It’s still a bear market

Just before Easter, the US stock market hit an all-time record high.   The world index remains below its 2000 and 2007 peaks. Is this a signal that the US economy at least is now in full recovery and heading for better times, with the rest of the capitalist world not far behind?


Well, stock markets are not good guides of  the short to medium term future, especially right now.  The price of shares tends to lag the performance of the underlying process of capitalist accumulation, as measured in profitability.  And when we look at the US economic growth since the depth of the Great Recession, it is nothing to get excited about.  Although better than in Europe or Japan, US real GDP growth is still well below trend at about 2% in 2012 and a huge gap remains between where trend growth (red line below) would have taken the US economy in real terms and where it is now (blue line below) – data from Doug Short (


So what is driving up the stock market? The first reason is clearly the huge rise in US corporate profits.  As a share of US GDP, corporate profits are at record levels.  That’s partly because GDP has grown slowly, but it also shows how much of any increase in value created has been appropriated by capital compared to labour.  Total revenue growth has not grown nearly so much, it’s just that capital has taken an ever increasing share.

US corp profits to gdp

The latest data released just before Easter show that US corporate profits reached a record high in 2012.  Since the trough of 2008 they are up over 40% and are now 7% above the previous peak in nominal terms set in 2006.    Indeed, profits per employee has rocketed to near $16,000, doubling the ratio since 2000.

after tax profits per employee

In contrast, wages are being squeezed and along with the below-par recovery in employment, the wage bill for capital is shrinking as a share of total value created.  In other words, the rate of surplus value or exploitation, as Marx called it, has risen sharply.

median hosehold income

And as I have argued in previous posts, companies are using these record profits not to invest much into the ‘real economy’ but instead to buy back their shares, increase dividends and purchase financial assets.  No wonder there is a rally in the stock market.

The other reason for the stock market high is less ‘fundamental’ i.e. caused by the process of capitalist accumulation.  It is the artificially low interest for borrowing funds sustained by central banks around the world.  So the gap between what earnings you can get from buying a share compared to the cost of borrowing money to do so (red line minus blue line) is very high.


That is the result of monetary policy of easing interest rates and so-called quantitative easing boosting the quantity of money and thus helping to drive up stock prices (but not real GDP growth).  Stock prices have risen way more than is justified by increases in real GDP or corporate profits, as in previous cycles like the bubble of the 1990s or the property credit bubble of the 2000s.


So there is the need for a sober analysis of this stock market boom.  Although the US stock market (not Europe or elsewhere) is at a record high, that is only in nominal terms.  Stripping down the index for inflation (as Doug Short does below), the story is very different.  The US stock market in real terms is still in the ‘bear market’ that started in 2000 (red lines below show bear markets).


In my book, The Great Recession, I dealt with how stock markets enter cycles of bull and bear markets that track a similar cycle in profitability of capital in an economy (in this case, the US, of about 16-18 years).  I argued that, as long as profitability was in a down phase in its cycle, stock market prices would follow as, in the final analysis, the value of a share depends on the earnings that a company generates for its shareholders (see my post  There can be rallies within that secular bear market, as from 1932 to 1937, within the bear market of the Great Depression from 1929 to 1946.  Similarly there are the rallies of 2002-07 and now from 2009-13.  They still have not led to a real increase in stock market values from the peak of 2000.

If we measure the current average price of US stocks in total against earnings (the price to earnings ratio or P/E) in the red line below against where it should be, given the average trend rise in earnings (blue line), we can see that the US stock market is overvalued by around 27%.  If stock prices are to get into line with earnings, either earnings must sprint forward even more than they have done (and they are at record levels, remember) or stock prices will eventually fall back.

The bear market remains because stock prices ultimately depend on profitability.  While the mass of profits in nominal terms and as a share of GDP has reached a new peak in the US, profitability (i.e profits measured against the stock of capital advanced for machinery, plant, labour and raw materials) has not returned to the previous peak of 2005 and certainly not back to 1997 for the whole economy.  1997 is the date that I argue we entered a down phase for US profitability that eventually undermined the boom in the 1990s and the property/shadow banking boom of the 2000s.  By my estimate (still to be confirmed by more data), corporate profits may have hit a new high, but that has not restored either corporate profitability or overall economy profitability to a new high.  So we remain in a bear market.


For another summary of these arguments see my previous post:

8 thoughts on “It’s still a bear market

  1. Hi michael, thanks a lot for your analysis.
    I’ve a, maybe stupid, question: does it mean in some way that a bubble is growing and it is gonna burst soon?


  2. The huge rise in US corporate profits driven by the steep fall in real wages is the primary reason for the high stock market, as you say. What does this mean for a Marxist rate of profit? Difficult to say if the calculation is based only on fixed capital stock and ignores wages.

    Most commentators on the Left would claim that the market is greatly overvalued, a bubble, because it’s not underpinned by economic growth. As your line chart for GDP, corporate profits and the S&P 500 shows, there is little correlation between GDP and the stock market and there is plenty historical evidence for this. And profits are not fictitious even if most capital today is.

    If I read you correctly, the claim is that it’s actually still a bear market but a bounce (i.e. overvalued) within the longer run, as the bullishness can hardly be ignored. If economic forecasting is unreliable, stock market predictions are a joke and vary wildly. The Schiller P/E ratio and others would, I think, call it overvalued but not (yet) in bubble territory and a long way short of the dotcom exuberance – your line chart again. We’ll see what happens, at some point the rally will falter, correct, reverse but that’s not saying much in itself.

    Incidentally, if there is a relationship between profitability and the stock market, together with another between growth and investment, it implies that profit – investment causality is not straightforward. Profitability does drive investment but it isn’t mandatory. Profitability can rise without a corresponding rise in investment, as we see currently with an increase in the rate of exploitation. This – again because there isn’t investment and growth – is somehow considered a less ‘legitimate’ method.

    Capitalism has no such moral stance. It’s real profitability but I think of limited life (several years?). We’ll see if the obvious improvement in investment, hiring, housing, etc. in the US is consolidated this year.

    1. Graham,

      I agree with your careful analysis. Just to say, my calculations on profitability do include wages (and indeed, inventories or circulating capital) unlike a lot of other estimates.

  3. I see where the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index recently closed at a new record high. But while “Wall Street” may have been exhuberant, “Main Street” probably had no idea of what they celebrating about.

    But the last time there was a quarter as good as Q113 was Q1 of ’87, and that was just before stock markets around the world crashed, “shedding a huge value in a very short time”. The crash of ’87 “began in Hong Kong and spread west to Europe, hitting the United States after other markets had already declined by a significant margin…”.

    Let us hope that this time history neither repeats nor rhymes…

    1. Don’t know that “hope” has anything to do with it. Hoping for this and wishing for that are pretty much immaterial here. I do wonder about the tendency of “Marxist economics”– if such a thing could be said to exist, but that’s a subject for a different discussion– should see itself as “rationalizing” capitalism, making capitalism more socially accountable, and/or solvent, (if such a thing can be said to exist), and that definitely is a subject for these discussions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: