Roylat.com

A detailed review of past history and an analysis of likely future corporate earnings in the US do not yield a bullish picture. The following is from Gluskin Sheff, a Canadian economist. He concludes:

Slap 12x multiple on to a $70 mid-cycle earnings estimate, which I think is the
best we can accomplish and we are at 840 on the S&P 500. But assuming
that S&P 500 operating EPS first has 30% more downside before we see the
trough (which would be $30), and then apply a typical 60% premium to that
under the generous assumption that we see a typical mid-cycle rebound from
the lows, then we would be talking about mid-cycle earnings just below
$50. Slap on a 12x multiple and there you have the downside story: 600 on
the S&P 500.

Here is the full story (extracted from a larger article):

U.S. CORPORATE PROFITS OUTLOOK

A client brought up a point to me a few days ago as to whether we should be
doing equity market analysis based on “mid-cycle” earnings — this is what a
lot of strategists are saying right now. (Interesting how this exercise is never
conducted when we are late in the cycle!)
Now, if this was a ‘normal’ manufacturing recession like all the other 9
downturns in the post-WWII era, then mid-cycle earnings would be 60%
above the trough and this would mean doing the analysis on $70 on
operating EPS (we are now at $43 on 4-quarter trailing, the peak was
$91.50 back in the second quarter of 2007). But this is not a normal
recession, and what preceded it was not a normal expansion. This is a
balance sheet recession. Much trickier.

First, the ratio of after-tax profits (national accounts basis) to GDP has yet to
fully mean revert (see Chart 6). It peaked at 11%, which was a record during
the bubble, and in the bear market has compressed to 6.6%, which was the
peak in many prior cycles. Bottoms in this proxy for margins are around 4½%
and we are not quite there yet. And, in an environment of flat-to-negative
nominal GDP, getting to that traditional trough would imply another 30%
potential downside to earnings even before we can contemplate what a
possible mid-cycle level on earnings would be. Plus, we could well be on our
way into a double-dip recession three years from now once the fiscal and
monetary stimulus is withdrawn. This happened to the USA in the 30s, and
to Japan on the 90s.

Chart 7 shows how leverage played a role in the bull market and how
deleveraging has played a role in the bear market. The share of earnings
devoted to financial activities hit an unprecedented 40%+ this cycle and has
since collapsed to 14%. The financial share of earnings usually bottoms
around 11% so even here there is still more risk of earnings compression
(likely related to credit cards and commercial real estate exposure).

In other words, there is still more substantial downside risk than upside risk
to the U.S. corporate earnings outlook. I doubt the recession is going to end
as quickly as the consensus of economists and strategists believe (next
quarter). And, even if we manage to see $70 on mid-cycle EPS, what is the
appropriate multiple? The fair-value P/E should approximate the ‘real’ Baa
corporate bond yield, which means a 12x multiple is appropriate. Though this
can clearly change — judging by the growing share of government in the
economy, more regulation and less free trade, the implications for
productivity, the potential GDP growth rate and the fair-value multiple will
likely all be lower.

Slap 12x multiple on to a $70 mid-cycle earnings estimate, which I think is the
best we can accomplish and we are at 840 on the S&P 500. But assuming
that S&P 500 operating EPS first has 30% more downside before we see the
trough (which would be $30), and then apply a typical 60% premium to that
under the generous assumption that we see a typical mid-cycle rebound from
the lows, then we would be talking about mid-cycle earnings just below
$50. Slap on a 12x multiple and there you have the downside story: 600 on
the S&P 500.
But at least we know what the range of outcomes can look like: 600 to 840
on the S&P 500. On March 9th, there was much more upside; today at 892,
quite the opposite.