> what matters for P/E ratios is the risk free rate
Where's the research showing the empirical relationship between P/E ratios and the risk free rate?
Also, we are living in a a time of unprecedented monetary aggregate growth (for the US at least). I posit his why the yield curve has been inverted for so long and yet there is no recession in sight. The predictive power of asset prices seemingly no longer exists.
There's a ton of it: here's one person's regression. You can find the same in academic papers (although economics papers don't exactly deserve that label).
It's not 1:1, and only fits over long periods of time. Furthermore, none of those studies encompass the great money printing period of COVID, and post COVID. And most of those studies model the 10Y rate vs stocks. The 10Y rate is not the risk free rate.
In 2000 the SP500 PE was 40, and fed funds was 6%. it's low 20s now, and fed funds is 5.25%
studies over more recent times have shown this correlation break down. It's probably the reason Ray Dalio retired.
That's not true at all. The "risk free rate" is a theoretical concept that represents the rate of return that you can get on capital without taking any risk. No bond alone is the risk free rate. Neither is the reverse repo rate or the rate of a money market. All of these are proxies.
Where's the research showing the empirical relationship between P/E ratios and the risk free rate?
Also, we are living in a a time of unprecedented monetary aggregate growth (for the US at least). I posit his why the yield curve has been inverted for so long and yet there is no recession in sight. The predictive power of asset prices seemingly no longer exists.