I have continually argued against the supposed causal relationship of “earnings drive stock prices”, which for me signifies as a popular myth with little relevance to market realties. [Read my Machlup-Livermore paradigm here here and here]
Thailand’s experience should be a noteworthy example.
This from World Bank data on Thailand’s Stock Exchange. (World Bank Thailand Economic Monitor)
The left window represents nominal profits of listed companies. The right window exhibits the % change of financial indicators in terms of Gross Profit, Return on Assets and Return on Equity.
The above is the 5- year chart of Thailand’s SET (courtesy of Bloomberg).
My observations:
Profits of SET listed companies suffered a decline for only ONE QUARTER, particularly, the fourth quarter of 2008. Yet the SET fell 55% for 16 months (green circle)!
The one quarter of decline in profits looks more like an anomaly (from an external shock) than from a structural perspective (see right window showing financial indicators where % change were all positive despite the profit drop).
If stock market prices function as a discounting mechanism predicated on earnings, then what justifies a 55% slump for an extended duration of 16 months (about 6 quarters) when profits declined for only 1 quarter?
Conversely, profits immediately recovered during the 1st quarter of 2009, yet it took the SET about 5 months into 2009 to consolidate and ascend (green arrow on SET chart), so what happened to the discounting mechanism role played by prices, if stock price are driven by earnings?
Said differently, if it took 16 months to factor in one month decline in profits, then why has not the same discounting factor apply during the recovery or that profits have been recovering yet stock prices remained depressed, so what gives?
By the earnings drive stock prices logic, any decline should have been muted and short. Apparently, there hardly has been any solid evidence to prove that such correlation exists or that the causation of earnings drive stock prices is valid.
In addition, one might point to the rate of change of Gross profits, ROA and ROE as a reason (red arrow on % change of financial indicators).
If this is true, then the SET should be on a decline since 2005, because financial indicators have been on a decline over the same period. But the opposite happened, the SET boomed from 2004 (2006 in chart) until May 2007 (red arrow on SET chart)!
As Canadian born American writer Saul Bellow said
A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.
It’s one thing to believe, it’s another to get real.
No comments:
Post a Comment