Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 576

This cornerstone of stock market valuation has been left behind

The Cyclically Adjusted Price to Earnings (CAPE) ratio, introduced by Nobel laureate Robert Shiller in 1988, has long been a cornerstone of market valuation metrics. 

By smoothing earnings over a decade, it aims to provide a more stable, long-term perspective on market valuations. However, the CAPE ratio’s limitations have become increasingly apparent, making it a potentially misleading tool, especially when used in isolation for valuing today’s dynamic markets.

Understanding the CAPE Ratio

The CAPE ratio is calculated by dividing the current market price of a stock or index by the average of inflation-adjusted earnings over the past ten years.

CAPE Ratio = Current Market Price / Average Inflation-adjusted Earnings of the Last 10 Years

This approach aims to normalize earnings over a full business cycle, reducing the impact of temporary factors that can distort traditional P/E ratios.

CAPE’s track record: A history of underestimation

Since its introduction in 1988, the CAPE ratio has consistently projected U.S. equity returns 5-10% (or more) below realized returns over various periods. Except for the tumultuous period from the dot-com bubble to the global financial crisis, following CAPE for allocation decisions would likely have led investors into 1) the wrong asset class, 2) the wrong countries, and 3) the wrong sectors.


Source: Aptus via Yale.edu

Below are three critical issues with the CAPE Ratio.

Issue 1: Static stock composition myth

The CAPE ratio assumes a constant mix of stocks over time, which fails spectacularly in today’s dynamic U.S. market. High-growth tech companies such as Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, Google, Meta, and Amazon now dominate the index, with dramatically increased earnings and market weights over the past decade.

For example, the following table shows market weights of a handful of technology companies from ten years ago vs today.


Source: Aptus via Morningstar Data

This leads to a logically inconsistent valuation:

  • Price (numerator): Reflects current market cap that reflects their much larger present earnings
  • Earnings (denominator): Includes smaller weights and much lower earnings from up to a decade ago

Take NVIDIA as an example: The price component accounts for its current ~7% weight in the index that reflects its 6350% earnings growth that has taken place over the past decade. Yet the earnings component includes its tiny 0.06% weight and much smaller earnings from a decade ago.

This mismatch creates a distorted picture of what an investor is actually buying. It would only be logical if one expected these companies’ earnings to plummet by over 90%—an extremely unlikely scenario for established market leaders.


Source: Aptus via Morningstar Data

Issue 2: The buyback blind spot

The CAPE ratio fails to account for share buybacks, a key method companies use to return capital to shareholders. Unlike dividends, buybacks reduce the share count, increasing Earnings Per Share (EPS) even without a change in corporate earnings.

Consider two identical companies, differing only in capital return method:

  • Company A: Returns capital via dividends
  • Company B: Returns capital via buybacks

Assumptions for both companies are they have the same earnings, initial share prices, P/E ratios, business results, and policies of returning 100% of earnings to investors:

  • Constant 10x P/E ratio
  • 0% real EPS growth
  • 10% return (earnings of $1 per $10 share price)
  • 100% of earnings returned to investors

Over time this means:

  • Company A: $10 share price, 10% dividend yield
  • Company B: 10% annual reduction in shares, 10% increase in EPS and share price

Despite the identical businesses, the CAPE calculation shows company A with a CAPE of 10x and company B with a CAPE of 15.4x. This issue is particularly relevant in today’s US market, where buybacks are more prevalent than in the past. As a result, the current market’s CAPE ratio may not be directly comparable to its own history or to markets where buybacks are less common.


*Conceptual Illustration via Aptus

Issue 3: CAPE’s cross-market incompatibility

CAPE often paints U.S. stocks as more expensive than foreign markets. Direct comparisons between countries using CAPE ignore fundamental differences between markets. US companies are much more likely to buy back their stock than foreign companies and the U.S. market has experienced substantial earnings growth, unlike many foreign markets.

  • For a market with 0% EPS growth, the CAPE ratio remains constant.
  • For a market with 10% EPS growth, the CAPE ratio increases significantly over time, even if the trailing P/E remains the same.
  • Conversely, for a market with -2.5% EPS growth, the CAPE ratio decreases, even if the trailing P/E remains the same.


*Conceptual Illustration via Aptus

The U.S. market’s higher CAPE ratio often reflects higher EPS growth, not necessarily overvaluation.

Moving beyond CAPE

While historically significant, CAPE has become an increasingly flawed standalone valuation tool, particularly for the dynamic U.S. market. Its failure to account for changing stock composition, buybacks’ impact on EPS, and varying growth rates across sectors and markets can lead to misleading conclusions.

For modern investors, a more nuanced approach is essential. This should incorporate:

  • Multiple valuation metrics beyond CAPE
  • Analysis of sector-specific growth trends
  • Consideration of capital return strategies (dividends vs. buybacks)
  • Recognition of structural changes in market composition

By embracing a more comprehensive valuation framework, investors can navigate the complexities of today’s markets with greater accuracy and confidence. As the financial landscape continues to evolve, so too must our tools for understanding and valuing it.

 

Brian Jacobs, CFA is responsible for Investment Solutions and Strategy at Aptus Capital Advisors. This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered a recommendation to purchase or sell any particular security. Be sure to consult with an investment and tax professional before implementing any investment strategy.

*Conceptual Illustration: Information presented in the above charts are for illustrative purposes only and should not be interpreted as actual performance of any investor’s account. As these are not actual results and completely assumed, they should not be relied upon for investment decisions. Actual results of individual investors will differ due to many factors, including individual investments and fees, client restrictions, and the timing of investments and cash flows.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

Buy the dips?

The ASX is full of old, stodgy, low-growth companies

Finding single-digit PE stocks in an overvalued market

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Australian house prices close in on world record

Sydney is set to become the world’s most expensive city for housing over the next 12 months, a new report shows. Our other major cities aren’t far behind unless there are major changes to improve housing affordability.

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

Tariffs are a smokescreen to Trump's real endgame

Behind market volatility and tariff threats lies a deeper strategy. Trump’s real goal isn’t trade reform but managing America's massive debts, preserving bond market confidence, and preparing for potential QE.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Getting rich vs staying rich

Strategies to get rich versus stay rich are markedly different. Here is a look at the five main ways to get rich, including through work, business, investing and luck, as well as those that preserve wealth.

CBA, AUSTRAC and our Orwellian privacy laws

Imagine receiving an email from your bank demanding to know if you keep cash at home and threatening to freeze your accounts if you don't respond in seven days. This happened to me and it raises disturbing questions. 

Latest Updates

SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

Superannuation

The huge cost of super tax concessions

The current net annual cost of superannuation tax subsidies is around $40 billion, growing to more than $110 billion by 2060. These subsidies have always been bad policy, representing a waste of taxpayers' money.

Planning

How to avoid inheritance fights

Inspired by the papal conclave, this explores how families can avoid post-death drama through honest conversations, better planning, and trial runs - so there are no surprises when it really matters.

Superannuation

Super contribution splitting

Super contribution splitting allows couples to divide before-tax contributions to super between spouses, maximizing savings. It’s not for everyone, but in the right circumstances, it can be a smart strategy worth exploring.

Economy

Trump vs Powell: Who will blink first?

The US economy faces an unprecedented clash in leadership styles, but the President and Fed Chair could both take a lesson from the other. Not least because the fiscal and monetary authorities need to work together.

Gold

Credit cuts, rising risks, and the case for gold

Shares trade at steep valuations despite higher risks of a recession. Amid doubts that a 60/40 portfolio can still provide enough protection through times of market stress, gold's record shines bright.

Investment strategies

Buffett acolyte warns passive investors of mediocre future returns

While Chris Bloomstan doesn't have the track record of his hero, it's impressive nonetheless. And he's recently warned that today has uncanny resemblances to the 1990s tech bubble and US returns are likely to be disappointing.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.