Monday , 26 June 2017


True or False: Earnings Drive Stock Prices

The belief that earnings drive stock prices powers the bulk of the research on Wallinvesting2 Street but this glaring exception to the idea of a causal relationship between corporate earnings and stock prices challenges that theory. Let me explain.

By Vadim Pokhlebkin/Robert Prechter (elliottwave.com) originally entitled Myth #4: Earnings drive stock prices, Part 4*

The belief that earnings drive stock prices powers the bulk of the research on Wall Street. Countless analysts try to forecast corporate earnings so they can forecast stock prices. The exogenous-cause [i.e., news-driven — Ed.] basis for this research is quite clear:

  • Corporate earnings are the basis of the growth and the contraction of companies and dividends.
    • Rising earnings indicate growing companies and imply rising dividends, and
    • falling earnings suggest the opposite.

Corporate growth rates and changes in dividend payout are the reasons investors buy and sell stocks. Therefore, if you can forecast earnings, you can forecast stock prices.

Suppose you were to be guaranteed that corporate earnings would rise strongly for the next six quarters straight. Reports of such improvement would constitute one powerful “information flow.” So, should you buy stocks?

Figure 9 shows that in 1973-1974, earnings per share for S&P 500 companies soared for six quarters in a row, during which time the S&P suffered its largest decline since 1937-1942.

This is not a small departure from the expected relationship; it is a history-making departure. Earnings soared, and stocks had their largest collapse for the entire period from 1938 through 2007, a 70-year span! Moreover, the S&P bottomed in early October 1974, and earnings per share then turned down for twelve straight months, just as the S&P turned up!

An investor with foreknowledge of these earnings trends would have made two perfectly incorrect decisions, buying near the top of the market and selling at the bottom.

In real life, no one knows what earnings will do, so no one would have made such bad decisions on the basis of foreknowledge. Unfortunately, the basis that investors did use — and which is still popular today — is worse: They buy and sell based on estimated earnings, which incorporate analysts’ emotional biases, which are usually wrongly timed, but that is a story we will tell later.

Suffice it for now to say that this glaring exception to the idea of a causal relationship between corporate earnings and stock prices challenges bedrock theory.

[The above article is presented by  Lorimer Wilson, editor of  www.munKNEE.com and www.FinancialArticleSummariesToday.com and the FREE Market Intelligence Report newsletter (sample hereregister here) and may have been edited ([ ]), abridged (…) and/or reformatted (some sub-titles and bold/italics emphases) for the sake of clarity and brevity to ensure a fast and easy read. The author’s views and conclusions are unaltered and no personal comments have been included to maintain the integrity of the original article. This paragraph must be included in any article re-posting to avoid copyright infringement.]

*http://www.elliottwave.com/freeupdates/archives/2014/09/11/Don-t-Get-Ruined-by-These-10-Popular-Investment-Myths-%28Part-IV%29.aspx#axzz3IOE2gK92 (© 2014 Elliott Wave International)

If you liked this article then “Follow the munKNEE” & get each new post via

Related Articles:
Most economists (primarily Keynesians and monetarists) believe that authorities can control the money supply and interest rates, and most neo-Austrians believe that the Fed is all-powerful when it comes to inflating – that whatever inflation rate it wants, it simply manufactures. Is that true or false? Read on for the answer. Read More »
This one seems like a no-brainer. The government or the central bank prints more bonds, notes and bills, and prices for things go up in response. Gold is real money, so it must fluctuate along with the inflation rate. It’s basic physics but it doesn’t happen that way. Let’s examine the history of inflation and the precious metals since the low of the Great Depression. Read More »
It seems logical that a scary, destructive terrorist attack, particularly one that implies more attacks to come, would be bearish for stock prices – but has that actually been the case? Read More »
It would seem logical to say that peace allows companies to focus on manufacturing goods, providing services, innovation and competition, all of which helps the overall economy but does peace, in fact, have anything to do with determining stock prices? Read More »
A sensible story of causation regarding oil prices and stock prices made by countless economists is that “rising oil prices increase the cost of energy and therefore reduce corporate profits and consumers’ spending power, thus putting drags on stock prices and the economy.” Stunningly, as far as I can determine, however, no evidence supports that claim, as the discussion below will show. Read More »
Q: Is it correct to assume throughout that an expanding trade deficit impacts the economy negatively? A: No, the relationship, if there is one, is that there has been a positive — not negative — correlation between the stock market and the trade deficit. Let me explain. Read More »
It is common for economists to offer a forecast for the stock market yet add a caveat to the effect that “If a war shock or terrorist attack occurs, then I would have to modify my outlook.” As such, it would seem logical to assume that…they must have access to a study showing that such events affect the stock market, right? The answer is no, for the same reason that they do not check relationships between interest rates, oil prices or the trade balance and the stock market. The causality just seems too sensible to doubt. Read More »
Macroeconomic news supposedly explains only about one fifth of the movement in stock prices but if there is no accommodating theory, then the presumed causality involved is tenuous at best. Let me explain. Read More »
Events and conditions do not make investors behave in any particular way that can be identified as shown in this analysis of the supposed relationship between interest rates and stock prices. So much for the popular claim that “Interest rates drive stock prices”! Read More »