One hears the mantra almost daily, often from friends and relatives:
Aren't stocks cheap? Look at those low P/Es! GE is at $15 a share, Intel below $14, Du Pont at about $27. My goodness, the Dow is down to 8,200. Isn't now a good time to buy stocks?
It is, if you believe the Dow is forming a bottom and/or that the worst of the financial crisis is behind us, and the U.S. economy is set to recover.
However, the alternate viewpoint argues that the Dow has not bottomed, could very well fall another 1,000 points, with panic selling (known as 'capitulation' in Wall Street circles) taking the Dow to levels well below that, at least for a short period of time, possibly longer.
Hence, purchasing shares for the first time now (or adding to existing positions) given the latter scenario would create an immediate 10% loss, or possibly more.
Monitor corporate earnings and job growth
What's a better tack to take concerning when to buy more shares? Monitor U.S. corporate earnings and job growth.
Investors have become accustomed to bull markets -- long periods of stock price appreciation, i.e. a rising stock market. That's been the norm since the start of publicly-traded stocks in the United States, and certainly a feature of markets in the post-1980 period.
Provided that the U.S. economy is growing in a sustainable way and increasing its productive capacity, bear markets have been the exception, the momentary pull-back, when one takes a long view of the investment horizon.
The current bear market can be seen in that light, again, provided the nation's economy is on a sustainable growth track with an increasing productive capacity.
Still, the key in the above has been the U.S. economy (obviously). Absent a healthy economy, different Dow case studies pop up.
For example, what if the Dow didn't fall -- and didn't rise -- for seven years? In other words, a sideways Dow where no progress is made? It seems like a remote possibility, but that's exactly what occurred from early 1966, when the Dow fell below 1,000, until late 1972, when the Dow reclaimed the psychologically-significant 1,000 level.
Is it time to rein-in expectations regarding the Dow?
Indeed it is, if technical analysis and historical p/e ratios mean anything.
Those with visions of a Dow of 11,000 dancing inside their heads need to take a step back, for context and perspective, on the likelihood of a Dow push to that level in the near future.
The U.S. economy is in recession, it's shedding jobs, downward corporate earnings revisions are likely, and the world's major economic regions are attempting to re-liquefy credit markets and prevent a global financial crisis from further damaging economies, worldwide.
The above, as CNN Talk Show Host Larry King would say, 'ain't exactly signs of prosperity.'
And the Dow has responded: down more than 30% since hitting its all-time high above 14,000 a year ago. Keep your eye on 8,500 / 8,200 / 8,000
Earlier in this space yours truly noted that the Dow had technical support at the 8,500 to 8,200 levels, and of course psychological support at 8,000.
I have written up eight companies that have a chance to be among the top 25 stocks for the NEXT 25 years and I thought it might be time for some discussion. You, the readers have sent in quite a bit of responses to the first six names. Most of your responses have been very positive and I certainly appreciate it. But many of you have been raising questions that I believe need a general response.
Let's put a few ideas and myths to rest once and for all.
The top 25 for the NEXT 25 years are bound to be smaller capitalization companies. By definition, they have to be. I recommend a number of companies on my website that are of a larger capitalization, but to make the list, the law of large numbers is against the larger cap names. If a $20 billion market cap names five folds over the next 10 years, that's a great return and no one should be unhappy. But if a $500 million market cap name goes to $20 billion in value, that's a 40 times return. So, the names will be of a smaller cap nature.
With high-growth companies early in their development, don't get hung up on lack of dividends. High growth companies do not pay dividends, nor should they. You want every penny of after-tax earnings to be plowed back intothe business. Mature companies tend to pay cash dividends because their growth rates have slowed, the business lines are well-funded, and the excess cash is returned to shareholders. The downfall is that the stocks will not grow as fast in value as a high-growth company that is executing well. The big joke among portfolio managers when Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT) declared its one time $3 dividend and initiated a quarterly dividend was that the party was over! When is the funeral? Microsoft was signaling that the high-growth, plow the earnings back into the business era was over. The stock traded sideways for nearly three years as Microsoft tried to get its footing back.
As the Private Equity deal juggernaut continues at a record pace, the Justice Department continues to send out letters in their probe of PE competitive behavior. The Wall Street Journal reported today that Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (NYSE:MER) has joined this inauspicious list. Other letters in the same form, I am sure, will be received by other players. Any Justice Department investigation is bad news and a distraction, and I am sure there is concern throughout the PE industry.
The question at hand is whether PE firms, in pursuing the "club" deals (many firms getting together to pursue a large target, like a bunch of hunters combining to wrestle an elephant) are "colluding" to bring down prices for the assets they are pursuing, thereby undertaking anti-competitive and thus illegal behavior. The Journal speculates that the Hertz transaction is under particular scrutiny. This was not only a large club deal but one where the buyers made a lot of money VERY quickly. To the Justice Department, I am sure, the fact that big bucks were made in short order MUST mean illegal activity. The Federal Government seems to frown upon large scale success, and therefore must investigate.
I have not seen any of these love letters and can only speculate about the investigation, but the facts of life in Private Equity do not support a case for collusion.
Google closed down yesterday finishing at $367.23 per share on a day when the rest of the market moved notably upward. Although I have been very vocal about the stock price being overvalued in my Blogging Stocks posts, (see: 10 Reasons I think Google is going down), Google remains a very good company with a growing brand providing valuable services. So this begs the question: What is GOOG stock worth?
I'm not in the prediction business, I am in the investment business. Is there a price I would pay? Certainly. That price is unquestionably less than most other investors would pay because I always look for deep value. But is there a "fair market value?"
That's a very difficult question because the price is determined by what the last trader feels the stock is worth -- not everyone, not a consensus. For example, if you own a stock that you bought at $20 and it's now trading at $40, and you are holding on long term, then you are not a factor during the day when traders are moving the price up or down a few bucks. Your opinion on the value that day is silent and has no bearing on the price.
In trying to assess what the potential appreciation of the stock might be next year I had to make an assumption about the P/E ratio. This is based on what I envision is the level most traders will be willing to pay. If you use a P/E ratio of 40 and look twelve months out and assume Google's earnings continue to grow on a slower but still strong trajectory, you are looking at a lot of potential upside from here. GOOG's trailing twelve month EPS is $6.82. If it hits EPS of $12 thenyou might arrive at a value of $480. These are figures commonly discussed in the business pages and by analysts. Some of the thoughtful comments I have received to my posts suggest the same thing. Of course we have read higher estimates by Piper Jaffrey analysts who reached a $600 valuation. But to get there you must allow for EPS of $15 or a P/E of 50. That I am not willing to do, are you?
Investors have become accustomed to bull markets -- long periods of stock price appreciation, i.e. a rising stock market. That's been the norm since the start of publicly-traded stocks in the United States, and certainly a feature of markets in the post-1980 period. 
Best & Worst in Money 2008: Most shocking financial collapse
Closing Bell: Stocks slump as AMD, AT&T, GM and Merck decline
Global Q&A: A rocky road, but profits ahead
