point, how long? Who knows, perhaps wait the for US elections?

[Robot Monster]

So if there's a bubble, it might concern only US stocks.

An investor might (wisely or unwisely, I do not know) favor investing overseas rather than domestically based on a CAPE ratio argument. As of July 31st, the U.S. had a CAPE of 30.1. Following the largest country weights of Total International:

Japan -- 18.1
China -- 17.2
UK -- 12.5
Canada -- 20.2
Switzerland -- 24.8
France -- 17.8
Germany -- 16.5
Australia -- 17.1

I realize evening mentioning such an investment strategy around here is blasphemy, and invite counterarguments galore attacking this way of investing. This is Bogleheads, not Shillerheads, after all.

[steve321]

So if there's a bubble, it might concern only US stocks.

An investor might (wisely or unwisely, I do not know) favor investing overseas rather than domestically based on a CAPE ratio argument. As of July 31st, the U.S. had a CAPE of 30.1. Following the largest country weights of Total International:

Japan -- 18.1
China -- 17.2
UK -- 12.5
Canada -- 20.2
Switzerland -- 24.8
France -- 17.8
Germany -- 16.5
Australia -- 17.1

I realize evening mentioning such an investment strategy around here is blasphemy, and invite counterarguments galore attacking this way of investing. This is Bogleheads, not Shillerheads, after all.

yes see your point, put some money into Japan recently. However the UK say is a lot cheaper by CAPE, but we also have different type of industries, none of the cool tech firms you have. So isn't it logical that the US CAPE should be higher? Uncertain stuff, if you think about it too much it can drive you crazy, since I don't see a definitive answer to that.

[Robot Monster]

So if there's a bubble, it might concern only US stocks.

An investor might (wisely or unwisely, I do not know) favor investing overseas rather than domestically based on a CAPE ratio argument. As of July 31st, the U.S. had a CAPE of 30.1. Following the largest country weights of Total International:

Japan -- 18.1
China -- 17.2
UK -- 12.5
Canada -- 20.2
Switzerland -- 24.8
France -- 17.8
Germany -- 16.5
Australia -- 17.1

I realize evening mentioning such an investment strategy around here is blasphemy, and invite counterarguments galore attacking this way of investing. This is Bogleheads, not Shillerheads, after all.

yes see your point, put some money into Japan recently. However the UK say is a lot cheaper by CAPE, but we also have different type of industries, none of the cool tech firms you have. So isn't it logical that the US CAPE should be higher? Uncertain stuff, if you think about it too much it can drive you crazy, since I don't see a definitive answer to that.

Yes, that's one of the attack lines against CAPE, the difference in sector weights between countries. Even without those firms, I doubt the US CAPE would be anywhere close to UK levels.

[firebirdparts]

Just read this (available online if you sign in for free):
economist
And what do you think of the article? Do you sense irrational exuberance?

I read The Economist (on paper) pretty thoroughly each week, one of my main sources of info on the world. But, the coverage of US financial markets and stocks in particular has a consistently negative spin, for years.

I didn't want to be the one to post this. They really have gone downhill. I am glad somebody is interviewing the man on the street in countries we rarely hear from, and they report on all sorts of political issues all over the globe. I admire that, but what they write about the USA is really pretty poor. About 90% of it is imaginary bad news of the future (like the above article). You can imagine that above article didn't take much effort.

[Valuethinker]

So if there's a bubble, it might concern only US stocks.

An investor might (wisely or unwisely, I do not know) favor investing overseas rather than domestically based on a CAPE ratio argument. As of July 31st, the U.S. had a CAPE of 30.1. Following the largest country weights of Total International:

Japan -- 18.1
China -- 17.2
UK -- 12.5
Canada -- 20.2
Switzerland -- 24.8
France -- 17.8
Germany -- 16.5
Australia -- 17.1

I realize evening mentioning such an investment strategy around here is blasphemy, and invite counterarguments galore attacking this way of investing. This is Bogleheads, not Shillerheads, after all.

yes see your point, put some money into Japan recently. However the UK say is a lot cheaper by CAPE, but we also have different type of industries, none of the cool tech firms you have. So isn't it logical that the US CAPE should be higher? Uncertain stuff, if you think about it too much it can drive you crazy, since I don't see a definitive answer to that.

Yes, that's one of the attack lines against CAPE, the difference in sector weights between countries. Even without those firms, I doubt the US CAPE would be anywhere close to UK levels.

I can tell you in the case of UK, Canada & Australia the sectoral distribution thing is really critical. The latter two have large weightings in cyclical natural resources stocks, and in banks & other financials. All of which will trade at a substantial discount to the market.

Japan's high rating surprises me, because you have these industrial companies trading at a discount to their book value. Also a lot of financials.

UK? You do have oil cos (BP & Royal Dutch Shell) as 15% of the index (or they were). You have tobacco. Drinks (but Diageo is on a pretty high multiple). Pharma which is on a low PE compared to historic but both GSK & Astra Zeneca would be on pretty much market multiples, I believe. Natural resource stocks.

For most of these indices the key may simply be that the top 10 stocks are 40-50% of the index (true for UK; nearly true for Canada). Even now in the USA that number is more like 35% (?) and that's with record high concentration in the top 5 stocks (and 7 of the 10 largest cos are tech).

[Robot Monster]

Yes, that's one of the attack lines against CAPE, the difference in sector weights between countries. Even without those firms, I doubt the US CAPE would be anywhere close to UK levels.

I can tell you in the case of UK, Canada & Australia the sectoral distribution thing is really critical. The latter two have large weightings in cyclical natural resources stocks, and in banks & other financials. All of which will trade at a substantial discount to the market.

Japan's high rating surprises me, because you have these industrial companies trading at a discount to their book value. Also a lot of financials.

UK? You do have oil cos (BP & Royal Dutch Shell) as 15% of the index (or they were). You have tobacco. Drinks (but Diageo is on a pretty high multiple). Pharma which is on a low PE compared to historic but both GSK & Astra Zeneca would be on pretty much market multiples, I believe. Natural resource stocks.

For most of these indices the key may simply be that the top 10 stocks are 40-50% of the index (true for UK; nearly true for Canada). Even now in the USA that number is more like 35% (?) and that's with record high concentration in the top 5 stocks (and 7 of the 10 largest cos are tech).

Interesting, thanks! I do see that BP & Royal Dutch Shell are 3.87% & 3.20% in the EWU ETF, so seemingly much diminished from what they were. Energy comprises 9.84% of EWU vs 2.5% for the S&P. Consumer Staples dominate at 18.97% vs 7.10% for the S&P. Information Technology is 1.3% in EWU vs 27.5% for the S&P!!! Holy hand grenades!
https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239 ... ingdom-etf

[MotoTrojan]

I'm staying fully-invested and still contributing, but I have a very aggressive tilt to size/value and 35% exposure to ex-US stocks that helps me sleep at night.

[nisiprius]

...They basically suggest we are in a bubble, but that it's difficult/impossible to time the moment it bursts.
I am not thinking of selling my investments, but I think I may delay making new ones. But please tell me what you think.

I haven't bothered to read the article, because I've thought for a long time that "we are in a bubble, but that it's difficult/impossible to time the moment it bursts."

Knowing that you're in a bubble isn't worth much, even if you're right, if you can't put a narrow time frame on the moment of collapse. "Sooner or later a crash is coming and it may be terrific" is not valuable information.

As for timing, I believe that you might as well just go on blindly investing. Just as an indexer buys some stocks that are undervalued and some that are overvalued and settles for getting the average, a buy-and-holder buys at some times when the market is undervalued and some when it is overvalued and settles for getting the average. It's just like indexing, only it is over time.

P.S. "Irrational exuberance," eh? Don't forget that Greenspan made that comment in late 1996. And I personally acted on it, I didn't go to cash or anything like that but I did trim back gradually over 1997, and missed out on some fabulous growth. I also missed out on some of a fabulous crash and overall it was pretty much a wash, but the point was that even acting on a prediction that came true was not a key to fabulous wealth.

[Elysium]

They basically suggest we are in a bubble, but that it's difficult/impossible to time the moment it bursts.
I am not thinking of selling my investments, but I think I may delay making new ones. But please tell me what you think.

And what do you think of the article? Do you sense irrational exuberance?

Yes. Asset prices are inflated. By all explanations this is the one that makes most sense for stocks and bonds to be up so much.

But, two problems with it. One, there is no way to know for sure. Two, even if we know it isn't actionable. Those who think they've met or are closer to their goals can think of de-risking at the expense of missing out on further growth if the frothiness keeps going. I'd simply say stick with the plan and that should take care of it. My re-balancing plan tells me I am now plus 9% away from where I should be, and I still haven't done anything. Perhaps I should just get to it.

[Robot Monster]

Just for giggles, I compiled a list of the top two sectors of the top countries in the international index, along with their CAPES.

S&P (30 CAPE)
Information Technology -- 27.5%
Health Care -- 14.6%

Japan (18.1 CAPE)
Industrials -- 20.09%
Consumer Discretionary -- 17.97%

China (17.2 CAPE)
Consumer Discretionary -- 33.94%
Communication -- 21.08%

UK (12.5 CAPE)
Consumer Staples -- 18.97%
Financials -- 17.36%

Canada (20.2 CAPE)
Financials -- 34.18%
Materials -- 14.15%

Switzerland (24.8 CAPE)
Health Care -- 30.51%
Consumer Staples -- 22.76%

France (17.8 CAPE)
Industrials -- 20.95%
Consumer Discretionary -- 19.61%

Germany (16.5 CAPE)
Consumer Discretionary -- 16.32%
Information Technology -- 15.79%

Australia (17.1 CAPE)
Financials -- 31.06%
Materials -- 20%

International Sources:
https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239 ... -japan-etf
https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239 ... -china-etf
https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239 ... ingdom-etf
https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239 ... canada-etf
https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239 ... capped-etf
https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239 ... france-etf
https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239 ... ermany-etf
https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239 ... tralia-etf

[Robot Monster]

In other news, maybe not a bubble...



Many thanks to Seasonal for posting this image.

[JBTX]

Just for giggles, I compiled a list of the top two sectors of the top countries in the international index, along with their CAPES.

S&P (30 CAPE)
Information Technology -- 27.5%
Health Care -- 14.6%

Japan (18.1 CAPE)
Industrials -- 20.09%
Consumer Discretionary -- 17.97%

China (17.2 CAPE)
Consumer Discretionary -- 33.94%
Communication -- 21.08%

UK (12.5 CAPE)
Consumer Staples -- 18.97%
Financials -- 17.36%

Canada (20.2 CAPE)
Financials -- 34.18%
Materials -- 14.15%

Switzerland (24.8 CAPE)
Health Care -- 30.51%
Consumer Staples -- 22.76%

France (17.8 CAPE)
Industrials -- 20.95%
Consumer Discretionary -- 19.61%

Germany (16.5 CAPE)
Consumer Discretionary -- 16.32%
Information Technology -- 15.79%

Australia (17.1 CAPE)
Financials -- 31.06%
Materials -- 20%

International Sources:
https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239 ... -japan-etf
https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239 ... -china-etf
https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239 ... ingdom-etf
https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239 ... canada-etf
https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239 ... capped-etf
https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239 ... france-etf
https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239 ... ermany-etf
https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239 ... tralia-etf

Interesting. Thanks for posting. I guess I'd ask the question if one is US only, are you truly diversified given the different sector weights? Through globalization countries have come to specialize. So investing in one country is a quasi sector tilted bet.

[bligh]

Anecdotally, for me at least, we have hit the "shoe shine boy giving stock tips" measure for a bubble. I have had a couple of friends I have known for years who have recently started to get into stock, options and day trading as a way to supplement and (in one of the cases) replace some of the lost income due to Covid19. Last couple of times I have met up with them, they have been talking about the latest hot stocks and explaining their trades to me so I can get in on the action too. Though these guys are smart and high income professionals, their profession has nothing to do with investing or finance.

The last time I saw conversations like this happen regularly was during the Dotcom bubble. It also reminded me of the way people talked about house prices and house flipping during the run up to the GFC.

I am convinced that this is another bubble, but I am taking no action beyond extending my cash reserves to 2 years of expenses. In fact I haven't even rebalanced to bonds after the current run up in stocks. Bubbles can go on for years, and I don't want to make the behavioral mistake of sitting on the sidelines as I watch the market keep rising and then having FOMO cause me to hit the point of capitulation months or years from now and enter the market shortly before the crash.

Instead I am just following the boglehead practices that are often repeated on this board. I am making sure my asset allocation is such that I am comfortable with a 50% drop in the market at any moment. I am making sure that all money I expect to use in the next 3-5 years is not invested in stocks. I am maintaining sizable cash reserves such that I am able to ride out total job loss over an extended recession (for example, so that I dont make behavioral mistakes such as selling stocks in the middle of a crash to lower my risk profile due to a job loss).

In short. Yes, I am convinced we are in a bubble, but I am not trying to get off of the roller coaster ahead, instead I am just making sure my seat belt is tightened and I am ready for a (very) bumpy ride.

[arcticpineapplecorp.]

when the market's up, people say, 'We're in a bubble that's going to pop."

when the market's down, people say, "We're headed even lower."

see that? fear. and fear. both these will lead you to never invest.

I've been investing for 20 years and I can't remember a time when the media generally said, "This is a great time to invest!!"

If you would have just invested through good times and bad, things work out over the long term.

stop playing with your money.

[garlandwhizzer]

I agree that there is frothiness localized mostly to mega cap tech darlings but extending into SVC/MC biotech, gold, and PME at present. The problem is predicting when euphoric MOM investors will hit a wall. It could go on for years as it did in the "irrational exuberance" that Greenspan complained of in 1996, 4 years before it crashed. Personally I'm not selling any TSM equity at all. It's been a great ride and I'm not ready to dismount. The biggest problem with selling equity now is where the put the money? MMF and bonds are likely to produce negative or zero real returns going forward. There does not appear to be a safe place park money and get positive real returns. Safety has never been this expensive.

What I have personally done is a different approach which I do not recommend for others, just for me. I anticipated a bear market for 2020 (probably pure luck) at the end of 2019 and modestly increased my bond exposure waiting for an opportunity to buy quality assets on sale. At the end of 2019 it seemed to me that all solid investment assets were richly priced. When the Covid-19 bear did hit, the market action was so dramatic and severe short term that, as always, I missed buying at the bottom and didn't believe in the rally until the market had retraced much of its losses. I bought some equity then but kept an overweight in bonds waiting for the market to fall again, perhaps get back not too far from the lows of March 2020. This has not happened but is still a possibility although a very remote one now. I have gradually moved some of that excess bond holdings into assets that were hit hard during the initial bear drop and have hardly recovered at all in the subsequent bull, losers like value and REITS. They continue to suffer as mega cap tech skyrockets but at some point likely after a vaccine and subsequent normalization of the economy I expect them to recover. A lot of future bad news is already priced in to these areas, whereas for tech driven LCG a lot of future good news is already priced in. TSLA's current PE ratio is 1048 which amounts to an astronomical amount of optimistic future expectations. Meanwhile VBR (SCV) has a PE of 15.1 and Vanguard's VEIPX (LC dividend/value) has a PE of 17.4, which IMO represents a lot of very low future expectations. I suspect that this divergent sentiment is overshooting in the opposite directions. at present. Time will tell.

I also plan to continue gradually moving bonds into cheap/reasonably priced equity in the next 4 - 5 months, lowering my long term my bond allocation goal from 40% to about 35%, never below 30%, in response to the current no yield environment. It bothers me a great deal to allocate 40% or more of my portfolio to an asset class that I believe will produce no real return at all in the foreseeable future and possibly real losses in the even of inflation/rising rates. It's against my religion to accept zero expected return on such a large portion of the portfolio. 30% - 35% is more than enough to anchor me in an equity storm and safety alone, not real returns is what bonds currently provide.

Garland Whizzer

[Robot Monster]

when the market's up, people say, 'We're in a bubble that's going to pop."

when the market's down, people say, "We're headed even lower."

see that? fear. and fear. both these will lead you to never invest.

I've been investing for 20 years and I can't remember a time when the media generally said, "This is a great time to invest!!"

If you would have just invested through good times and bad, things work out over the long term.

stop playing with your money.

This makes me think there is some value in those talking heads on TV that recommend stocks to buy. For those caught between fear and fear, it might be valuable to have someone tell you buy buy buy.

[arcticpineapplecorp.]

when the market's up, people say, 'We're in a bubble that's going to pop."

when the market's down, people say, "We're headed even lower."

see that? fear. and fear. both these will lead you to never invest.

I've been investing for 20 years and I can't remember a time when the media generally said, "This is a great time to invest!!"

If you would have just invested through good times and bad, things work out over the long term.

stop playing with your money.

This makes me think there is some value in those talking heads on TV that recommend stocks to buy. For those caught between fear and fear, it might be valuable to have someone tell you buy buy buy.

actually the talking heads tell you to buy more than to sell. This was one of Blodget's problem, but generally there are more buy than sell recommendations I believe.

problem is the talking heads are telling you to buy individual stocks. that's not investing and it's not helpful.

they don't tell you to own the market.

they don't tell you to buy and hold.

[rockstar]

Let's say there is a bubble. When do you get out? And more importantly when do you get back in?

[Robot Monster]

Let's say there is a bubble. When do you get out? And more importantly when do you get back in?

Don't necessarily sell, but perhaps don't buy more domestic-only haystack. How about wait till the S&P's CAPE dips down into the 20's, and till then buy the global haystack i.e. VT ETF?

[rockstar]

Let's say there is a bubble. When do you get out? And more importantly when do you get back in?

Don't necessarily sell, but perhaps don't buy more domestic-only haystack. How about wait till the S&P's CAPE dips down into the 20's, and till then buy the global haystack i.e. VT ETF?

The US market is going up. Europe is pretty much negatively correlated to the US market. I don't get this strategy. It feels like chasing bad. And getting a CAPE in the 20s seems impossible. Why not stick with what works and bail when it falls?

[000]

Do you sense irrational exuberance?

I am seeing more TINA (there is no alternative) than irrational exuberance.

[Robot Monster]

Let's say there is a bubble. When do you get out? And more importantly when do you get back in?

Don't necessarily sell, but perhaps don't buy more domestic-only haystack. How about wait till the S&P's CAPE dips down into the 20's, and till then buy the global haystack i.e. VT ETF?

The US market is going up. Europe is pretty much negatively correlated to the US market. I don't get this strategy. It feels like chasing bad. And getting a CAPE in the 20s seems impossible. Why not stick with what works and bail when it falls?

If you want to hedge against the possibility US stocks are in a bubble, why not also invest in other countries where the bubble factor is less likely? If you don't care about the bubble issue, or don't believe in it, you can just stick with US stocks, of course.

As far as "chasing bad", It may surprise you that Blackrock (six to 12-month tactical view) is currently overweight Europe, neutral US stocks. Well, it surprised me! I'm used to everyone regarding the US as the powerhouse, overseas as the weakling.
https://www.blackrock.com/us/individual ... ular-views

When you say, "The US market is going up" beware of recency bias. We don't know what will happen next. Though, I happen to be inclined to agree with you, we should perhaps both back away slowly from the crystal ball.

"Why not stick with what works and bail when it falls?" sounds like performance chasing. If we're going to be going that route, we should be diving head first into QQQ!

[rockstar]

Let's say there is a bubble. When do you get out? And more importantly when do you get back in?

Don't necessarily sell, but perhaps don't buy more domestic-only haystack. How about wait till the S&P's CAPE dips down into the 20's, and till then buy the global haystack i.e. VT ETF?

The US market is going up. Europe is pretty much negatively correlated to the US market. I don't get this strategy. It feels like chasing bad. And getting a CAPE in the 20s seems impossible. Why not stick with what works and bail when it falls?

If you want to hedge against the possibility US stocks are in a bubble, why not also invest in other countries where the bubble factor is less likely? If you don't care about the bubble issue, or don't believe in it, you can just stick with US stocks, of course.

As far as "chasing bad", It may surprise you that Blackrock (six to 12-month tactical view) is currently overweight Europe, neutral US stocks. Well, it surprised me! I'm used to everyone regarding the US as the powerhouse, overseas as the weakling.
https://www.blackrock.com/us/individual ... ular-views

When you say, "The US market is going up" beware of recency bias. We don't know what will happen next. Though, I happen to be inclined to agree with you, we should perhaps both back away slowly from the crystal ball.

"Why not stick with what works and bail when it falls?" sounds like performance chasing. If we're going to be going that route, we should be diving head first into QQQ!

I have been diving head first into QQQ. I'll bail when it fails. I'm not a contrarian.

[steve321]

Let's say there is a bubble. When do you get out? And more importantly when do you get back in?

Don't necessarily sell, but perhaps don't buy more domestic-only haystack. How about wait till the S&P's CAPE dips down into the 20's, and till then buy the global haystack i.e. VT ETF?

The US market is going up. Europe is pretty much negatively correlated to the US market. I don't get this strategy. It feels like chasing bad. And getting a CAPE in the 20s seems impossible. Why not stick with what works and bail when it falls?

If you want to hedge against the possibility US stocks are in a bubble, why not also invest in other countries where the bubble factor is less likely? If you don't care about the bubble issue, or don't believe in it, you can just stick with US stocks, of course.

As far as "chasing bad", It may surprise you that Blackrock (six to 12-month tactical view) is currently overweight Europe, neutral US stocks. Well, it surprised me! I'm used to everyone regarding the US as the powerhouse, overseas as the weakling.
https://www.blackrock.com/us/individual ... ular-views

When you say, "The US market is going up" beware of recency bias. We don't know what will happen next. Though, I happen to be inclined to agree with you, we should perhaps both back away slowly from the crystal ball.

"Why not stick with what works and bail when it falls?" sounds like performance chasing. If we're going to be going that route, we should be diving head first into QQQ!

I have been diving head first into QQQ. I'll bail when it fails. I'm not a contrarian.

That's a good plan, to avoid sitting on the sidelines and missing out. Do you have a precise plan on when to bail though? How will you know it's time to bail and it's not just an opportunity to 'buy the dip'.

[Lauretta]

I also plan to continue gradually moving bonds into cheap/reasonably priced equity in the next 4 - 5 months, lowering my long term my bond allocation goal from 40% to about 35%, never below 30%, in response to the current no yield environment. It bothers me a great deal to allocate 40% or more of my portfolio to an asset class that I believe will produce no real return at all in the foreseeable future and possibly real losses in the even of inflation/rising rates. It's against my religion to accept zero expected return on such a large portion of the portfolio. 30% - 35% is more than enough to anchor me in an equity storm and safety alone, not real returns is what bonds currently provide.

Garland Whizzer

I had a similar dilemma when I joined Bogleheads a few years ago, since interest rates in the EU where I live were already negative. Someone (I think valuethinker) pointed out however that since all assets prices are connected, returns on stocks should also be lower accordingly (unless the equity risk premium has cahnged). So some people argue one should not change their AA unless they are able and willing and need to take more risk.
Anyway for the moment I've solved the problem of my bond part by investing mainly in structured products (called Assurance Vie in Europe) that provide around 1,5 to 2% garanteed yield (the insurance company, rather than the investor, takes on the risk) - I will see what happens in the future. In the meantime since yields have gone even lower in Europe, bonds have not done badly...

[AlohaJoe]

And what do you think of the article?

I think you need to stop reading financial news and find a new hobby.

Today you're delaying making new investments.

8 days ago you were going to buy ETFs with stable cash flows: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=322583&p=5425962#p5425962
4 days before that you were into trend following: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=322331&p=5420262#p5420262
A week before that you were thinking about shorting the USD: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=320962&p=5389009#p5389009
A few days before that you were worried about the GBP: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=320382&p=5375164#p5375164
A week before that you were going to invest in whiskey: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=319153&p=5347417#p5347417
The day before whiskey you were going to invest in value: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=314513&p=5346775#p5346775
That same day you were also going to invest in commodities: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=319057&p=5344962#p5344962
And the day before that you bought gold: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=319041&p=5344628#p5344628

I think you are good candidate for a financial advisor to manage your money for you.

[steve321]

And what do you think of the article?

I think you need to stop reading financial news and find a new hobby.

Today you're delaying making new investments.

8 days ago you were going to buy ETFs with stable cash flows: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=322583&p=5425962#p5425962
4 days before that you were into trend following: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=322331&p=5420262#p5420262
A week before that you were thinking about shorting the USD: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=320962&p=5389009#p5389009
A few days before that you were worried about the GBP: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=320382&p=5375164#p5375164
A week before that you were going to invest in whiskey: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=319153&p=5347417#p5347417
The day before whiskey you were going to invest in value: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=314513&p=5346775#p5346775
That same day you were also going to invest in commodities: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=319057&p=5344962#p5344962
And the day before that you bought gold: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=319041&p=5344628#p5344628

I think you are good candidate for a financial advisor to manage your money for you.

I am here to learn, to humbly share my thoughts and to triangulate with knowledgeable people. I prefer reading different views from people I respect here on Bogleheads (and I have grown quite fond of some of the people who share their thoughts here) to having one financial advisor (& I'd still have to make the right decision in choosing the right one anyway).
Btw the one large investment I did make and that you mention above is doing quite well, thank you very much.
And finally concerning my worries about the GBP that you mention, perhaps they were justified; in any case it's a subject that deserves consideration https://twitter.com/ole_b_peters/status ... 3723138048

[Robot Monster]

I guess I'd ask the question if one is US only, are you truly diversified given the different sector weights? Through globalization countries have come to specialize. So investing in one country is a quasi sector tilted bet.

Strangely, if I change US's sector tilts by creating a portfolio of Vanguard's sector ETFs that mirrors Japan's sector composition, this portfolio's performance isn't so dissimilar from Total US market, and very dissimilar from Japan itself.

CAGR from Jan 2019 - Jul 2020
US Sector Weighted to Japan -- 19.38%
Vanguard Total Stock Market -- 19.96%
iShares MSCI Japan ETF -- 6.40%
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... on13_2=100

Source of Japan's sector weights,
https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239 ... -japan-etf

[Ari]

stop playing with your money.

This is my new favorite Bogleheads catchphrase. Soon we will have boiled down all of BH philosophy into a few catchy one-liners.

Invest we must
Time in the market, not timing the market
Don’t just do something, stand there!
When you’ve won the game, why keep playing?
Buy the haystack
Don’t play with your money

[arcticpineapplecorp.]

Let's say there is a bubble. When do you get out? And more importantly when do you get back in?

Don't necessarily sell, but perhaps don't buy more domestic-only haystack. How about wait till the S&P's CAPE dips down into the 20's, and till then buy the global haystack i.e. VT ETF?

The US market is going up. Europe is pretty much negatively correlated to the US market. I don't get this strategy. It feels like chasing bad. And getting a CAPE in the 20s seems impossible. Why not stick with what works and bail when it falls?

If you want to hedge against the possibility US stocks are in a bubble, why not also invest in other countries where the bubble factor is less likely? If you don't care about the bubble issue, or don't believe in it, you can just stick with US stocks, of course.

As far as "chasing bad", It may surprise you that Blackrock (six to 12-month tactical view) is currently overweight Europe, neutral US stocks. Well, it surprised me! I'm used to everyone regarding the US as the powerhouse, overseas as the weakling.
https://www.blackrock.com/us/individual ... ular-views

When you say, "The US market is going up" beware of recency bias. We don't know what will happen next. Though, I happen to be inclined to agree with you, we should perhaps both back away slowly from the crystal ball.

"Why not stick with what works and bail when it falls?" sounds like performance chasing. If we're going to be going that route, we should be diving head first into QQQ!

I have been diving head first into QQQ. I'll bail when it fails. I'm not a contrarian.

sounds like buy high and sell low.

[rockstar]

Don't necessarily sell, but perhaps don't buy more domestic-only haystack. How about wait till the S&P's CAPE dips down into the 20's, and till then buy the global haystack i.e. VT ETF?

The US market is going up. Europe is pretty much negatively correlated to the US market. I don't get this strategy. It feels like chasing bad. And getting a CAPE in the 20s seems impossible. Why not stick with what works and bail when it falls?

If you want to hedge against the possibility US stocks are in a bubble, why not also invest in other countries where the bubble factor is less likely? If you don't care about the bubble issue, or don't believe in it, you can just stick with US stocks, of course.

As far as "chasing bad", It may surprise you that Blackrock (six to 12-month tactical view) is currently overweight Europe, neutral US stocks. Well, it surprised me! I'm used to everyone regarding the US as the powerhouse, overseas as the weakling.
https://www.blackrock.com/us/individual ... ular-views

When you say, "The US market is going up" beware of recency bias. We don't know what will happen next. Though, I happen to be inclined to agree with you, we should perhaps both back away slowly from the crystal ball.

"Why not stick with what works and bail when it falls?" sounds like performance chasing. If we're going to be going that route, we should be diving head first into QQQ!

I have been diving head first into QQQ. I'll bail when it fails. I'm not a contrarian.

That's a good plan, to avoid sitting on the sidelines and missing out. Do you have a precise plan on when to bail though? How will you know it's time to bail and it's not just an opportunity to 'buy the dip'.

I keep buying. I bought some more yesterday. I'll probably buy around $100k next month.

My plan is to sell when it crosses below its 100 day moving average for more than a couple of days. The last time I sold when VOO crossed below its 300 day moving average, and bought back in when the S&P 500 had a PE around 20x. Probably didn't make the most sense to time QQQ selling and buying around S&P 500 metrics. I did lower my cost basis, but I probably could have done a better. I'm still figuring it. I'm not a buy and forget investor. There are times you want to bail.

[rockstar]

Don't necessarily sell, but perhaps don't buy more domestic-only haystack. How about wait till the S&P's CAPE dips down into the 20's, and till then buy the global haystack i.e. VT ETF?

The US market is going up. Europe is pretty much negatively correlated to the US market. I don't get this strategy. It feels like chasing bad. And getting a CAPE in the 20s seems impossible. Why not stick with what works and bail when it falls?

If you want to hedge against the possibility US stocks are in a bubble, why not also invest in other countries where the bubble factor is less likely? If you don't care about the bubble issue, or don't believe in it, you can just stick with US stocks, of course.

As far as "chasing bad", It may surprise you that Blackrock (six to 12-month tactical view) is currently overweight Europe, neutral US stocks. Well, it surprised me! I'm used to everyone regarding the US as the powerhouse, overseas as the weakling.
https://www.blackrock.com/us/individual ... ular-views

When you say, "The US market is going up" beware of recency bias. We don't know what will happen next. Though, I happen to be inclined to agree with you, we should perhaps both back away slowly from the crystal ball.

"Why not stick with what works and bail when it falls?" sounds like performance chasing. If we're going to be going that route, we should be diving head first into QQQ!

I have been diving head first into QQQ. I'll bail when it fails. I'm not a contrarian.

sounds like buy high and sell low.

Better than buying low and selling lower. I'd like to know that there is at least a chance that I'll make money. Buying an index that is limping along or falling doesn't really excite me. I won't touch international right now even though the valuations look far better than the US market.

[arcticpineapplecorp.]

The US market is going up. Europe is pretty much negatively correlated to the US market. I don't get this strategy. It feels like chasing bad. And getting a CAPE in the 20s seems impossible. Why not stick with what works and bail when it falls?

If you want to hedge against the possibility US stocks are in a bubble, why not also invest in other countries where the bubble factor is less likely? If you don't care about the bubble issue, or don't believe in it, you can just stick with US stocks, of course.

As far as "chasing bad", It may surprise you that Blackrock (six to 12-month tactical view) is currently overweight Europe, neutral US stocks. Well, it surprised me! I'm used to everyone regarding the US as the powerhouse, overseas as the weakling.
https://www.blackrock.com/us/individual ... ular-views

When you say, "The US market is going up" beware of recency bias. We don't know what will happen next. Though, I happen to be inclined to agree with you, we should perhaps both back away slowly from the crystal ball.

"Why not stick with what works and bail when it falls?" sounds like performance chasing. If we're going to be going that route, we should be diving head first into QQQ!

I have been diving head first into QQQ. I'll bail when it fails. I'm not a contrarian.

sounds like buy high and sell low.

Better than buying low and selling lower. I'd like to know that there is at least a chance that I'll make money. Buying an index that is limping along or falling doesn't really excite me. I won't touch international right now even though the valuations look far better than the US market.

ah it's excitement you're after. that's gambling, not investing. the index (broad market) has given good returns for a long time. investors focus on that long term and not the short term.

[ImUrHuckleberry]

I'm staying fully-invested and still contributing, but I have a very aggressive tilt to size/value and 35% exposure to ex-US stocks that helps me sleep at night.

I've never found it difficult to keep investing my regular contributions. (Even though I sometimes market time around the margins and play with a dynamic AA but within ranges so I can't make too much of a mistake.)

But what if you came into a fairly significant amount of new cash (say 5 to 10 times annual expenses) right now? Would you be able to invest that at your chosen AA without worrying and losing sleep?

[rockstar]

If you want to hedge against the possibility US stocks are in a bubble, why not also invest in other countries where the bubble factor is less likely? If you don't care about the bubble issue, or don't believe in it, you can just stick with US stocks, of course.

As far as "chasing bad", It may surprise you that Blackrock (six to 12-month tactical view) is currently overweight Europe, neutral US stocks. Well, it surprised me! I'm used to everyone regarding the US as the powerhouse, overseas as the weakling.
https://www.blackrock.com/us/individual ... ular-views

When you say, "The US market is going up" beware of recency bias. We don't know what will happen next. Though, I happen to be inclined to agree with you, we should perhaps both back away slowly from the crystal ball.

"Why not stick with what works and bail when it falls?" sounds like performance chasing. If we're going to be going that route, we should be diving head first into QQQ!

I have been diving head first into QQQ. I'll bail when it fails. I'm not a contrarian.

sounds like buy high and sell low.

Better than buying low and selling lower. I'd like to know that there is at least a chance that I'll make money. Buying an index that is limping along or falling doesn't really excite me. I won't touch international right now even though the valuations look far better than the US market.

ah it's excitement you're after. that's gambling, not investing. the index (broad market) has given good returns for a long time. investors focus on that long term and not the short term.

The S&P 500 returned less than zero annualized for a decade (2000-2009). My preference is to make money, not lose money.

What's your definition of long term? I'm looking to retire in 10-20 years. I really don't want to lose another decade.

[MotoTrojan]

I'm staying fully-invested and still contributing, but I have a very aggressive tilt to size/value and 35% exposure to ex-US stocks that helps me sleep at night.

I've never found it difficult to keep investing my regular contributions. (Even though I sometimes market time around the margins and play with a dynamic AA but within ranges so I can't make too much of a mistake.)

But what if you came into a fairly significant amount of new cash (say 5 to 10 times annual expenses) right now? Would you be able to invest that at your chosen AA without worrying and losing sleep?

I would consider introducing a modest allocation (10-20%) to long-term treasuries but yes I’d sleep better with my tilts than in US market cap right now. If this happened tomorrow I’d probably stay 100% equity for some time.

[arcticpineapplecorp.]

I have been diving head first into QQQ. I'll bail when it fails. I'm not a contrarian.

sounds like buy high and sell low.

Better than buying low and selling lower. I'd like to know that there is at least a chance that I'll make money. Buying an index that is limping along or falling doesn't really excite me. I won't touch international right now even though the valuations look far better than the US market.

ah it's excitement you're after. that's gambling, not investing. the index (broad market) has given good returns for a long time. investors focus on that long term and not the short term.

The S&P 500 returned less than zero annualized for a decade (2000-2009). My preference is to make money, not lose money.

What's your definition of long term? I'm looking to retire in 10-20 years. I really don't want to lose another decade.

a globally diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds was positive because international stocks outperformed US stocks during our lost decade and total bond went up 81%:

source:
http://quotes.morningstar.com/chart/fun ... A%5B%5D%7D

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... tion3_2=40

retiring in 10-20 years is a big difference between 10 and 20. Nevertheless, even if you retire in 10 years, are you going to sell everything the day you retire, or might you take out, say 4% per year for another 30 years? If so, then aren't you really investing for the next 40 years (or more) rather than 10 years? Why be concerned with 10 year returns, when your investments will go far beyond that period?

[Noobvestor]

The US market is going up. Europe is pretty much negatively correlated to the US market. I don't get this strategy. It feels like chasing bad. And getting a CAPE in the 20s seems impossible. Why not stick with what works and bail when it falls?

If you want to hedge against the possibility US stocks are in a bubble, why not also invest in other countries where the bubble factor is less likely? If you don't care about the bubble issue, or don't believe in it, you can just stick with US stocks, of course.

As far as "chasing bad", It may surprise you that Blackrock (six to 12-month tactical view) is currently overweight Europe, neutral US stocks. Well, it surprised me! I'm used to everyone regarding the US as the powerhouse, overseas as the weakling.
https://www.blackrock.com/us/individual ... ular-views

When you say, "The US market is going up" beware of recency bias. We don't know what will happen next. Though, I happen to be inclined to agree with you, we should perhaps both back away slowly from the crystal ball.

"Why not stick with what works and bail when it falls?" sounds like performance chasing. If we're going to be going that route, we should be diving head first into QQQ!

I have been diving head first into QQQ. I'll bail when it fails. I'm not a contrarian.

sounds like buy high and sell low.

Better than buying low and selling lower. I'd like to know that there is at least a chance that I'll make money. Buying an index that is limping along or falling doesn't really excite me. I won't touch international right now even though the valuations look far better than the US market.

Too bad - you could have made a real killing if you'd picked up QQQ or even just VUG a decade ago when they were doing dismally. If instead you had chosen the more 'exciting' things like emerging markets, which were doing very well at the time, you would have had a rough time

[rockstar]

If you want to hedge against the possibility US stocks are in a bubble, why not also invest in other countries where the bubble factor is less likely? If you don't care about the bubble issue, or don't believe in it, you can just stick with US stocks, of course.

As far as "chasing bad", It may surprise you that Blackrock (six to 12-month tactical view) is currently overweight Europe, neutral US stocks. Well, it surprised me! I'm used to everyone regarding the US as the powerhouse, overseas as the weakling.
https://www.blackrock.com/us/individual ... ular-views

When you say, "The US market is going up" beware of recency bias. We don't know what will happen next. Though, I happen to be inclined to agree with you, we should perhaps both back away slowly from the crystal ball.

"Why not stick with what works and bail when it falls?" sounds like performance chasing. If we're going to be going that route, we should be diving head first into QQQ!

I have been diving head first into QQQ. I'll bail when it fails. I'm not a contrarian.

sounds like buy high and sell low.

Better than buying low and selling lower. I'd like to know that there is at least a chance that I'll make money. Buying an index that is limping along or falling doesn't really excite me. I won't touch international right now even though the valuations look far better than the US market.

Too bad - you could have made a real killing if you'd picked up QQQ or even just VUG a decade ago when they were doing dismally. If instead you had chosen the more 'exciting' things like emerging markets, which were doing very well at the time, you would have had a rough time

I was heavily invested in preferred stock a decade ago as well as MO. I did okay. But yeah, I should have been in QQQ much longer. I have only been in it for around the past five years.

[steve321]

I have been diving head first into QQQ. I'll bail when it fails. I'm not a contrarian.

sounds like buy high and sell low.

Better than buying low and selling lower. I'd like to know that there is at least a chance that I'll make money. Buying an index that is limping along or falling doesn't really excite me. I won't touch international right now even though the valuations look far better than the US market.

Too bad - you could have made a real killing if you'd picked up QQQ or even just VUG a decade ago when they were doing dismally. If instead you had chosen the more 'exciting' things like emerging markets, which were doing very well at the time, you would have had a rough time

I was heavily invested in preferred stock a decade ago as well as MO. I did okay. But yeah, I should have been in QQQ much longer. I have only been in it for around the past five years.

hi rockstar just wondering how you are reacting to the last 2 days prices movements in QQQ; for my part even though I am a momentum guy by temperament, I am feeling quite happy that I have a lot of investments in other assets since I fear the US market may be in a bubble that might be bursting soonish. So since you

have been diving head first into QQQ

what are you doing now? Are you buying the dip? Are you thinking of bailing out? If so, are looking at things like moving averages or will you act based on your individual judgement?

[unclescrooge]

So if there's a bubble, it might concern only US stocks.

An investor might (wisely or unwisely, I do not know) favor investing overseas rather than domestically based on a CAPE ratio argument. As of July 31st, the U.S. had a CAPE of 30.1. Following the largest country weights of Total International:

Japan -- 18.1
China -- 17.2
UK -- 12.5
Canada -- 20.2
Switzerland -- 24.8
France -- 17.8
Germany -- 16.5
Australia -- 17.1

I realize evening mentioning such an investment strategy around here is blasphemy, and invite counterarguments galore attacking this way of investing. This is Bogleheads, not Shillerheads, after all.

yes see your point, put some money into Japan recently. However the UK say is a lot cheaper by CAPE, but we also have different type of industries, none of the cool tech firms you have. So isn't it logical that the US CAPE should be higher? Uncertain stuff, if you think about it too much it can drive you crazy, since I don't see a definitive answer to that.

Show me someone who has beaten the market based on CAPE. Or based on information from the economist.

Yeah, they don't exist.