Thinking aloud on Molodovsky causes, making, bottom, stocks, business

mkytz15

From what I have seen, when the business cycle is near/ at the bottom, earnings are low and so are the PE ratios, making the stock trade at the lows of the cycle. Similarly when at the bottom, the earnings are high and so are the PE ratios, making the stock trade at the highs of the cycle. This is what causes the stocks of cyclical cos to go up and down along with the cycle.

If the Molodovsky effect was true, when earnings is at the bottom, PE ratios would be high, i.e. price would be constant (wrt what it was in other parts of the cycle) or higher, and when earnings is at the peak, PE ratios would be low, i.e. prices would be constant again or lower. As a consequence, stocks of cyclical companies, would not be cyclical.

What it means, is that while the PE ratios, and earnings are cyclical, the prices are not. This is consistent with CFAIs level 1 concept that a cyclical company is different from a cyclical stock. But is this what you guys have practically observed in the markets?

It wouldn't be wrong to say that the Molodovsky effect stems from the concept of market efficiency. Indeed, if the markets were perfectly effecient, cyclicals should have only earnings movement due to cyclicality and no stock price movement whatsoever caused by cyclicality.

defour44

seriously, this molodovsky guy sounds like he's in equity somewhere, what's up with him and where can i read this stuff

scarecrow

what reading is this even from? haven't done derivatives or PM yet, so i'm hoping in one of those two

SeanWest

"Similarly when at the bottom, the earnings are high and so are the PE ratios, making the stock trade at the highs of the cycle. "

I am assuming you meant "when at the top..."

Anyway, don't overthink this topic dude! It's very simple - PE is counter-cyclical.