Using P/E Ratio of an ETF to decide on asset mix
"P/E alone would not work very well. See for example http://www.hussmanfunds.com/html/peak2pk.htm and http://www.hussmanfunds.com/rsi/profitmargins.htm (in short, P/E is affected too much by cyclical changes in profit margins, or you might say: booms inflate the E beyond sustainable levels, thus making the P/E look more favorable than it is). Here's a random blog post that points to Schiller's normalized earnings measure: http://seekingalpha.com/article/247257-s-p-500-is-expensive-using-normalized-earnings I think even Price to Sales is supposed to work better than P/E for predicting 10-year returns on a broad index, because it effectively normalizes the margins. (Normalized valuation explains the variance in 10-year returns better than the variance in 1-year returns, I think I've read; you can't rely on things ""reverting to mean"" in only 1 year.) Another issue with P/E is that E is more subject to weird accounting effects than for example revenues. For example whether stock compensation is expensed or one-time write-offs are included or whatever can mean you end up with an economically strange earnings number. btw, a simple way to do what you describe here would be to put a chunk of money into funds that vary equity exposure. For example John Hussman's fund has an elaborate model that he uses to decide when to hedge. Say you invest 40% bonds, 40% stocks, and 20% in Hussman Strategic Growth. When Hussman fully hedges his fund, you would effectively have 40% in stocks; and when he fully unhedges it, you would have 60% in stocks. This isn't quite the whole story; he also tries to pick up some gains through stock picking, so when fully hedged the fund isn't quite equivalent to cash, more like a market-neutral fund. (For Hussman Funds in particular, he's considered stocks to be overvalued for most of the last 15 years, and the fund is almost always fully hedged, so you'd want to be comfortable with that.) There are other funds out there doing similar stuff. There are certainly funds that vary equity exposure though most not as dramatically as the Hussman fund. Some possibilities might be PIMCO All-Asset All-Authority, PIMCO Multi-Asset, perhaps. Or just some value-oriented funds with willingness to deviate from benchmarks. Definitely read the prospectus on all these and research other options, I just thought it would be helpful to mention a couple of specific examples. If you wanted to stick to managing ETFs yourself, Morningstar's premium service has an interesting feature where they take the by-hand bottom-up analysis of all the stocks in an ETF, and use that to calculate an over- or under-valuation ratio for the ETF. I don't know if the Morningstar bottom-up stuff necessarily works; I'm sure they make the ""pro"" case on their site. On the ""con"" side, in the financial crisis bubble bursting, they cut their valuation on many companies and they had a high valuation on a lot of the financials that blew up. While I haven't run any stats and don't have the data, in several specific cases it looked like their bottom-up analysis ended up assuming too-high profit margins would continue. Broad-brush normalized valuation measures avoided that mistake by ignoring the details of all the individual companies and assuming the whole index had to revert to mean. If you're rich, I think you can hire GMO to do a varied-equity-exposure strategy for you (http://www.gmo.com/America/).  You could also look at the ""fundamental indexing"" ETFs that weight by dividends or P/E or other measures of value, rather than by market cap. The bottom line is, there are lots of ways to do tactical asset allocation. It seems complex enough that I'm not sure it's something you'd want to manage yourself. There are also a lot of managers doing this that I personally am not comfortable with because they don't seem to have a discipline or method that they explain well enough, or they don't seem to do enough backtesting and math, or they rely on macroeconomic forecasts that probably aren't reliable, or whatever. All of these tactical allocation strategies are flavors of active management. I'm most comfortable with active management when it has a fairly objective, testable, and logical discipline to it, such as Graham&Buffett style value investing, Hussman's statistical methods, or whatever it is.  Many people will argue that all active management is bad and there's no way to distinguish among any of it. I am not in that camp, but I do think a lot of active managers are bad, and that it's pretty hard to distinguish among them, and I think active management is more likely to help with risk control than it is to help with beating the market. Still you should know (and probably already do know, but I'll note for other readers) that there's a strong argument smart people make that you're best off avoiding this whole line of tactical-allocation thinking and just sticking to the pure cap-based index funds." "P/E is a useful tool for evaluating the price of a company, but only in comparison to companies in similar industries, especially for industries with well-defined cash flows.  For example, if you compared Consolidated Edison (NYSE:ED) to Hawaiian Electric (NYSE:HE), you'll notice that HE has a significantly higher PE. All things being equal, that means that HE may be overpriced in comparison to ED. As an investor, you need to investigate further to determine whether that is true. HE is unique in that it is a utility that also operates a bank, so you need to take that into account. You need to think about what your goal is when you say that you are a ""conservative"" investor and look at the big picture, not a magic number. If conservative to you means capital preservation, you need to ensure that you are in investments that are diversified and appropriate. Given the interest rate situation in 2011, that means your bonds holding need to be in short-duration, high-quality securities. Equities should be weighted towards large cap, with smaller holdings of international or commodity-associated funds. Consider a target-date or blended fund like one of the Vanguard ""Life Strategy"" funds."
"You could not have two stocks both at $40, both with P/E 2, but one an EPS of $5 and the other $10.  EPS = Earnings Per Share P/E = Price per share/Earnings Per Share So, in your example, the stock with EPS of $5 has a P/E of 8, and the stock with an EPS of $10 has a P/E of 4.  So no, it's not valid way of looking at things, because your understanding of EPS and P/E is incorrect. Update: Ok, with that fixed, I think I understand your question better. This isn't a valid way of looking at P/E. You nailed one problem yourself at the end of the post: The tricky part is that you have to assume certain values remain   constant, I suppose But besides that, it still doesn't work. It seems to make sense in the context of investor psychology: if a stock is ""supposed to"" trade at a low P/E, like a utility, that it would stay at that low P/E, and thus a $1 worth of EPS increase would result in lower $$ price increase than a stock that was ""supposed to"" have a high P/E. And that would be true. But let's game it out: Scenario Say you have two stocks, ABC and XYZ. Both have $5 EPS. ABC is a utility, so it has a low P/E of 5, and thus trades at $25/share. XYZ is a high flying tech company, so it has a P/E of 10, thus trading at $50/share. If both companies increase their EPS by $1, to $6, and the P/Es remain the same, that means company ABC rises to $30, and company XYZ rises to $60. Hey! One went up $5, and the other $10, twice as much! That means XYZ was the better investment, right? Nope. You see, shares are not tokens, and you don't get an identical, arbitrary number of them. You make an investment, and that's in dollars. So, say you'd invested $1,000 in each. $1,000 in ABC buys you 40 shares. $1,000 in XYZ buys you 20 shares. Their EPS adds that buck, the shares rise to maintain P/E, and you have: ABC: $6 EPS at P/E 5 = $30/share. Position value = 40 shares x $30/share = $1,200 XYZ: $6 EPS at P/E 10 = $60/share. Position value = 20 shares x $60/share = $1,200 They both make you the exact same 20% profit. It makes sense when you think about it this way: a 20% increase in EPS is going to give you a 20% increase in price if the P/E is to remain constant. It doesn't matter what the dollar amount of the EPS or the share price is." There are the EDHEC-risk indices based on similar hedge fund types but even then an IR would give you performance relative to the competition, which is not useful for most hf's as investors don't say I want to buy a global macro fund, vs a stat arb fund, investors say I want to pay a guy to give me more money!  Most investors don't care how the OTHER funds did or where the market went, they want that NAV to go always up , which is why a modified sharpe is probably better. You weren't really clear about where you are in the world, what currency you are using and what you want your eventual asset allocation to be. If you're in the US, I'd recommend splitting your international investment between a Global ex-US fund like VEU (as Chris suggested in his comment) and an emerging markets ETF like VWO.  If you're not in the US, you need to think about how much you would like to invest in US equities and what approach you would like to take to do so. Also, with international funds, particularly emerging markets, low expense ratios aren't necessarily the best value. Active management may help you to avoid some of the risks associated with investing in foreign companies, particularly in emerging markets. If you still want low expenses at all cost, understand the underlying index that the ETF is pegged to. "I think Swenson's insight was that the traditional recommendation of 60% stocks plus 40% bonds has two serious flaws: 1) You are exposed to way too much risk by having a portfolio that is so strongly tied to US equities (especially in the way it has historically been recommend). 2) You have too little reward by investing so much of your portfolio in bonds. If you can mix a decent number of asset classes that all have equity-like returns, and those asset classes have a low correlation with each other, then you can achieve equity-like returns without the equity-like risk. This improvement can be explicitly measured in the Sharpe ratio of you portfolio. (The Vanguard Risk Factor looks pretty squishy and lame to me.) The book the ""The Ivy Portfolio"" does a great job at covering the Swenson model and explains how to reasonably replicate it yourself using low fee ETFs." It depends on what you are looking for in the investment. Sharpe is generally used when you are choosing among portfolios(mutual funds, hedge funds, ETFs, etc.) to be the optimal risky portfolio. Treynor is typically used when deciding which security will be added to your portfolio. And the information ratio (alpha/residual standard deviation) is used when deciding which one you will add to a passive portfolio. Also don't forget, when analyzing a stock you need to look at the fundamentals. I hope this helps. And correct me if I'm wrong any you more experienced guys. Right now, the unrealized appreciation of Vanguard Tax-Managed   Small-Cap Fund Admiral Shares is 28.4% of NAV. As long as the fund   delivers decent returns over the long term, is there anything stopping   this amount from ballooning to, say, 90% fifty years hence? I'd have a heck of a time imagining how this grows to that high a number realistically.  The inflows and outflows of the fund are a bigger question along with what kinds of changes are there to capital gains that may make the fund try to hold onto the stocks longer and minimize the tax burden. If this happens, won't new investors be scared away by the prospect of   owing taxes on these gains? For example, a financial crisis or a   superior new investment technology could lead investors to dump their   shares of tax-managed index funds, triggering enormous capital-gains   distributions. And if new investors are scared away, won't the fund be   forced to sell its assets to cover redemptions (even if there is no   disruptive event), leading to larger capital-gains distributions than   in the past? Possibly but you have more than a few assumptions in this to my mind that I wonder how well are you estimating the probability of this happening. Finally, do ETFs avoid this problem (assuming it is a problem)? Yes, ETFs have creation and redemption units that allow for in-kind transactions and thus there isn't a selling of the stock.  However, if one wants to pull out various unlikely scenarios then there is the potential of the market being shut down for an extended period of time that would prevent one from selling shares of the ETF that may or may not be as applicable as open-end fund shares. I would however suggest researching if there are hybrid funds that mix open-end fund shares with ETF shares which could be an alternative here. I do this very thing, but with asset allocation and risk parity in mind. I disagree with the cash or bust answers above, but many of the aforementioned facts are valuable and I don't mean to undermine them in anyway. That said, let's look at two examples: Option 1: All-in For the sake of argument let's say you had $100k invested in the SPY (S&P 500 ETF) in early 2007, and you kept it there until today. Your lowest balance would have been about $51k, and at this point the possibility of you losing your job was probably at a peak. Today you would be left with $170k assuming no withdrawal. Option 2: Risk Parity BUT if you balanced your investments with a risk parity approach, using negatively correlated asset classes you avoid this dilemma. If you had invested 50% in XLP (Consumer Staples Sector ETF) and 50% in TLT ( Long Term Treasury ETF) your investments low point would have been $88k, and your lowest annual return would be +0.69%. Today you would be left with $214k assuming no withdrawals.  I chose option #2 and it hasn't failed me yet, even in 2016 so far the results are steady and reliably given the reward. My general opinion is simple: when you have money always grow it. Just be sure to cover your ass and prepare for rain. Backtesting for this was done at portfoliovisualizer.com, the one caveat to this approach is that inflation and a lack of international exposure are a risk here. Personally I'm not a huge fan of rebalancing within an asset class. I would vote for leaving the HD shares alone and buying other assets until you get to the portfolio you want. Frequent buying and selling incurs costs and possible tax consequences that can really hurt your returns. "To calculate a sector (or index) P/E ratio you need to sum the market caps of the constituent stocks and divide it by the sum of the total earnings of the constituent stocks (including stocks that have negative earnings).  There are no ""per share"" figures used in the calculation. Beware when you include an individual stock that there may be multiple issues associated with the company that are not in the index.... eg. Berkshire Hathaway BRK.B is in the S&P 500 but BRK.A is not.  In contrast, Google has both GOOGL and GOOG included in the S&P 500 index but not its unlisted Class B shares.  All such shares need to be included in the market cap and figuring out the different share class ratios can be tricky." You better buy an ETF that does the same, because it would be much cheaper than mutual fund (and probably much cheaper than doing it yourself and rebalancing to keep up with the index).  Look at DIA for example. Neither buying the same amount of stocks nor buying for the same amount of money would be tracking the DJIE. The proportions are based on the market valuation of each of the companies in the index. "So it's not always what degree of risk you want be exposed to, but what *type* of risk. So let's say you were happy with the S&amp;P 500 ETF but you wanted to avoid oil stocks, so you combine that ETF with some derivatives that profit if oil goes down and you will outperform the S&amp;P 500 on a net basis.  Hedge funds can be very crafty with what exposure they want. They include a LOT of different strategies, so it's kind of incorrect to group them into one ""asset class"" per se.  As for the question if hedge funds are worth it? Well if the market tanks, you might find your hedge fund's performance to be very positive (ex: Kyle Bass made big money with the crisis)." Fund rebalancing typically refers to changing the investment mix to stay within the guidelines of the mutual fund objective.  For example, lets say a fund is supposed to have at least 20% in bonds.  Because of a dramatic increase in stock price and decrease in bond values it finds itself with only 19.9% in bonds at the end of the trading day.  The fund manager would sell sufficient equities to reduce its equity holdings and buy more bonds.   Rebalancing is not always preferential because it could cause capital gain distribution, typically once per year, without selling the fund.  And really any trading within the fun could do the same. In the case you cite the verbiage is confusing.  Often times I wonder if the author knows less then the reader.  It might also be a bit of a rush to get the article out, and the author did not write correctly. I agree that the ETFs cited are suitable for short term traders.  However, that is because, traditionaly, the market has increased in value over the long term.  If you bet it will go down over the long term, you are almost certain to lose money. Like you, I cannot figure out how rebalancing makes this suitable only for short term traders.  If the ETFs distribute capital gains events much more frequently then once per year, that is worth mentioning, but does not provide a case for short versus long term traders.   Secondly, I don't think these funds are doing true rebalancing.  They might change investments daily for the most likely profitable outcome, but that really isn't rebalancing.   It seems the author is confused. My understanding is that all ETF options are American style, meaning they can be exercised before expiration, and so you could do the staggered exercises as you described. "The way I've implemented essentially ""value averaging"", is to keep a constant ratio between different investment types in my portfolio. Lets say (in a simple example), 25% cash, 25% REIT (real estate), 25% US Stock, 25% Foreign stock. Lets say I deposit a set $1000 per month into this account. If the stock portion goes up, it will look like I need more cash & REIT, so all of that $1000 goes into cash & the REIT portion to get them towards their 25%. I may spend months investing only in cash & the REIT while the stock goes up. Of course if the stock goes down, that $1000 per month goes into the stock accounts. Now you can also balance your account if you'd like, regularly selling stock (or the REIT), and making the account balanced. So if the stock goes down, you'd use the cash & REIT to purchase more stock. If the stock went up, you'd sell the stock, and buy REIT & leave more in cash." "I'm trying to understand how an ETF manager optimized it's own revenue.  Here's an example that I'm trying to figure out.  ETF firm has an agreement with GS for blocks of IBM. They have agreed on daily VWAP + 1% for execution price.  Further, there is a commission schedule for 5 mils with GS. Come month end, ETF firm has to do a monthly rebalance. As such must buy 100,000 shares at IBM which goes for about $100 The commission for the trade is 100,000 * 5 mils = $500 in commission for that trade. I assume all of this is covered in the expense ratio. Such that if VWAP for the day was 100, then each share got executed to the ETF at 101 (VWAP+ %1) + .0005 (5 mils per share) = for a resultant 101.0005 cost basis  The ETF then turns around and takes out (let's say) 1% as the expense ratio ($1.01005 per share)  I think everything so far is pretty straight forward. Let me know if I missed something to this point.  Now, this is what I'm trying to get my head around. ETF firm has a revenue sharing agreement as well as other ""relations"" with GS. One of which is 50% back on commissions as soft dollars. On top of that GS has a program where if you do a set amount of ""VWAP +"" trades you are eligible for their corporate well-being programs and other ""sponsorship"" of ETF's interests including  helping to pay for marketing, rent, computers, etc.  Does that happen? Do these disclosures exist somewhere?"