Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong

236
66
Favorite

Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong

MarketWatch2021-06-23

Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy. Might there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier...

Source Link

Disclaimer: Investing carries risk. This is not financial advice. The above content should not be regarded as an offer, recommendation, or solicitation on acquiring or disposing of any financial products, any associated discussions, comments, or posts by author or other users should not be considered as such either. It is solely for general information purpose only, which does not consider your own investment objectives, financial situations or needs. TTM assumes no responsibility or warranty for the accuracy and completeness of the information, investors should do their own research and may seek professional advice before investing.

236

Report

Comment（66）

Meshaarias72
·2021-06-24
Like n comment pls
Reply
2
Report
Fold Replies
- aliciatng:
  done
  2021-06-25
  Reply
  Report
ritchie
·2021-06-24
[攤手]
Reply
1
Report
AggyL
·2021-06-24
Good read
Reply
2
Report
Fold Replies
- Meshaarias72:
  Y
  2021-06-24
  Reply
  Report
JimTrade
·2021-06-24
Nice
Reply
1
Report
Stevenlow
·2021-06-24
Like and comment
Reply
3
Report
Fold Replies
- LIMCHENGZU:
  comment
  2021-06-25
  Reply
  Report
- Jtrfed:
  Done
  2021-06-24
  Reply
  Report
replaygoh
·2021-06-24
not yet
Reply
1
Report
Tan123
·2021-06-24
bubbles bubbles everywhere
Reply
4
Report
TerenceD
·2021-06-24
That’s ??
Reply
2
Report
rsaje
·2021-06-24
Like and comment please
Reply
3
Report
Fold Replies
- Tan123:
  comment
  2021-06-24
  Reply
  Report
LIMCHENGZU
·2021-06-24
Because printing more money...
Reply
2
Report
A68
·2021-06-24
Ye
Reply
1
Report
LQD
·2021-06-24
Nice read
Reply
2
Report
STKG
·2021-06-24
Is tough but still will go up. ??Good to read.
Reply
4
Report
Fold Replies
- ming22:
  You are right
  2021-06-24
  Reply
  Report
ToongMH
·2021-06-24
Good to read
Reply
2
Report
玉树临风英俊
·2021-06-24
?
Reply
1
Report
paxxie
·2021-06-24
like and comment
Reply
3
Report
Fold Replies
- AndrewL:
  Done
  2021-06-24
  Reply
  Report
vivo8787
·2021-06-24
LNC please! Thanks!
Reply
4
Report
Fold Replies
- JFK:
  Tq
  2021-06-24
  Reply
  Report
Kelvinphan
·2021-06-24
Like & comment
Reply
2
Report
Fold Replies
- JeremyKok:
  hi. please like and comment back. thank you.
  2021-06-24
  Reply
  Report
JCai
·2021-06-24
Like and comment pls
Reply
8
Report
Fold Replies
- buckethead:
  ok done
  2021-06-24
  Reply
  Report
- JeremyKok:
  hi. please like and comment back. thank you.
  2021-06-24
  Reply
  Report
- Kelvinphan:
  Done…. pls help response back
  2021-06-24
  Reply
  Report
Sabniz33
·2021-06-24
Really?
Reply
5
Report

Most Discussed

7x24

All

Terms and Conditions·Privacy Policy

Company: TTMF Limited. Tech supported by Xiangshang Yixin.

Email：uservice@ttm.financial

{"i18n":{"language":"en_US"},"data":{"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198462718?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","thumbnail":"","is_english":true,"pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:39","share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","id":"1198462718","market":"us","top_or_hot":-1,"title":"Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong","media":"MarketWatch","content":"<div>\n<p>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2\">Source Link</a>\n\n</div>\n","source":"lsy1603348471595","html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:39 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2\">Source Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","isBrief":false,"type":0,"news_type":1,"symbol":"SPY","symbol_name":"标普500ETF","start_time":0,"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2","article_id":"1198462718","we_media_id":null,"thumbnails":[],"rights":null,"url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198462718","pubTimestamp":1624448358,"sourceInfo":{"source_id":"lsy1603348471595","name":"MarketWatch"},"weMediaInfo":null,"summary":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after al","collect":0,"end_time":0,"defaultTopTitle":"marketwatch.com","property":[],"viewcount":null,"language":"en","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"translate_title":"为什么即使企业收入强劲，美国股市未来十年仍将面临艰难","themeId":null,"isJumpTheme":false,"ttsUrl":null,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,".SPX":0.9,"SPY":0.9},"content_text":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.\nMy argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).\nSome readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.\nThis escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”\nIf so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.\nUnfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.\nThis is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”\nHow then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)\nInvestment implication\nThe implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).\nBut even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.\nConsider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.\nThe bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.","kind":null,"is_publish_news":true,"is_publish_highlight":true,"is_publish_live":false,"is_publish_wemedia":null,"editions":null,"column":"","sentiment":"0","news_tag":"","news_rank":0,"symbols":[],"gpt_button":1},"commentList":[{"id":126909263,"gmtCreate":1624540661252,"gmtModify":1703839767079,"author":{"id":"3577781617271173","authorId":"3577781617271173","name":"Meshaarias72","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c5282cda6a9d3948fc067b21adcb578c","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3577781617271173","authorIdStr":"3577781617271173"},"htmlText":"Like n comment pls","listText":"Like n comment pls","text":"Like n comment pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/126909263","repostId":1198462718,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198462718","pubTimestamp":1624448358,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198462718?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:39","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198462718","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after al","content":"<blockquote>\n <b>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.</b>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Might there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.</p>\n<p>My argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).</p>\n<p>Some readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.</p>\n<p>This escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&amp;P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”</p>\n<p>If so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.</p>\n<p>Unfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&amp;P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.</p>\n<p>This is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”</p>\n<p>How then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)</p>\n<p><b>Investment implication</b></p>\n<p>The implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).</p>\n<p>But even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.</p>\n<p>Consider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.</p>\n<p>The bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:39 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198462718","content_text":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.\nMy argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).\nSome readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.\nThis escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”\nIf so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.\nUnfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.\nThis is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”\nHow then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)\nInvestment implication\nThe implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).\nBut even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.\nConsider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.\nThe bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5008740,"gmtCreate":1624595896091,"gmtModify":1663229975536,"authorId":3572214398550610,"author":{"id":3572214398550610,"idStr":"3572214398550610","authorId":3572214398550610,"name":"aliciatng","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c4b23ee891a1061c7907495a9c7da890","vip":1,"crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":126909263,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"<u>done</u>","text":"<u>done</u>","html":"<u>done</u>"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":128248996,"gmtCreate":1624521036815,"gmtModify":1703839174038,"author":{"id":"3559442218430793","authorId":"3559442218430793","name":"ritchie","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3559442218430793","authorIdStr":"3559442218430793"},"htmlText":"[攤手]&nbsp;","listText":"[攤手]&nbsp;","text":"[攤手]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/128248996","repostId":1198462718,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198462718","pubTimestamp":1624448358,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198462718?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:39","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198462718","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after al","content":"<blockquote>\n <b>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.</b>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Might there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.</p>\n<p>My argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).</p>\n<p>Some readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.</p>\n<p>This escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&amp;P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”</p>\n<p>If so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.</p>\n<p>Unfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&amp;P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.</p>\n<p>This is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”</p>\n<p>How then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)</p>\n<p><b>Investment implication</b></p>\n<p>The implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).</p>\n<p>But even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.</p>\n<p>Consider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.</p>\n<p>The bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:39 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198462718","content_text":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.\nMy argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).\nSome readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.\nThis escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”\nIf so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.\nUnfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.\nThis is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”\nHow then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)\nInvestment implication\nThe implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).\nBut even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.\nConsider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.\nThe bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"CN"},{"id":128615301,"gmtCreate":1624513467603,"gmtModify":1703838965731,"author":{"id":"3585473691324109","authorId":"3585473691324109","name":"AggyL","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3585473691324109","authorIdStr":"3585473691324109"},"htmlText":"Good read","listText":"Good read","text":"Good read","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/128615301","repostId":1198462718,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198462718","pubTimestamp":1624448358,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198462718?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:39","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198462718","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after al","content":"<blockquote>\n <b>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.</b>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Might there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.</p>\n<p>My argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).</p>\n<p>Some readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.</p>\n<p>This escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&amp;P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”</p>\n<p>If so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.</p>\n<p>Unfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&amp;P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.</p>\n<p>This is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”</p>\n<p>How then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)</p>\n<p><b>Investment implication</b></p>\n<p>The implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).</p>\n<p>But even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.</p>\n<p>Consider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.</p>\n<p>The bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:39 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198462718","content_text":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.\nMy argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).\nSome readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.\nThis escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”\nIf so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.\nUnfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.\nThis is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”\nHow then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)\nInvestment implication\nThe implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).\nBut even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.\nConsider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.\nThe bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":4996289,"gmtCreate":1624540672986,"gmtModify":1663229917835,"authorId":3577781617271173,"author":{"id":3577781617271173,"idStr":"3577781617271173","authorId":3577781617271173,"name":"Meshaarias72","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c5282cda6a9d3948fc067b21adcb578c","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":128615301,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Y","text":"Y","html":"Y"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":128805145,"gmtCreate":1624508913587,"gmtModify":1703838776251,"author":{"id":"3585029790923127","authorId":"3585029790923127","name":"JimTrade","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/1ef2658d19253a76b0b1452af23cb1ad","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3585029790923127","authorIdStr":"3585029790923127"},"htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/128805145","repostId":1198462718,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198462718","pubTimestamp":1624448358,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198462718?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:39","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198462718","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after al","content":"<blockquote>\n <b>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.</b>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Might there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.</p>\n<p>My argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).</p>\n<p>Some readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.</p>\n<p>This escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&amp;P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”</p>\n<p>If so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.</p>\n<p>Unfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&amp;P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.</p>\n<p>This is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”</p>\n<p>How then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)</p>\n<p><b>Investment implication</b></p>\n<p>The implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).</p>\n<p>But even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.</p>\n<p>Consider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.</p>\n<p>The bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:39 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198462718","content_text":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.\nMy argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).\nSome readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.\nThis escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”\nIf so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.\nUnfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.\nThis is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”\nHow then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)\nInvestment implication\nThe implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).\nBut even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.\nConsider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.\nThe bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":128122291,"gmtCreate":1624507191613,"gmtModify":1703838717838,"author":{"id":"3567674050552530","authorId":"3567674050552530","name":"Stevenlow","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3567674050552530","authorIdStr":"3567674050552530"},"htmlText":"Like and comment","listText":"Like and comment","text":"Like and comment","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/128122291","repostId":1198462718,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198462718","pubTimestamp":1624448358,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198462718?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:39","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198462718","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after al","content":"<blockquote>\n <b>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.</b>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Might there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.</p>\n<p>My argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).</p>\n<p>Some readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.</p>\n<p>This escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&amp;P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”</p>\n<p>If so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.</p>\n<p>Unfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&amp;P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.</p>\n<p>This is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”</p>\n<p>How then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)</p>\n<p><b>Investment implication</b></p>\n<p>The implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).</p>\n<p>But even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.</p>\n<p>Consider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.</p>\n<p>The bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:39 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198462718","content_text":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.\nMy argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).\nSome readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.\nThis escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”\nIf so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.\nUnfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.\nThis is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”\nHow then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)\nInvestment implication\nThe implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).\nBut even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.\nConsider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.\nThe bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5010129,"gmtCreate":1624603350105,"gmtModify":1663229984444,"authorId":4087111377660040,"author":{"id":4087111377660040,"idStr":"4087111377660040","authorId":4087111377660040,"name":"LIMCHENGZU","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/43e678aa792b38b031003fe4d65fb7d9","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":128122291,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"comment","text":"comment","html":"comment"},{"id":4989223,"gmtCreate":1624508391735,"gmtModify":1663229882351,"authorId":3583189999419590,"author":{"id":3583189999419590,"idStr":"3583189999419590","authorId":3583189999419590,"name":"Jtrfed","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e902a73b1f6967436d3841166a63afe7","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":128122291,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Done ","text":"Done ","html":"Done "}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":128042607,"gmtCreate":1624496455309,"gmtModify":1703838321139,"author":{"id":"3582963095283492","authorId":"3582963095283492","name":"replaygoh","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d47b21291424a3d55039334a8de5cdb9","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3582963095283492","authorIdStr":"3582963095283492"},"htmlText":"not yet","listText":"not yet","text":"not yet","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/128042607","repostId":1198462718,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198462718","pubTimestamp":1624448358,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198462718?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:39","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198462718","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after al","content":"<blockquote>\n <b>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.</b>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Might there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.</p>\n<p>My argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).</p>\n<p>Some readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.</p>\n<p>This escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&amp;P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”</p>\n<p>If so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.</p>\n<p>Unfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&amp;P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.</p>\n<p>This is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”</p>\n<p>How then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)</p>\n<p><b>Investment implication</b></p>\n<p>The implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).</p>\n<p>But even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.</p>\n<p>Consider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.</p>\n<p>The bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:39 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198462718","content_text":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.\nMy argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).\nSome readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.\nThis escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”\nIf so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.\nUnfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.\nThis is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”\nHow then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)\nInvestment implication\nThe implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).\nBut even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.\nConsider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.\nThe bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":128058736,"gmtCreate":1624496130525,"gmtModify":1703838303974,"author":{"id":"3575263084566569","authorId":"3575263084566569","name":"Tan123","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f62a61b3de783a68b73436f05185453a","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3575263084566569","authorIdStr":"3575263084566569"},"htmlText":"bubbles bubbles everywhere&nbsp;","listText":"bubbles bubbles everywhere&nbsp;","text":"bubbles bubbles everywhere","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/128058736","repostId":1198462718,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198462718","pubTimestamp":1624448358,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198462718?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:39","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198462718","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after al","content":"<blockquote>\n <b>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.</b>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Might there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.</p>\n<p>My argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).</p>\n<p>Some readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.</p>\n<p>This escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&amp;P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”</p>\n<p>If so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.</p>\n<p>Unfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&amp;P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.</p>\n<p>This is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”</p>\n<p>How then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)</p>\n<p><b>Investment implication</b></p>\n<p>The implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).</p>\n<p>But even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.</p>\n<p>Consider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.</p>\n<p>The bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:39 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198462718","content_text":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.\nMy argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).\nSome readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.\nThis escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”\nIf so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.\nUnfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.\nThis is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”\nHow then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)\nInvestment implication\nThe implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).\nBut even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.\nConsider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.\nThe bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":128067069,"gmtCreate":1624495737251,"gmtModify":1703838280591,"author":{"id":"3573966231987456","authorId":"3573966231987456","name":"TerenceD","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/046d570a2a5c6793332b041c7628d5c3","vip":1,"hat":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b073a07f77dbe6b3bec6b12311fde6bd","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":1,"idStr":"3573966231987456","authorIdStr":"3573966231987456"},"htmlText":"That’s ??&nbsp;","listText":"That’s ??&nbsp;","text":"That’s ??","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/128067069","repostId":1198462718,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198462718","pubTimestamp":1624448358,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198462718?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:39","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198462718","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after al","content":"<blockquote>\n <b>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.</b>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Might there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.</p>\n<p>My argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).</p>\n<p>Some readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.</p>\n<p>This escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&amp;P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”</p>\n<p>If so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.</p>\n<p>Unfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&amp;P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.</p>\n<p>This is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”</p>\n<p>How then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)</p>\n<p><b>Investment implication</b></p>\n<p>The implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).</p>\n<p>But even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.</p>\n<p>Consider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.</p>\n<p>The bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:39 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198462718","content_text":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.\nMy argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).\nSome readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.\nThis escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”\nIf so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.\nUnfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.\nThis is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”\nHow then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)\nInvestment implication\nThe implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).\nBut even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.\nConsider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.\nThe bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":128016111,"gmtCreate":1624495168733,"gmtModify":1703838247211,"author":{"id":"3579596992743233","authorId":"3579596992743233","name":"rsaje","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a2a15d8b3af15a33dda43a5e023aa8f","vip":1,"crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3579596992743233","authorIdStr":"3579596992743233"},"htmlText":"Like and comment please&nbsp;","listText":"Like and comment please&nbsp;","text":"Like and comment please","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/128016111","repostId":1198462718,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198462718","pubTimestamp":1624448358,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198462718?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:39","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198462718","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after al","content":"<blockquote>\n <b>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.</b>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Might there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.</p>\n<p>My argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).</p>\n<p>Some readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.</p>\n<p>This escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&amp;P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”</p>\n<p>If so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.</p>\n<p>Unfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&amp;P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.</p>\n<p>This is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”</p>\n<p>How then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)</p>\n<p><b>Investment implication</b></p>\n<p>The implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).</p>\n<p>But even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.</p>\n<p>Consider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.</p>\n<p>The bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:39 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198462718","content_text":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.\nMy argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).\nSome readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.\nThis escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”\nIf so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.\nUnfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.\nThis is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”\nHow then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)\nInvestment implication\nThe implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).\nBut even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.\nConsider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.\nThe bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":4985549,"gmtCreate":1624496144695,"gmtModify":1635249220790,"authorId":3575263084566569,"author":{"id":3575263084566569,"idStr":"3575263084566569","authorId":3575263084566569,"name":"Tan123","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f62a61b3de783a68b73436f05185453a","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":128016111,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"comment","text":"comment","html":"comment"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":128033781,"gmtCreate":1624494883143,"gmtModify":1703838228403,"author":{"id":"4087111377660040","authorId":"4087111377660040","name":"LIMCHENGZU","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/43e678aa792b38b031003fe4d65fb7d9","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"4087111377660040","authorIdStr":"4087111377660040"},"htmlText":"Because printing more money...","listText":"Because printing more money...","text":"Because printing more money...","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/128033781","repostId":1198462718,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198462718","pubTimestamp":1624448358,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198462718?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:39","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198462718","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after al","content":"<blockquote>\n <b>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.</b>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Might there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.</p>\n<p>My argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).</p>\n<p>Some readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.</p>\n<p>This escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&amp;P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”</p>\n<p>If so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.</p>\n<p>Unfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&amp;P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.</p>\n<p>This is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”</p>\n<p>How then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)</p>\n<p><b>Investment implication</b></p>\n<p>The implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).</p>\n<p>But even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.</p>\n<p>Consider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.</p>\n<p>The bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:39 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198462718","content_text":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.\nMy argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).\nSome readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.\nThis escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”\nIf so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.\nUnfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.\nThis is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”\nHow then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)\nInvestment implication\nThe implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).\nBut even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.\nConsider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.\nThe bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":128096383,"gmtCreate":1624494704442,"gmtModify":1703838217034,"author":{"id":"3576813955258325","authorId":"3576813955258325","name":"A68","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d209afa981c29a4dc34bd7c1c986fb4a","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3576813955258325","authorIdStr":"3576813955258325"},"htmlText":"Ye","listText":"Ye","text":"Ye","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/128096383","repostId":1198462718,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198462718","pubTimestamp":1624448358,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198462718?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:39","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198462718","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after al","content":"<blockquote>\n <b>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.</b>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Might there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.</p>\n<p>My argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).</p>\n<p>Some readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.</p>\n<p>This escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&amp;P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”</p>\n<p>If so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.</p>\n<p>Unfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&amp;P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.</p>\n<p>This is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”</p>\n<p>How then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)</p>\n<p><b>Investment implication</b></p>\n<p>The implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).</p>\n<p>But even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.</p>\n<p>Consider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.</p>\n<p>The bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:39 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198462718","content_text":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.\nMy argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).\nSome readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.\nThis escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”\nIf so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.\nUnfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.\nThis is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”\nHow then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)\nInvestment implication\nThe implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).\nBut even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.\nConsider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.\nThe bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":128005352,"gmtCreate":1624494467376,"gmtModify":1703838206300,"author":{"id":"3584077907620740","authorId":"3584077907620740","name":"LQD","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3584077907620740","authorIdStr":"3584077907620740"},"htmlText":"Nice read","listText":"Nice read","text":"Nice read","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/128005352","repostId":1198462718,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198462718","pubTimestamp":1624448358,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198462718?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:39","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198462718","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after al","content":"<blockquote>\n <b>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.</b>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Might there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.</p>\n<p>My argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).</p>\n<p>Some readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.</p>\n<p>This escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&amp;P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”</p>\n<p>If so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.</p>\n<p>Unfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&amp;P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.</p>\n<p>This is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”</p>\n<p>How then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)</p>\n<p><b>Investment implication</b></p>\n<p>The implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).</p>\n<p>But even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.</p>\n<p>Consider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.</p>\n<p>The bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:39 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198462718","content_text":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.\nMy argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).\nSome readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.\nThis escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”\nIf so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.\nUnfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.\nThis is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”\nHow then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)\nInvestment implication\nThe implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).\nBut even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.\nConsider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.\nThe bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":121798269,"gmtCreate":1624491778351,"gmtModify":1703838076328,"author":{"id":"3586131488444401","authorId":"3586131488444401","name":"STKG","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/730c2482b43ac1909a601868b378a6e4","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3586131488444401","authorIdStr":"3586131488444401"},"htmlText":"Is tough but still will go up. ??Good to read.&nbsp;","listText":"Is tough but still will go up. ??Good to read.&nbsp;","text":"Is tough but still will go up. ??Good to read.","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/121798269","repostId":1198462718,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198462718","pubTimestamp":1624448358,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198462718?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:39","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198462718","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after al","content":"<blockquote>\n <b>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.</b>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Might there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.</p>\n<p>My argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).</p>\n<p>Some readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.</p>\n<p>This escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&amp;P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”</p>\n<p>If so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.</p>\n<p>Unfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&amp;P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.</p>\n<p>This is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”</p>\n<p>How then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)</p>\n<p><b>Investment implication</b></p>\n<p>The implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).</p>\n<p>But even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.</p>\n<p>Consider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.</p>\n<p>The bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:39 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198462718","content_text":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.\nMy argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).\nSome readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.\nThis escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”\nIf so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.\nUnfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.\nThis is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”\nHow then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)\nInvestment implication\nThe implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).\nBut even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.\nConsider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.\nThe bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":4985759,"gmtCreate":1624496691329,"gmtModify":1663229868346,"authorId":3571044771112848,"author":{"id":3571044771112848,"idStr":"3571044771112848","authorId":3571044771112848,"name":"ming22","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":121798269,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"You are right","text":"You are right","html":"You are right"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":121700415,"gmtCreate":1624491349537,"gmtModify":1703838058039,"author":{"id":"3579230468032082","authorId":"3579230468032082","name":"ToongMH","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3579230468032082","authorIdStr":"3579230468032082"},"htmlText":"Good to read","listText":"Good to read","text":"Good to read","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/121700415","repostId":1198462718,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198462718","pubTimestamp":1624448358,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198462718?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:39","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198462718","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after al","content":"<blockquote>\n <b>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.</b>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Might there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.</p>\n<p>My argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).</p>\n<p>Some readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.</p>\n<p>This escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&amp;P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”</p>\n<p>If so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.</p>\n<p>Unfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&amp;P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.</p>\n<p>This is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”</p>\n<p>How then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)</p>\n<p><b>Investment implication</b></p>\n<p>The implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).</p>\n<p>But even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.</p>\n<p>Consider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.</p>\n<p>The bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:39 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198462718","content_text":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.\nMy argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).\nSome readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.\nThis escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”\nIf so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.\nUnfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.\nThis is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”\nHow then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)\nInvestment implication\nThe implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).\nBut even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.\nConsider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.\nThe bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":121425121,"gmtCreate":1624490372663,"gmtModify":1703838011577,"author":{"id":"3580076354872466","authorId":"3580076354872466","name":"玉树临风英俊","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3580076354872466","authorIdStr":"3580076354872466"},"htmlText":"?&nbsp;","listText":"?&nbsp;","text":"?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/121425121","repostId":1198462718,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198462718","pubTimestamp":1624448358,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198462718?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:39","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198462718","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after al","content":"<blockquote>\n <b>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.</b>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Might there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.</p>\n<p>My argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).</p>\n<p>Some readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.</p>\n<p>This escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&amp;P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”</p>\n<p>If so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.</p>\n<p>Unfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&amp;P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.</p>\n<p>This is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”</p>\n<p>How then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)</p>\n<p><b>Investment implication</b></p>\n<p>The implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).</p>\n<p>But even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.</p>\n<p>Consider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.</p>\n<p>The bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:39 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198462718","content_text":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.\nMy argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).\nSome readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.\nThis escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”\nIf so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.\nUnfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.\nThis is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”\nHow then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)\nInvestment implication\nThe implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).\nBut even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.\nConsider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.\nThe bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":121423558,"gmtCreate":1624490178674,"gmtModify":1703838005889,"author":{"id":"3559522411638426","authorId":"3559522411638426","name":"paxxie","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3559522411638426","authorIdStr":"3559522411638426"},"htmlText":"like and comment&nbsp;","listText":"like and comment&nbsp;","text":"like and comment","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/121423558","repostId":1198462718,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198462718","pubTimestamp":1624448358,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198462718?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:39","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198462718","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after al","content":"<blockquote>\n <b>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.</b>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Might there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.</p>\n<p>My argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).</p>\n<p>Some readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.</p>\n<p>This escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&amp;P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”</p>\n<p>If so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.</p>\n<p>Unfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&amp;P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.</p>\n<p>This is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”</p>\n<p>How then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)</p>\n<p><b>Investment implication</b></p>\n<p>The implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).</p>\n<p>But even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.</p>\n<p>Consider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.</p>\n<p>The bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:39 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198462718","content_text":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.\nMy argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).\nSome readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.\nThis escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”\nIf so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.\nUnfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.\nThis is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”\nHow then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)\nInvestment implication\nThe implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).\nBut even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.\nConsider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.\nThe bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":4983639,"gmtCreate":1624491571844,"gmtModify":1663229853847,"authorId":3571815908504020,"author":{"id":3571815908504020,"idStr":"3571815908504020","authorId":3571815908504020,"name":"AndrewL","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f45655eaaab14f0b61c554eea4d95ca7","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":121423558,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Done","text":"Done","html":"Done"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":121467468,"gmtCreate":1624490075054,"gmtModify":1703838001824,"author":{"id":"3581711485322302","authorId":"3581711485322302","name":"vivo8787","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b863ab23ed789e4cdcd83c9777c2cbae","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3581711485322302","authorIdStr":"3581711485322302"},"htmlText":"LNC please! Thanks!&nbsp;","listText":"LNC please! Thanks!&nbsp;","text":"LNC please! Thanks!","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/121467468","repostId":1198462718,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198462718","pubTimestamp":1624448358,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198462718?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:39","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198462718","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after al","content":"<blockquote>\n <b>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.</b>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Might there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.</p>\n<p>My argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).</p>\n<p>Some readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.</p>\n<p>This escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&amp;P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”</p>\n<p>If so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.</p>\n<p>Unfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&amp;P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.</p>\n<p>This is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”</p>\n<p>How then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)</p>\n<p><b>Investment implication</b></p>\n<p>The implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).</p>\n<p>But even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.</p>\n<p>Consider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.</p>\n<p>The bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:39 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198462718","content_text":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.\nMy argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).\nSome readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.\nThis escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”\nIf so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.\nUnfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.\nThis is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”\nHow then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)\nInvestment implication\nThe implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).\nBut even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.\nConsider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.\nThe bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":4984515,"gmtCreate":1624493654772,"gmtModify":1663229860037,"authorId":3567221235003553,"author":{"id":3567221235003553,"idStr":"3567221235003553","authorId":3567221235003553,"name":"JFK","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/a89af0535393568b5b43866c02b3230f","vip":1,"currentWearingBadge":{"badgeId":"972123088c9646f7b6091ae0662215be-1","templateUuid":"972123088c9646f7b6091ae0662215be","name":"Elite Trader","description":"Total number of securities or futures transactions reached 30","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ab0f87127c854ce3191a752d57b46edc","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c9835ce48b8c8743566d344ac7a7ba8c","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/76754b53ce7a90019f132c1d2fbc698f","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":1,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.28","exceedPercentage":"60.74%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100},"crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":121467468,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"<u>Tq</u>","text":"<u>Tq</u>","html":"<u>Tq</u>"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":121481282,"gmtCreate":1624489392246,"gmtModify":1703837980079,"author":{"id":"3579053062900901","authorId":"3579053062900901","name":"Kelvinphan","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/dd87884547b7d5f0157a229e9ea4e890","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3579053062900901","authorIdStr":"3579053062900901"},"htmlText":"Like &amp; comment&nbsp;","listText":"Like &amp; comment&nbsp;","text":"Like & comment","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/121481282","repostId":1198462718,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198462718","pubTimestamp":1624448358,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198462718?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:39","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198462718","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after al","content":"<blockquote>\n <b>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.</b>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Might there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.</p>\n<p>My argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).</p>\n<p>Some readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.</p>\n<p>This escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&amp;P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”</p>\n<p>If so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.</p>\n<p>Unfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&amp;P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.</p>\n<p>This is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”</p>\n<p>How then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)</p>\n<p><b>Investment implication</b></p>\n<p>The implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).</p>\n<p>But even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.</p>\n<p>Consider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.</p>\n<p>The bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:39 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198462718","content_text":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.\nMy argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).\nSome readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.\nThis escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”\nIf so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.\nUnfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.\nThis is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”\nHow then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)\nInvestment implication\nThe implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).\nBut even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.\nConsider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.\nThe bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":4982852,"gmtCreate":1624489547405,"gmtModify":1663229852434,"authorId":3567307840510045,"author":{"id":3567307840510045,"idStr":"3567307840510045","authorId":3567307840510045,"name":"JeremyKok","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/01b03a485f83b6b2615fad8ac9b87bf4","vip":1,"currentWearingBadge":{"badgeId":"7a9f168ff73447fe856ed6c938b61789-1","templateUuid":"7a9f168ff73447fe856ed6c938b61789","name":"Knowledgeable Investor","description":"Traded more than 10 stocks","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e74cc24115c4fbae6154ec1b1041bf47","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d48265cbfd97c57f9048db29f22227b0","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/76c6d6898b073c77e1c537ebe9ac1c57","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":1,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.21","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1102},"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":121481282,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"hi. please like and comment back. thank you.","text":"hi. please like and comment back. thank you.","html":"hi. please like and comment back. thank you."}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":121489582,"gmtCreate":1624489330346,"gmtModify":1703837977335,"author":{"id":"3574897713454581","authorId":"3574897713454581","name":"JCai","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a4408059854d4abfa5d3e8513d447a16","vip":1,"crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3574897713454581","authorIdStr":"3574897713454581"},"htmlText":"Like and comment pls","listText":"Like and comment pls","text":"Like and comment pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":8,"commentSize":3,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/121489582","repostId":1198462718,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198462718","pubTimestamp":1624448358,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198462718?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:39","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198462718","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after al","content":"<blockquote>\n <b>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.</b>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Might there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.</p>\n<p>My argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).</p>\n<p>Some readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.</p>\n<p>This escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&amp;P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”</p>\n<p>If so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.</p>\n<p>Unfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&amp;P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.</p>\n<p>This is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”</p>\n<p>How then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)</p>\n<p><b>Investment implication</b></p>\n<p>The implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).</p>\n<p>But even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.</p>\n<p>Consider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.</p>\n<p>The bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:39 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198462718","content_text":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.\nMy argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).\nSome readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.\nThis escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”\nIf so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.\nUnfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.\nThis is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”\nHow then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)\nInvestment implication\nThe implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).\nBut even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.\nConsider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.\nThe bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":4984477,"gmtCreate":1624493547139,"gmtModify":1663229857233,"authorId":3573341177962944,"author":{"id":3573341177962944,"idStr":"3573341177962944","authorId":3573341177962944,"name":"buckethead","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/fb0baba9e10b75fa4dc0ff143e54bbea","vip":1,"crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":121489582,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"ok done","text":"ok done","html":"ok done"},{"id":4982855,"gmtCreate":1624489567854,"gmtModify":1663229850736,"authorId":3567307840510045,"author":{"id":3567307840510045,"idStr":"3567307840510045","authorId":3567307840510045,"name":"JeremyKok","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/01b03a485f83b6b2615fad8ac9b87bf4","vip":1,"currentWearingBadge":{"badgeId":"7a9f168ff73447fe856ed6c938b61789-1","templateUuid":"7a9f168ff73447fe856ed6c938b61789","name":"Knowledgeable Investor","description":"Traded more than 10 stocks","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e74cc24115c4fbae6154ec1b1041bf47","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d48265cbfd97c57f9048db29f22227b0","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/76c6d6898b073c77e1c537ebe9ac1c57","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":1,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.21","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1102},"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":121489582,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"hi. please like and comment back. thank you.","text":"hi. please like and comment back. thank you.","html":"hi. please like and comment back. thank you."},{"id":4982816,"gmtCreate":1624489386023,"gmtModify":1663229850128,"authorId":3579053062900901,"author":{"id":3579053062900901,"idStr":"3579053062900901","authorId":3579053062900901,"name":"Kelvinphan","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/dd87884547b7d5f0157a229e9ea4e890","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":121489582,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Done…. pls help response back","text":"Done…. pls help response back","html":"Done…. pls help response back"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":121438531,"gmtCreate":1624488407223,"gmtModify":1703837953251,"author":{"id":"3574288328492266","authorId":"3574288328492266","name":"Sabniz33","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/77d542c059621f2a7040e901e5702bc8","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3574288328492266","authorIdStr":"3574288328492266"},"htmlText":"Really?","listText":"Really?","text":"Really?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/121438531","repostId":1198462718,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198462718","pubTimestamp":1624448358,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198462718?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:39","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198462718","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after al","content":"<blockquote>\n <b>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.</b>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Might there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.</p>\n<p>My argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).</p>\n<p>Some readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.</p>\n<p>This escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&amp;P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”</p>\n<p>If so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.</p>\n<p>Unfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&amp;P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.</p>\n<p>This is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”</p>\n<p>How then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)</p>\n<p><b>Investment implication</b></p>\n<p>The implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).</p>\n<p>But even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.</p>\n<p>Consider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.</p>\n<p>The bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy U.S. stocks face a tough decade ahead even if corporate revenues are strong\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:39 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-u-s-stocks-face-a-tough-decade-ahead-even-if-corporate-revenues-are-strong-11624429824?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198462718","content_text":"Stock market’s return will grow at the same rate as the U.S. economy.\n\nMight there be hope, after all, for the U.S. stock market’s return over the next decade? I ask as a follow up tomy column earlier this monthin which I concluded that even under optimistic assumptions, the S&P 500SPX,+0.51%over the next 10 years is unlikely to produce an annualized total real return greater than the low single-digits.\nMy argument was that the stock market will not be able to count on the three pillars that have propped it up over the past decade — increasing valuations, profit margins and more buybacks than new shares issued (net buybacks).\nSome readers responded that I had overlooked an escape hatch which would enable the market to produce decent returns: corporate revenues can grow faster than the overall U.S. economy. To the extent this is so, then the stock market does not need any of those three pillars to do well.\nThis escape hatch appears to have solid evidence behind it. Consider a recent note to clients from Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist and head of quantitative research at Credit Suisse. He reported that, according to an econometric model he constructed based on S&P 500 sales and GDP since 2000, “every 1% upside in nominal GDP drives 2½–3% improvement in revenues.”\nIf so, this certainly would be good for stock investors. It would mean that even without increasing valuations, profit margins or net buybacks, the stock market could significantly outperform the overall economy.\nUnfortunately, this argument is too good to be true. I analyzed S&P 500 sales back to the early 1970s (courtesy of data from Ned Davis Research), and found almost a 1:1 correlation between sales growth and GDP growth.\nThis is entirely what we should expect, according to Robert Arnott, chairman and founder of Research Affiliates. In an email, he said that “aggregate sales should offer a pretty clean 1:1 relationship to GDP. Any other ratio makes no sense on a sustained basis.”\nHow then did Golub come up with such a different answer? My hunch is that it traces to how he measured sales. In an email, Golub’s colleague Manish Bangard, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse, explained that they focused on sales per share. But, as Arnott points out, this per-share number reflects the impact of net buybacks. So the high sales-to-GDP ratio that Golub reports is not a pure measure of how sales growth relates to GDP. (I did not receive a response to my requests for additional comment.)\nInvestment implication\nThe implication is that we should not expect the U.S. stock market over the next decade to grow faster than the economy. It may in fact grow much more slowly if P/E ratios or profit margins regress even partway to their historical mean, or if net buybacks turn out to be negative (as they’ve been for most of U.S. history).\nBut even if P/E ratios and profit margins stay constant between now and 2031 and there are no net buybacks, the lesson of history is that the U.S. market will grow no faster than the economy.\nConsider what that means. TheCongressional Budget Office is projectingthat real GDP from 2022 through 2031 will grow at a 1.8% annualized rate. Even that may be optimistic, because the CBO projects no recession between now and then.\nThe bottom line: The stock market has its work cut out to produce even a fraction of the past decade’s fabulous return.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"}],"hasMoreComments":true,"newsSizeData":{"likeSize":236,"commentSize":66,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false}}