Connect with us

Business

How investors should be thinking as the stock market nears a P/E ratio of 30—a number that spelled disaster before the dotcom crash

Published

on



Something doesn’t make sense about the current stock market boom. U.S. big caps keep soaring while the economic outlook keeps getting worse. Right now, the atmospherics, Big Momentum and AI euphoria, are winning over the negative news flow and daunting market metrics. But sooner or later the fundamentals will take charge, and then, watch out for flying glass.

On the macro scene, the danger signs are multiplying. The latest employment report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics disclosed that the U.S. added a meager 73,000 jobs in July, and revised the May and June figures radically downward, bringing total net hires for the past three months to just 106,000, less than one fourth the increase for the same period last year. Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, described the feeble data as a “game changer” demonstrating that “the labor market is deteriorating quickly.”

GDP growth has also proved disappointing, clocking far below the Trump administration’s highly aspirational target of 3%. The economy expanded at an annualized clip of just 1.75% through the first half of 2025, way down from the 2.7% average in Q3 and Q4 of last year. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is forecasting tepid expansion of 1.7% to 1.8% from 2026 to 2035, not nearly fast enough to shrink the federal debt that the agency projects will swell from 100% of national income this year to 110% by 2031.

On the inflation front, it appears that the Trump tariffs are finally starting to bite. The Labor Department’s producer price index surged 0.9% in June, the largest increase in almost three years. It’s unclear if the Trump duties are causing the surge, but at the least they amount to a giant tax increase. The Tax Foundation projects that the onslaught will cost consumers and companies roughly $200 billion annually, the equivalent of around 6% of the total Washington collected last year in all personal and corporate income levies, amounting to the biggest hit since 1993. On average, Americans will be spending an extra 1.4% of their after-tax incomes on toys, apparel, autos, and other heavily taxed imports, leaving fewer dollars for everything else. The CBO views the Trump tariffs as a growth-depressant that its director recently told Congress will “reduce the size of the U.S. economy” going forward.

The full force of that effective national sales tax is building. A parade of companies including Walmart, Target, Nintendo, Ford, and GM have stated that though they’re swallowing part of the tariff costs, they’re already starting to pass a portion of the burden to consumers, and their narrow margins will mandate bigger increases to come.

The residential real estate market, for both sales and construction, remains stymied by a combination of record housing prices and mortgage rates hovering at roughly 6.7%, twice the cost three and a half years ago. Young families facing the affordability chasm may be forced to keep renting and forgo ownership much longer than in previous generations. That gridlock is sapping a powerhouse central to the nation’s prosperity.

The chief hope for bullish investors: a Fed rate reduction in September and a series of additional cuts arriving later in this year and during 2026. Though the markets now assess the probability of substantial trimming from the current benchmark of 4.3% to 4.5% as a virtual certainty, the prospect hasn’t led to a significant decline in the number that matters most: the 10-year Treasury yield, which determines such essentials as the cost of home and car loans and credit for corporations. That figure is holding steady at around 4.3%, just about where it stood prior to the unveiling of Liberation Day tariffs in early April.

Why are stocks so high right now?

That fading backdrop stands at odds with superrich equity valuations. Prices are so extremely stretched that they risk a sharp fall, or at minimum weak gains looking forward. The problem: The S&P 500’s charge is far outpacing the plodding advance in earnings. At the market close on Aug. 14, the big-cap index posted yet another record at 6,469. As of Q1 2025, the last full quarter of reported profits, S&P 500 earnings per share, based on the trailing 12-month results, stood at $216.69. Hence, the S&P price-to-earnings multiple just hit 29.85 (6,469 divided by $216.69)—I’ll round it to 30. By historical standards, it’s a gigantic, even scary figure.

The $3.30 that investors are garnering for every $100 they dispense on the S&P 500 marks the worst deal since the last, heady days just before the tech craze’s implosion in early 2002. The market P/E actually did reach just over 30 for five other quarters in the almost quarter-century span, but that’s only the result of extraordinary downturns that crushed the earnings denominator, first during the Global Financial Crisis and again in the COVID crash. Except in those special cases where earnings per share (EPS) collapsed and artificially inflated the multiple, this is the first time the P/E has reached within a whisker of 30 since what’s renowned as one of the most-unhinged times in the annals of financial markets.

It’s also cautionary that the P/E struck 30 only during just one period between 1888, where the data begins, and the start of the dotcom takeoff in 1998. The landmark we’ve just seen repeated occurred in 1929, shortly prior to the wipeout ushering in the Great Depression.

What’s especially troubling is the way the multiple reached its current heights. The main driver wasn’t what matters most: rising profits. Since the pre-COVID end of 2019, EPS for the S&P 500 increased by 67% or 9% annually, while the index has waxed far faster at 120%, or 14% a year. It’s those divergent, sprint versus jogging performances that hiked the P/E from 22 to 30.

Of course, as Warren Buffett likes to note, stocks compete with bonds for investor money, and falling interest rates are great for equities. But in the past couple of years, we’ve seen the opposite scenario. Bond yields have spiked after years in the cellar to something like normal levels, making Treasuries far more attractive today than when the 10-year yielded an average of 2.2% from 2015 to early 2022. Now they’re paying twice that coupon at 4.3%, while the earnings yield on stocks—that $3.30 for every $100 you’re paying—has dwindled.

Where will the stock market go from here?

Indeed, an excellent proxy for the future expected returns on equities is that earnings yield, now sitting at 3.3%. Assume the consumer price index (CPI) keeps chugging at 2.5%—meaning companies are lifting their prices and profits at that pace—and you get a total gain of 5.8% a year. The S&P dividend yield accounts for 1.2% of that figure. By the way, that tiny cash payout epitomizes why equities are looking so frothy. Here’s the math, and it’s simple: Even assuming the P/E holds at today’s 30, you’ll only get that 5.8% (the 3.3% earnings yield plus 2.5% inflation)—just 40% of the sumptuous take since the summer of 2019.

But what happens if that multiple drifts downward to, say, a still elevated 25 over the next half-decade? In that case, by August of 2030, the shrinkage in the P/E would completely erase the appreciation driven by earnings growth, plus the dividend’s contribution, and S&P stocks would show no gain at all. You’d lose something like 10% to inflation. The market moonshot has been great for people who believed and stayed invested. Despite assurances from Wall Street banks and TV pundits, the argument for leaning heavily on stocks is a lot flimsier today than before the liftoff, and the appeal of bonds much greater. You never know when gravity will take hold, only that it always does.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Craigslist founder signs the Giving Pledge, and some of his fortune will go to a pigeon rescue

Published

on



Of the wealthiest people in the world, about 250 have pledged to give away the majority of their fortune—an effort coined the Giving Pledge. It was started by Bill Gates, Melinda French Gates, and Warren Buffett in 2010, and billionaires including Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Larry Ellison, and Bill Ackman have signed on. 

Although it’s often also referred to as the “Billionaire’s Pledge,” other wealthy donors have committed to the endeavor. One of the latest signatories is Craigslist founder Craig Newmark, who announced on LinkedIn this weekend he’s officially joining the Giving Pledge.

“Okay, I’ve formally signed up for the Giving Pledge, sometimes considered the Billionaire’s Pledge, though I’ve never been a billionaire, particularly after I gave away all my Craigslist equity to my charitable foundation,” Newmark wrote. “Seems like a good way to officially enter my middle seventies, which I’ve done today.”

Newark built his fortune by founding popular online marketplace Craiglist in 1995. It started as an email list for local San Francisco residents, but turned into an online classifieds page the following year. Today, Craigslist is estimated to be worth about $3 billion

“This all feels like a follow up to my decision in early 1999 to monetize Craigslist as little as possible,” Newmark said of signing Giving Pledge. “The best estimate so far is that I turned down around $11B that bankers and VCs wanted to throw at me. I still made plenty after that.”

In 2020, Forbes estimated Newmark’s net worth at $1.3 billion, although in 2022 he said he’d give away most of his fortune to charitable causes. There aren’t more recent estimates of his net worth, but he emphasized in his LinkedIn post he is not a billionaire.

His foundation, Craig Newmark Philanthropies, mostly supports cybersecurity and veterans causes. And in his post committing to the Giving Pledge, Newmark said he’d continue making similar donations. 

“My focus is where I can do some actual good in neglected areas, like for military families and vets, like fighting cyberattacks and preventing scams,” he wrote. “Also, a little for pigeon rescue.”

Wait, what?

Newmark is also dedicated to rescuing pigeons. 

“I love birds, have a sense of humor, and I suspect that pigeons may become our replacement species,” he told the Associated Press in 2023.

His favorite neighborhood pigeon is named Ghostface Killah, who is featured in a painting on his mantle at home. 

He said he developed his love for pigeons in the mid-1980s when he lived in Detroit. Pigeons are “the underdog,” he told NYU’s student newspaper Washington Square News

“They’re the grassroots, most prominent bird and possibly our successor species,” Newmark said. “But pigeons are, well, I identify with them as well. I grew up with no money, living across the street from a junkyard.”

Early this year, Newmark donated $30,000 to San Francisco-based pigeon rescue Palomacy, which was the largest donation the organization had ever received. 

“Craig Newmark is many things: the founder of craigslist, an ‘accidental entrepreneur,’ a self-proclaimed old-school nerd, a full-time philanthropist and a life-long lover of pigeons,” Palomacy said in January. “We so appreciate the support they provide our feathered friends.”

With Newmark’s donation, Palomacy can continue to “save hundreds of pigeons and doves through hands-on rescue, rehabilitation, and rehoming in Northern California,” according to the organization. “We are reversing the unfair stigma against pigeons and showing the world they deserve our respect and protection.”

Recent criticisms of the Giving Pledge

Although there undoubtedly are some billionaires and other high-net-worth individuals who are genuinely committed to the Giving Pledge, there has been recent criticism many of the signatories aren’t living up to the pledge. Even Melinda French Gates, one of its founders, recently said people could be doing more. 

“Have they given enough? No,” she said in a recent interview with Wired.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent last week also called the Giving Pledge a failure—but for different reasons. He said it was “well intentioned,” but was “very amorphous” and claimed wealthy people made the commitment out of fear that the public would “come at it with pitchforks.” Bessent also pointed out that not many billionaires have actually delivered on their promise to donate their fortunes. 

Warren Buffett, another Giving Pledge founder, also recently admitted he had to rethink some of his original philanthropic plans.

“Early on, I contemplated various grand philanthropic plans. Though I was stubborn, these did not prove feasible,” he wrote in a recent letter to shareholders. “During my many years, I’ve also watched ill-conceived wealth transfers by political hacks, dynastic choices, and, yes, inept or quirky philanthropists.” 

Several studies have also poked holes in the Giving Pledge, showing how it’s benefitted billionaires by presenting themselves as generous and public‑spirited, but doesn’t question inequalities and tax rules that led to such massive wealth in the first place.

The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) argues the Giving Pledge is “unfulfilled, unfulfillable, and not our ticket to a fairer, better future.” 

To be sure, many wealthy signatories like Newmark appear to be genuinely committed to the cause. 

“Like I say, a nerd’s gotta do what a nerd’s gotta do, and a nerd should practice what he preaches,” Newmark wrote over the weekend.





Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang urges a return to factory careers: ‘Not everyone needs a PhD’

Published

on



“We want to re-industrialize the United States. We need to be back in manufacturing,” Huang said recently on theJoe Rogan Experience podcast. “Every successful person doesn’t need to have a PhD. Every successful person doesn’t have to have gone to Stanford or MIT.”

Huang believes more Americans need to take on manufacturing gigs—not just to pivot to where the work will be in the age of AI, but also because the entire industry could be at risk. As much as the thought of U.S. citizens heading back into factories may seem like a back-track, he said it impacts the nation’s ability to remain prosperous and build AI companies like his.

“If [the] the United States doesn’t grow, we will have no prosperity,” Huang continued. “We can’t invest in anything domestically or otherwise—we can’t fix any of our problems. If we don’t have energy growth, we can’t have industrial growth. If we don’t have industrial growth, we can’t have job growth. It’s as simple as that.”

“If not for [Trump’s] pro-growth energy policy, we would not be able to build factories for AI, not be able to build chip factories, we surely won’t be able to build supercomputer factories. None of that stuff would be possible without all of that. Construction jobs would be challenged, electrician jobs—all of these jobs that are now flourishing, would be challenged.”

Lutnick’s intergenerational manufacturing push amid talent shortages

As the cofounder and leader of the world’s most valuable company, Huang has a peek under the hood of America’s changing workforce dynamic. The CEO of the $4.53 trillion chip giant has a direct line to U.S. President Donald Trump and Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, who are determined to bring U.S. manufacturing back to its glory days. 

The Trump administration is pressing for American self-reliance while curbing immigration, leading officials like Lutnick to push for an intergenerational manufacturing boom. He even framed it as a step into the future, not a stumble back into the past. 

For example, Lutnick claimed that technician jobs are promising gigs with a low barrier to entry, that can pay anywhere between $70,000 to $90,000 at the onset—no college degree required. 

“It’s time to train people not to do the jobs of the past, but to do the great jobs of the future,” Lutnick toldCNBC earlier this year. “This is the new model, where you work in these plants for the rest of your life, and your kids work here, and your grandkids work here.”

It’s an appealing proposition: avoid college debt and earn more than the average U.S. worker, all while having stability during an AI jobs wipeout. Yet many manufacturing roles have been left unfilled, despite the sector continuing to grow. 

Employment in the manufacturing surpassed pre-pandemic levels, standing at about 13 million jobs as of January 2024, according toDeloitte. It was estimated that the need for human workers in manufacturing could stand at around 3.8 million, but over half of these jobs—around 1.9 million—could remain unfilled if skill gaps aren’t addressed and the tune on the jobs doesn’t change. 

After all, only 14% of Gen Zers said they’d consider industrial work as a career, according to a 2023 study from Soter Analytics. There are a few concerns holding them back: they believe the industry doesn’t offer work flexibility, and the conditions are unsafe.

Huang even believes robots will create new jobs for humans

Huang has hope for the future of jobs, even as robot employees step onto the scene—and it’ll give yet another boost to factory jobs. 

Some tech leaders, like Tesla CEO Elon Musk, are already developing their own fleets of autonomous workers; Musk predicted his company’s Optimus humanoid robots will be used internally within Tesla by the end of 2025, and the following year, other companies will have the tech in their hands. 

It’s assumed that these robots will take over the work of employees, leaving humans high and dry—but Huang is optimistic that the tech will create new opportunities, especially for technicians.

“I’m super excited about the robots Elon’s working on. It’s still a few years away. When it happens, there’s a whole new industry of technicians and people who have to manufacture the robots,” Huang explained in the podcast. 

“You’re going to have a whole apparel industry for robots. You’re going to have mechanics for robots. And you have people who come to maintain your robots.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Mike Bloomberg’s new $50 million mayor bootcamp trains local leaders not to ‘play it safe’

Published

on



Michael R. Bloomberg has believed mayors have plenty to teach each other since he was mayor of New York City and supported the effort to share good municipal ideas through his nonprofit Bloomberg Philanthropies since he left office in 2013.

However, as more nations get bogged down in what the media entrepreneur and philanthropist calls “ideological battles and finger-pointing,” Bloomberg says mayors can do even more. He is expanding his support for them internationally, with the Bloomberg LSE European City Leadership Initiative, a collaboration with the London School of Economics and Political Science and the Hertie School in Berlin. And other philanthropists are investing in building stronger municipal governments to strengthen urban communities.

“Mayors are more important than ever because cities are more important than ever,” Bloomberg told The Associated Press in a statement. “For the first time in the history of the world, a growing majority of the world’s people live in cities – and cities lie at the heart of many of the biggest challenges facing countries, including expanding economic opportunity.”

The new international initiative, established by a $50 million investment from Bloomberg Philanthropies, brings together 30 mayors and 60 senior officials from 17 countries, representing over 21 million residents.

After one meeting in October, some already see the potential.

Oliver Coppard, mayor of South Yorkshire, England, jumped at the chance to work with Bloomberg Philanthropies again. Coppard learned much at the Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative, which focuses on training American mayors, but offers 25% of its seats to international mayors. And even he was surprised by how much he had in common with the first international class of mayors. They all look for ways to get their organizations to move faster, deal with social media, and communicate better with their communities.

“It was actually really surprising,” Coppard said. “There are a bunch of areas where, we all felt, despite the very different context that we work in, we were facing very similar challenges.”

A ‘show me, not trust me’ moment for mayors

Despite the varying political ideologies and viewpoints from a wide range of countries, Coppard said what united the mayors was a desire to serve their communities better through health care, transportation, and communication.

It’s exactly what James Anderson, head of Government Innovation programs at Bloomberg Philanthropies, hoped they would find. But he says tackling those issues has broader implications that require more philanthropic involvement.

“All of these mayors are recognizing that local governments have become the bulwark for democratic legitimacy,” Anderson said. “They feel the burden of that. And they want new and better ways to rebuild trust and a sense amongst their citizenry that government — local government, in particular — sees them and can respond to their needs in impactful ways.”

Anderson said the mayors also understand they have to show how government works for its community. Public safety, trash pickup and snow plowing have taken on new significance.

“We are in a moment where trust in institutions is very low,” he said. “This is a ‘Show me, not trust me’ moment. And mayors recognize that means they need to govern differently.”

Joseph Deitch, founder of the Elevate Prize Foundation, believes that philanthropy also has to support mayors and their cities differently.

“These days, there’s so much polarization,” he said. “Everyone is defending their corner. So where can we have common ground? I think one of those places is love of our cities.”

Launching Elevate Cities in Miami

To cultivate a stronger bond to those places, Deitch has launched Elevate Cities, a new initiative that both celebrates what makes cities special and convenes community leaders to make them better. The initiative will start in Deitch’s current home with Elevate Miami, though he hopes to expand it quickly to other cities.

In November, Elevate Miami awarded $25,000 unrestricted grants to three different Miami nonprofits to increase their impact on the city. Later this month, there will be a citywide scavenger hunt to introduce Miami residents to nonprofits in the area. And in January, Elevate Miami will launch a contest to write a love song to the city.

Kim Coupounas, Elevate Cities CEO, says that getting people to recognize all the positive things happening around them in their city makes it easier to cultivate civic pride. It also makes it easier for municipal leaders to get support from the community.

“We’re really trying to engage all of the city,” she said. “There’s so much potential and possibility that can come to life because we join hands and recognize what a good place we live in and what more can happen here.”

Bloomberg said he hopes the new Bloomberg LSE European City Leadership Initiative and other programs supporting municipal leaders will help spread good ideas and the diversity of viewpoints needed to try new strategies for their cities.

“If mayors want to do big things, they can’t afford to play it safe,” he said.

_____

Associated Press coverage of philanthropy and nonprofits receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content. For all of AP’s philanthropy coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/philanthropy.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.