Quote from MKTrader:
1982 is about the worst comparison to the current period imaginable. Stock valuations were at their lowest levels in decades--much lower than March 2009. And we were actually fighting inflation and raising interest rates.
But back then, stocks had competition from bonds and t-bills yielding 10% or so. Of course they have to be cheaper, to be competitive compared to 10% in nearly risk-free government securities. A 12 or 13% earnings yield, compared to 10% in low-risk t-bills, is a reasonable price - about 200-300 basis points risk premium.
Today, t-bills yield pretty much 0%. 10 year Treasuries yield less than 3%. What earnings yield do stocks need to offer in order to be just as attractive as back in 1982? It certainly isn't 12-13%, is it? That would be a risk premium of 1000 basis points, over 3 to 5 times more than in 1982.
Given the extremely low returns on offer in bonds and cash, earnings yields of 7-8% are a compelling alternative. Once you add in the fact that corporations are able to grow their earnings over time, compared to the static income from bonds, then the decision becomes even more attractive.
No matter what you say about the current economy, the major problem for the bears is that stocks are offering 7-8% returns even if earnings stay flat, and bonds are offering a pittance by comparison. Many blue chips have dividend yields in the 3-5% range, so the dividends alone are paying more than Treasury yields. And those dividends are likely to keep growing over the long-term. In 1, 2, 5, 10 years, earnings will most likely be higher, and you will have collected dividends or retained earnings along the way.
If you are bearish on stocks, what alternatives should investors consider? Bonds at <3% yields when Bernanke is printing money? Cash at 0%?