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

US shares: Ambitious multiples on ambitious EPS forecasts

Buy the dips?

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

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Are LICs licked?

LICs are continuing to struggle with large discounts and frustrated investors are wondering whether it’s worth holding onto them. This explains why the next 6-12 months will be make or break for many LICs.

Retirement income expectations hit new highs

Younger Australians think they’ll need $100k a year in retirement - nearly double what current retirees spend. Expectations are rising fast, but are they realistic or just another case of lifestyle inflation?

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 627 with weekend update

This week, I got the news that my mother has dementia. It came shortly after my father received the same diagnosis. This is a meditation on getting old and my regrets in not getting my parents’ affairs in order sooner.

  • 4 September 2025

5 charts every retiree must see…

Retirement can be daunting for Australians facing financial uncertainty. Understand your goals, longevity challenges, inflation impacts, market risks, and components of retirement income with these crucial charts.

Why super returns may be heading lower

Five mega trends point to risks of a more inflation prone and lower growth environment. This, along with rich market valuations, should constrain medium term superannuation returns to around 5% per annum.

Super crosses the retirement Rubicon

Australia's superannuation system faces a 'Rubicon' moment, a turning point where the focus is shifting from accumulation phase to retirement readiness, but unfortunately, many funds are not rising to the challenge.

Latest Updates

Investment strategies

Why I dislike dividend stocks

If you need income then buying dividend stocks makes perfect sense. But if you don’t then it makes little sense because it’s likely to limit building real wealth. Here’s what you should do instead.

Superannuation

Meg on SMSFs: Indexation of Division 296 tax isn't enough

Labor is reviewing the $3 million super tax's most contentious aspects: lack of indexation and the tax on unrealised gains. Those fighting for change shouldn’t just settle for indexation of the threshold.

Shares

Will ASX dividends rise over the next 12 months?

Market forecasts for ASX dividend yields are at a 30-year low amid fears about the economy and the capacity for banks and resource companies to pay higher dividends. This pessimism seems overdone.

Shares

Expensive market valuations may make sense

World share markets seem toppy at first glance, though digging deeper reveals important nuances. While the top 2% of stocks are pricey, they're also growing faster, and the remaining 98% are inexpensive versus history.

Fixed interest

The end of the strong US dollar cycle

The US dollar’s overvaluation, weaker fundamentals, and crowded positioning point to further downside. Diversifying into non-US equities and emerging market debt may offer opportunities for global investors.

Investment strategies

Today’s case for floating rate notes

Market volatility and uncertainty in 2025 prompt the need for a diversified portfolio. Floating Rate Notes offer stability, income, and protection against interest rate risks, making them a valuable investment option.

Strategy

Breaking down recent footy finals by the numbers

In a first, 2025 saw AFL and NRL minor premiers both go out in straight sets. AFL data suggests the pre-finals bye is weakening the stranglehold of top-4 sides more than ever before.

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.