Debunking the Myth of the QE II Rally

The single biggest market question is this one:

What happens at the end of QE II?

I have explained this on several occasions and promised more detail.  After listening to countless talking heads talk about the QE II rally, we need some clarity.


There are two views of the world:

  1. Gains in various markets are all the result of Fed policy and things will reverse as soon as Fed policy changes.
  2. Stock market gains have resulted from improved fundamentals.

Viewpoint #1 gets most of the attention, especially when the market sells off a bit.  The second viewpoint is almost a state secret.  Too many people confuse actual market fundamentals with what they call "headwinds."

The Facts

If you really want to understand market fundamentals, you need to consider valuation, risk, and future potential.  I discuss these concepts every week in my Weighing the Week Ahead series.  Today I want to consider a longer time frame.

My approach is very simple and based on hard data.  It is easy to understand.  It is contrarian since most traders and pundits want to use words and anecdotes rather than data.  Here is the key table.


QE II Update

 Let us consider each of the three key elements.


I use the one year forward earnings from the "bottoms up" estimate from Thomson/Reuters.  Many critics take the inconsistent position that forward earnings are too optimistic, but explain the typical 70% beat rate by saying that estimates are guided down.  I have written about this at length and challenged the skeptics.  I maintain that there is a point where forward estimates by bottoms-up analysts are quite useful — the best we can do.  That point is  approximately one year ahead.  I continue to invite any loyalist for another method — particularly those espoused by Hussman or Shiller — to show that they can predict earnings one year in advance with greater precision.

With this in mind, the "Jackson Hole" forward earnings yield was 8.31% and it has declined to 7.74% now.  When compared to the ten-year yield (interest rates in the table) the risk premium was a huge 5.75% last Fall and is still 4.61%.  On a long-term basis this is a juicy premium unless risk is huge.


When considering the yield premium, you need a way to evaluate risk.  Most people do this by producing a laundry list of unquantified (and maybe unquantifiable) worries.  I choose to focus on data.  An excellent candidate is the St. Louis Fed Stress Index, which uses 18 different data series.  The methodology employed isolates the specific contribution of each factor.  These are not government measurements, but actual market data.  It is a sophisticated way of letting the market speak to you.  It was also a great method for spotting problems in 2007-08.

At the time of the Jackson Hole speech the SFLSI was at a worrisome .69 level.  (1.0 is a one standard deviation change.  I am doing reserach on the best warning level).  Right now the SFLSI is in negative territory.  Simply put, if you measure risk in objective terms, it is vastly different from last fall.


I view economic growth as the potential for future earnings.  While the market is not a GDP futures contract, it does have a good long-term relationship with economic growth.  Stocks famously have predicted ten out of the last three recessions.  There is incessant skepticism, for political, mercernary, and publicity reasons.  Let us compare then and now.

Last August

The ECRI growth index was at negative 10.  Many widely-publicized pundits insisted that this never happened without a recession.  Double dip was on everyone's lips.  Nearly everyone ignored the ECRI's own interpretation.


The ECRI growth index is in positive territory and has stayed there for many months.  A realistic estimate is a continuation of modest growth, but only extremists expect a recession in the next year.  The perma-bears of last autumn have fallen silent.

Briefly put, the potential is much better.


For those of us looking at data, it is so easy to understand the stock market rally.  The big question is why the market has not moved even higher.  I see many specific stocks that are more attractive than ever on a P/E basis, even if the prices are higher.  (JPM, AAPL, and CAT are among current choices).

This article has emphasized the real reasons for the rally, but I still expect to write about some of the alternative explanations.

In an era where many data series have moved higher, it is easy to find strong correlations.  While most people pretend to know about the difference between correlation and causation, very few market studies demonstrate the ability to distinguish.

A Final Thought

I have tried to interest various economists in discussing the QE II effects.  Most are completely uninterested because they only see a few basis points of effect.  When I explain that traders and financial television (not to mention the conspiracy sites) are completely focused on this, they just express amazement.

One of my roles is to bridge this gap.


You may also like


  • Mike C May 17, 2011  

    “I continue to invite any loyalist for another method — particularly those espoused by Hussman or Shiller — to show that they can predict earnings one year in advance with greater precision.”
    OK….since you invited
    You’ve repeatedly stated this. As far as I know, neither Hussman, Shiller, or any “loyalist” has made claims about predicting earnings one year in advance so this is red herring. I think what Hussman refers to is whether specific metrics robustly predict forward returns. The question/issue isn’t whether 1-year forward estimates are generally accurate. The question is can they be used in a long data series over a very long period of time to estimate 1-year ahead returns.
    As Hussman states in this week’s commentary:
    “Analysts who claim that stocks are “cheap” when a market advance is mature and profit margins are elevated should be expected to demonstrate that their approach is historically reliable. Specifically, there should be long-term evidence (since at least the 1950’s, to capture a substantial amount of variation) that their methodology provides highly predictive information about the subsequent performance of the stock market.
    OK, so 1-year forward estimates are generally accurate. For sake of argument let’s grant that (although they are generally off the mark at earnings peaks and troughs). Can you take those 1-year estimates, plug them into some valuation or return forecasting model, and get a highly accurate predictive model?

  • oldprof May 18, 2011  

    Mike C —
    It is nice to see you using your own name again instead of a fake one. This helps readers put your comments in the context of what you have written before.
    So first let us note that you did not meet the challenge, OK? You agree that the method I have cited is best for one-year forward earnings.
    Is this important? Everyone in the business looks at year-ahead earnings. In fact, they usually look at shorter periods. You are free to consider alternative approaches, but it is certainly not a red herring.
    I am happy to discuss what I actually write about, but I am not going to join you in veering off topic in the comments. I have written many articles about the complete Hussman and Shiller approaches, easily found through the search box. These include discussion of methodological errors like using too much irrelevant data (the Eisenhower and Taft eras) to create the illusion of science. There were no forward earnings estimates in 1950.
    To emphasize, this is not an article about valuation alone. I have carefully included valuation, risk, and economic potential. All three are important. As it happens, I am working on blending these together in a longer history. I’ll have more later this summer.
    For the sake of the current discussion, the blend worked well during the period discussed— real time performance — not some “bad times to invest” back test.

  • PWilson May 18, 2011  

    Hi Jeff,
    Interesting blog, I think few people realize how many leaps of faith they routinely make in the realm of cause and effect.
    One comment I would have in the fed policy = improved fundamentals vs fed policy = stock gains debate is that what we don;t know is what affect fed policy has had on fundamentals. I’m sure one could make a case that they have a link, the question is how strong and what might change.

  • Mike C May 18, 2011  

    Almost kind of silly for me to point this out….but you are the one who brought it up. If you look off to the side with recent comments, few if any people use their real names in commenting. Somehow, I doubt there is a guy out there with the legal name Proteus. OK, you “got me”. I posted a few comments under a nom de plume. So what.
    So first let us note that you did not meet the challenge, OK?
    You agree that the method I have cited is best for one-year forward earnings.
    Not necessarily. It is a simple fact of the matter (not opinion, FACT) that analyst estimates are horribly off near earnings peaks and troughs. Whether there is a “better” method for forward estimates, I do not know. I haven’t spent much time on it. Maybe it is the best we’ve got in the absence of a crystal ball. When I was working as a buy-side analyst, there were a few instances where my personal estimates were closer to the mark then the consensus sell-side number, but that was only in cases where I had spent a tremendous amount of time on that individual company.
    Is this important? Everyone in the business looks at year-ahead earnings.
    See, this is the sort of assertion that is demonstrably false. Jeremy Grantham probably manages more money then 10x you and I put together, and it is clear from his writing that he doesn’t pay attention to year-ahead earnings forecasts in his investment decision making. Look, reasonable people can disagree about these things, but it is a mischaracterization to paint things with an “everyone in this business” does this or that. That is just a rhetorical trick to try and make one position seem like gospel.
    I am happy to discuss what I actually write about, but I am not going to join you in veering off topic in the comments.
    This seems to be your standard tactic with any comment I make now. Accuse me of “veering off topic” and then simply ignore the questions/issues I raise. You mentioned Hussman & Shiller in your note and then “invited comment”. I respond on that point, and you accuse me of going off-topic. I don’t really care anymore about the Hussman and Shiller valuation approaches. You have addressed them, and different professional investors will come to different conclusions about their validity has valuation tools.
    I have NO interest whatsoever in discussing Hussman or Shiller valuation methods. I was simply responding to YOUR INVITATION to point out they don’t forecast one-year earnings so it is a complete non-sequitur to “issue a challenge” about their “methods” for one-year earnings forecasts.
    Everyone is trying to build a better mousetrap. I respect that. Me too. Hussman has tweaked his approach. David Merkel has done what I think might be some astounding work that he has shared (he is a model for combining detailed data analysis with some humility about conclusions).
    In terms of QE2 versus fundamentals driving the 9-10 stock rally from the summer, the answer would be it is a complicated question. Cullen Roche over at Pragmatic Capitalist thinks much of the rally has been QE driven, so does Jeremy Grantham, so does Richard Koo. There is a deep bench that thinks it has been a factor. Some people think it has been a non-factor such as yourself or Bob Doll. I really don’t know. I’m reminded of the Bertrand Russell quote about who is certain and who has doubts.
    For the sake of the current discussion, the blend worked well during the period discussed— real time performance — not some “bad times to invest” back test.
    Are you saying that a 1-year performance of a particular analytical model has any validity as to whether it would work over say a 10-30 year going forward basis?

  • inkerton May 18, 2011  

    I’m not meeting your challenge, or attempting to, but I would argue there is a lot of middle ground between Hussman and you. For example, I have come to the conclusion that you are generally right about the status of the market, and I like your measure of risk, using the St. Louise Fed Stress Index. I also agree completely about the minimal impact of QE2.
    However, I also think, for example, that from today’s price level, CAT is absolutely terrible right now as a long-term investment (where long-term is defined as a holding period of more than five years, likely much longer). Sure, CAT is firing on all cylinders now, but if you look at data, as you do, there will likely be another recession with five to seven years, and when that happens, highly cyclical CAT will trade vastly lower than it trades today. I am happy to give you my phone number so you can call me and mock me if CAT does not trade much lower than today’s price within the next seven years, but I truly think it is a phone call you will never be able to make.
    So, when Hussman is talking about “expected ten-year returns,” that’s the kind of thing I take him to be talking about, in part. Now, one of his problems is he applies that model to the entire market, even apparently to far less cyclical companies within it. He also is obsessed with and draws incorrect conclusions from Fed actions, because of his political ideology, and even gets into dubious discussions about the legality of Fed actions (another thing I like about you is you really do try to exclude politics).
    So in short, I love this site, but I just wish you would make even more clear that when you are saying CAT is great, for example, you are only making short-term calls (one-year or less, maybe two years at most), and that nothing you are saying about CAT is meant to indicate that, from today’s price, it is going to outperform the market over the next decade. I don’t think you are saying that, and I don’t think it would be true if you were.
    Also, side note, I’m not posting my real name, as I would rarely post my real name on any website. It seems unfair for you to draw any conclusions when people do not post their real names publicly, particularly if (as in my case) it is readily ascertainable from the email address they provide you when posting.

  • oldprof May 18, 2011  

    Inkerton —
    You are completely correct. I have a price target in mind for each stock. If it hits the target, or even closely approaches, the risk reward changes and I sell. I am not making a ten-year forecast about any stock or about the market as a whole. None of my programs are buy and hold forever.
    I have made many friends from the blog with contacts that involved email, calls, and in-person meetings. I never reveal anyone’s name or what they say in email without permission, and any conversation is by mutual agreement. I don’t mind anyone choosing to be anonymous in the comments.
    With this in mind, it does not seem right for a commenter to use multiple names.
    Thanks for helping me to clarify these points:)

  • Lightningdraw May 18, 2011  

    It seems to me that the pundit consensus is overwhelming bearish. In fact, during the three decades I’ve been managing money, I cannot remember such a barrage of negative commentary (before a move in the market). I cannot help but think this is a prelude to a major move higher.

  • oldprof May 18, 2011  

    PWilson — You have a very good point. The effect of the Fed policy is psychological as well as technical.
    This is very difficult to measure. Many of those who thought QE II would have no effect are the same asserting that there will be a disaster when it ends. Bernanke (probably unwisely) claimed great success as measured by the stock market gains.
    Much of economic activity relates to confidence — both on the part of individuals and also business leaders.
    Your raise a good and difficult question.

  • inkerton May 18, 2011  

    So given your quote, “I am not making a ten-year forecast about any stock or about the market as a whole,” I think it is both unfair for others to set you up in opposition to Hussman, and it is somewhat unfair for you to call for a follower of Hussman, as you do, to “show that they can predict earnings one year in advance with greater precision.” That is because, as far as I know (I’m not an afficionador or a shareholder) Hussman is not attempting to predict earnings one year in advance at all. Calling a follower of Hussman to predict earnings one year in advance is, as far as I understand it, simply a non-sequitur. The two of you are doing completely different things.
    Thus, it is perfectly within the realm of possibility both that you are 100% correct about the moves the market, or your picks, will make within the next year or two, and also that Hussman or Shiller is simultaneously 100% correct about the expected returns of holding the S&P for ten years, if bought today. I’m not saying he or they are correct, I’m just saying that you are doing a completely different analysis, based on completely different expected holding period.
    That isn’t to say there aren’t other problems with Hussman. An additional one, mentioned neither by you nor by me so far, is the fact that his actual holding period for particular stocks (as far as I know) does not appear to match the long term period on which his analysis focuses, it is much, much shorter, which to me is also highly problematic, as I think the holding period of stocks or even of an index should roughly match one’s prediction period. Yours does: short-term predictions, short-term holding periods.

  • oldprof May 18, 2011  

    Mike C — Last year I spent many hours investigating a topic that everyone was getting wrong — a piece of Wall Street truthiness. (and by “everyone” I mean this in a general sense, not as a literal assertion that no single person in the world disagreed) Identifying the accuracy of one-year forecasts is an important research finding.
    I shared the results freely, without any compensation from anyone.
    When I say that “everyone” uses this time frame, I mean that it is widespread, a generally accepted standard. You hear it from almost every analyst interviewed and see it in any analysis of a stock. Most of us do not try to predict much farther in advance. My article pointed out that longer-term predictions were not as accurate.
    To call this a red herring is unfair and inaccurate, especially when you admit you have no data of your own. To the casual or first-time reader it diminishes the research work I have done.
    My invitation pertains to identifying better methods of forecasting earnings, particularly in a relevant time frame. It does not mean that I am going to engage in a refutation of someone else’s recent commentary.
    I spend a few hours most nights developing a topic and writing an article. This one is about QE II — a topic that many readers asked me to discuss.
    You want to talk about many other things, and you do so in a very literal fashion. The off-topic arguments are all themes that I have discussed in prior articles, but I cannot spend hours debating you in the comments.
    I hope that you will understand and respect how I am trying to operate my blog. Other bloggers are far more aggressive or do not take comments at all. I embrace and encourage discussion on the topic at hand.

  • Mike C May 18, 2011  

    I hope that you will understand and respect how I am trying to operate my blog. Other bloggers are far more aggressive or do not take comments at all. I embrace and encourage discussion on the topic at hand.
    Yes, I can understand and respect that. I would highlight that I have NOT commented on your blog for several months. Truthfully, I do not think it is possible for you and I to have a constructive dialogue for either of us so I have refrained for that reason. My approach to your blog has been to read it, get what I can of value (the new risk metric is novel and interesting), and keep my mouth shut. That said, this sentence did successfuly bait me into a response:
    “I continue to invite any loyalist for another method — particularly those espoused by Hussman or Shiller — to show that they can predict earnings one year in advance with greater precision.”
    Personally, I think accuracy is an important thing, and I just felt compelled to respond because absolutely nothing in the Hussman or Shiller approach has anything to do with successfully predicting one-year earnings. As Inkerton demonstrated an ability to clearly understand their methods are about long-term stock valuations and long-term return forecasts, not 1-year forecasts of any sort.
    What I do find perplexing is you mention you don’t want to engage in refutations of someone else, or that you have covered Shiller before, etc. So why keep bringing them and their “methods” up in the discussion. You could have easily made your point about 1-year earnings forecasts and QE2 without mentioning them.

  • Mike C May 18, 2011  

    Small correction for accuracy sake…I did comment on one other post under a different name. Other then that, I have not commented for a great number of months, and will return to lurker mode.

  • Paul in KC May 18, 2011  

    the point is the market cares a great deal about forward earnings; therefore it is important to focus on this aspect of equity valuation; Jeff’s article with respect to one year forward PEs very helpful and USEFUL. we can all rationalize about different viewpoints regarding earnings; but predictions 10 years away regarding anything way too tough. Some easy examples; how likely would anyone have believed these statements at the time?
    1940: Germany as a nation will cease to exist and THe Soviet Union will have the largest military in the world. Does this seemed likely in June 1940??
    1980: The Iron Curtain will collapse in 10 years. Interest rates will be cut in half;
    1920: The “greatest depression” in the modern age will occur in the next 10 years.
    1910: Modern Europe (meaning the monarchies) will cease to exist.
    1990: the greatest decade in the US stock market is beginning.
    2000: one of the worst decades in the US stock market is beginning.
    None of these outcomes were obvious 10 year prior; that sort of thinking is fun and may even be useful in determining responses to certain outcomes;but our predictive abilities in these time increments are poor at best.

  • Mike C May 18, 2011  

    I agree with you on the usefulness of 1-year estimates. That said, there is no correlation between 1-year earnings growth and stock market performance. At the end of the day, there is assertion and there is data. Now a more nuanced view is that forward expectations drive stock performance. Cullen Roche over at has a model built on this although I can’t seem to find the specifics on it. I guess he wants to keep the exact recipe secret. 🙂
    There are ALOT of people working on ALOT of different models for stock market exposure. I consider myself kind of like Bruce Lee in that I try to take what makes sense from various models and discard the rest. I think looking at risk and ECRI makes a lot of sense and the work I’ve done confirms the usefulness of it. I got the ECRI idea from this blog and a link provided here so I thank Jeff for that.
    2000: one of the worst decades in the US stock market is beginning.
    None of these outcomes were obvious 10 year prior;

    This is actually false. In reality, 10-year returns are probably easier to predict then 1-year returns. Once you get out to 10 years, you know earnings CAGR is going to be around 6-7%. Then it is just a question of starting and finishing multiple and simple algebra problem. Go read Grantham’s quarterly letter from 2000. He predicted the stock market returns well in advance. Other models by other people also nailed the 2000-2010 decade of returns. That said, knowing the market is going to return 3-5% from 2010-2020 doesn’t do me much good from a pragmatic perspective. I’d rather try to catch the big upswings and avoid the big downswings and do much, much better.

  • oldprof May 18, 2011  

    inkerton — Thanks for helping us to sort this out. Everyone who writes about market valuation uses some type of projection of earnings, dividends, or cash flows. My particular disagreement is with those who use backward-looking data, and do not consider interest rates. I named the leading exponents.
    Implicit (somewhere) within their approach is some kind of forecast about the future. I have had the challenge to their followers out there for nearly a year, so I am surprised that this particular article got a response. Perhaps I should word it differently to ask what useful thing is being predicted.
    As I have noted, I have written many, many articles on these methods, and that is not the main theme here. Maybe I need a FAQ on the topic — something easy to point to.
    Thanks again for your thoughtful and constructive comments.

  • Matt May 18, 2011  

    I was amazed at the rampant pessimism last summer. Not only was the double dip crowd in full force, but all of the amateur technicians had jumped into short positions due to the Death Cross and Hindenburg Omen. To say that the market was a coiled spring by the end of August was one heck of an understatement.
    After the fact, the bears have a few options to assess the situation in hindsight. Acknowledge that they were wrong on both a fundamental and technical basis, or try to escape responsibility by saying it was all Fed manipulation. Since substantial behavioral research shows that people tend to ascribe success to their own actions and failure to external forces, it’s no surprise that they came up with the idea that QE2 caused a rally when, in fact, it was their excessive bearishness that pushed the market to such a low point that a big rally was actually necessary to make up for their mistakes.

  • oldprof May 18, 2011  

    Mike C — I strongly recommend that you start your own blog. You might understand better. I do not seem to be able to explain why your brand of off-topic commenting, changing the subject, quoting at length from others in a way that creates an expectation of a response — all of this — is just wrong.
    I encourage you. Go for it. Start your own blog and invite comments. It is the best way to demonstrate your knowledge and your stock picking success, which you obviously think is the equal of any of us. I promise to read you and to add you to the blog roll.
    Meanwhile, you are welcome here. You have made helpful comments in the past. It is your own choice whether to lurk or to comment. I ask only that you use a single name, and that you try to stay on topic. At least be aware that I have dealt with most of the points you raise in the past — often on numerous occasions.
    Before challenging me with the latest revisionist thinking from Hussman (and I feel his pain) you might actually see whether I have discussed those issues — going back to 1950 and mean reversion in profit margins.
    You would have done better to comment on those articles, when it was the actual subject of the post.
    I am making a resolution that I will not spend any more time responding to whatever you are going to say next.
    Enjoy the last word!

  • Chris Tinker May 19, 2011  

    I continue to be amazed by those that think Stock Markets are for those who want to take a ten year view from now on listed global companies. As you may recall from past comments, my approach involves using 1 and 2 year forward expectations data to model the implicit value in a share price and to generate an intrinsic value (i.e. what the stock is likely to be worth in 12 months time) from that. It is a pretty complicated approach but works extremely well and works on the basis that a maximum portfolio holding period (prior to review at least) is 12 months. Risk is about the risk to your capital of owning that asset compared to cash or other assets over that period. That is all that is required to make the investment decision today between owning and not owning the stock. You can then work out the risk option of doing so using a real options approach and all of the data you cite above reinforces the bull rally over the last 9-12 months. CAT on this basis now has a 12 month value of $111 so hardly a screaming buy – but not terrible by any means.
    All of this fits neatly in with your view and rather than deal with theoretical analysis of medium term DCF models, mean average historic p/e or other assumptions based on views beyond year two that are simply extrapolation and guesswork, investors need to acknowledge that money is made or lost on equity investments over a much shorter time frame.

  • DE May 19, 2011  

    Jeff any thoughts on Jim Bianco’s analysis on short term earnings estimates. I don’t believe this reconciles with your research on the accuracy of estimates over shorter time periods such as 1 year.

  • oldprof May 19, 2011  

    DE — Yes, I saw this article. If you read it carefully, focusing just on the one-year forecast that I use, he really only has one point. He says that 2009 estimates (made before Lehman in 2008) were really bad, worse than the errors of the 2001 recession. He also notes that 2012 earnings estimates are now reaching the 2009 level and asks “How did that work out?”
    It is really not helpful to take the worst period since the Great Depression and use it to make a general case about the accuracy of forecasting. The throwaway line about 2009 does not add anything to the argument. Obviously, we will eventually pass that level in earnings, so do you just keep chanting “2009,2009?”
    So that is really the only substantive point of disagreement with my research. (The part about ‘gaming’ the actual release is not important for the one-year forecast).
    He also seems to use the next calendar year rather than the next 12 months, as I do. This means that it is not really the one-year forward estimate from my piece.
    I also note that during the time period when estimates have become less accurate, many companies have stopped providing guidance, especially those with little sell-side analyst coverage. This would also affect accuracy.
    Just some preliminary thoughts — maybe more later.
    Consider this — Bianco did not suggest any better method.
    Good question. Thanks.

  • scm0330 May 19, 2011  

    Two things:
    Am I missing something, or did you not really answer the question you posed at the beginning of this article?
    Lakshmi was on CNBC a couple of weeks ago, signaling a macro slowdown. Did you happen to catch this, or do you otherwise pick it up in what you model? I ask because you tout ECRI’s authority pretty consistently.
    Thanks for what you do.

  • oldprof May 19, 2011  

    scm – Perhaps I could have been a little more explicit.
    By demonstrating that the rally is justified on the fundamentals, I am trying to suggest that it is not a QE II artifact. Naturally this requires acceptance that QE II has a modest effect on rates.
    This story is too big for a single article. There are many bogus correlations out there. I have several more pieces planned, and I’ll try to sharpen up the conclusion.
    As to the ECRI, I’ll discuss that more this weekend. I always cite the public index. Lakshman has been citing a proprietary “long-leading” index that they do not publish. It is signalling a global slowdown, but not a recession.
    The accuracy of forward earnings estimates (and the market multiple) clearly depends upon the pace of economic growth. I don’t think that the ECRI index differs much from the “soft patch” that many are talking about. We shall see.
    Perceptive question:)

  • Proteus May 19, 2011  

    Off topic, but, since it came up… I am by nature a very private person. I chose the name Proteus in honor of a childhood hero, C.P. (Charles Proteus) Steinmetz. Steinmetz, like me, was an electrical engineer, but unlike me, he could numerically solve double integrals in his head.
    Rich S.

  • Don't Fight the Fed May 20, 2011  

    So I suppose that the liquidity that allows consumers to keep spending and for companies to continue to generate the kind of earnings mentioned is completely unrelated to the Fed?

  • oldprof May 20, 2011  

    DFtF — The Fed program has barely filled in for the growth in money supply needed for normal GDP growth. The liquidity is not abnormal. It has helped stabilize the economy, and in that sense helped consumers and businesses.
    I sense that you are suggesting something more direct. I discussed that topic pretty thoroughly in this piece:
    I hope this is helpful.

  • Andrew May 20, 2011  

    Does anyone know where you can get historical forward earnings estimates? I do not have access to a Bloomberg and the S&P website only shows current forward estimates, not historical.
    Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance.
    By the way, this is definitely one of my favorite sites to visit.