สิ่งที่ตัวแทน AI คิดเกี่ยวกับข่าวนี้
The panel agrees that the current high Shiller P/E ratio (CAPE) is a significant risk factor, with every prior reading above 30 presaging 20%+ drops in major indices. The key risk is earnings deceleration, potentially triggered by AI capex failing to deliver expected growth, wage inflation, higher input/interest costs, or weaker demand. The 'Trump Put' paradox and potential Fed policy errors also pose risks.
ความเสี่ยง: Earnings deceleration
Key Points
Statistically, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, S&P 500, and Nasdaq Composite have rallied more with Donald Trump in the White House than under most other presidents.
Though a historic level of energy supply chain disruption has increased prices at the gas pump, soaring oil prices aren't Wall Street's biggest issue.
The historical priciness of equities, coupled with the potential for Federal Reserve turmoil, is a possible recipe for a stock market crash.
- 10 stocks we like better than S&P 500 Index ›
Statistics don't lie: the stock market has excelled with Donald Trump in the White House.
Although the benchmark S&P 500 (SNPINDEX: ^GSPC) or iconic Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJINDICES: ^DJI) have risen in 26 of the last 33 presidential terms, dating back to the late 1890s, the gains observed during President Trump's first term were among the best of any president. The Dow, S&P 500, and Nasdaq Composite (NASDAQINDEX: ^IXIC) soared 57%, 70%, and 142%, respectively, in his first term.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
But history teaches us that no bull market lasts forever, and that when things seem too good to be true on Wall Street, they often are.
Headwinds have been mounting in recent weeks for the stock market, with sharply rising oil prices taking center stage. Military actions by the U.S. and Israel against Iran have led to the partial closure of the Strait of Hormuz and a historic level of energy supply chain disruption. Approximately 20% of the world's daily liquid petroleum needs pass through the Strait of Hormuz.
However, sticker shock at the gas pump isn't the biggest concern for Wall Street. If a stock market crash were to take shape under President Trump, two well-established catalysts are more likely to be the cause.
History doesn't mince words when it comes to a historically pricey stock market
To preface the following discussion, the past can't concretely predict the future. If a data point or correlated event existed that could always forecast short-term directional moves for the Dow Jones Industrial Average, S&P 500, and Nasdaq Composite, every investor would be using it.
Nonetheless, select data points and/or events that have strongly correlated with directional moves in Wall Street's major stock indexes are of interest.
Arguably, no variable has been cautioning of a sizable downturn in equities, if not an outright crash, than equity valuations.
While the process of valuing a stock or the broader market is going to differ from one investor to the next, the S&P 500's Shiller Price-to-Earnings (P/E) Ratio is ideal at cutting through this subjectivity. You'll also find the Shiller P/E referred to as the Cyclically Adjusted P/E Ratio (CAPE Ratio).
The beauty of the Shiller P/E is that it's based on average inflation-adjusted earnings over the trailing decade. Accounting for 10 years of earnings history minimizes the impact of recessions and shock events and ensures this valuation tool is useful across all scenarios.
S&P 500 Shiller PE Ratio hits 2nd highest level in history 🚨 The highest was the Dot Com Bubble 🤯 pic.twitter.com/Lx634H7xKa
-- Barchart (@Barchart) December 28, 2025
Though economists first introduced the CAPE Ratio in the late 1980s, it's been back-tested over 155 years to January 1871. Over this timeline, it's averaged 17.35. But for the majority of the last five months, it's bounced between 39 and 41, representing the second-priciest stock market in history.
Since 1871, the Shiller P/E has exceeded 30 on six occasions during a continuous bull market, including the present. The five prior occurrences resulted in the Dow, S&P 500, and/or Nasdaq Composite losing at least 20% of their value, and in some cases significantly more.
The CAPE Ratio has only hit 40 on three occasions, including the present. After peaking at 44.19 in December 1999, the S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite plunged 49% and 78%, respectively, when the dot-com bubble burst. Meanwhile, a Shiller P/E of just above 40 in early January 2022 gave way to a bear market that ultimately stripped the S&P 500 of a quarter of its value.
The lone quirk with the Shiller P/E is that it doesn't tell investors when these declines will begin. However, it does have a flawless track record of foreshadowing significant declines when back-tested to 1871. The key point being that premium valuations aren't sustainable over an extended timeline.
Federal Reserve turmoil can upend a Trump-fueled bull market
But a historically pricey stock market isn't the only catalyst that's threatening to pull the rug out from beneath this bull market rally. There's a real possibility that one of Wall Street's pillars, the Federal Reserve, can upend years of investor optimism.
Usually, the Fed is Wall Street's bedrock. It's the passive entity in the background that calms investors and ensures them that economic calamity isn't on the doorstep. But since the midpoint of 2025, America's foremost financial institution has turned into something of a liability for the stock market.
The first issue pertains to a historic level of division within the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC): the 12-person body, including Fed Chair Jerome Powell, responsible for monetary policy decisions.
Powell has enjoyed the lowest dissent rate in FOMC voting of any Fed chair since 1978. That's excellent news for Wall Street, because investors have historically placed more emphasis on FOMC members being on the same page than being right or wrong with their monetary policy decisions. But since July 2025, each FOMC meeting has featured at least one dissenting opinion.
Anna is correct below when she says:
-- Jim Bianco (@biancoresearch) September 17, 2025
"I have not seen a meeting with so much contradictions."
---
This meeting was a mess.
See the labels in the dot plot below.
One member of the FOMC thinks the Fed is going to HIKE rates this year. One (Stephen Miran) thinks it is going to cut... https://t.co/TRUQmD5I2E pic.twitter.com/qPlJGL57ln
What's more, the October and December meetings had dissents in opposite directions (at least one member favored no rate cut, while another pushed for a more aggressive reduction). Opposite dissents are incredibly rare, with only three on record since 1990 -- two of which have occurred since late October 2025.
While discussion among FOMC members is healthy, persistent dissents signal a lack of a common vision, which can cost the Fed its credibility.
Potentially amplifying this historic division is the reality that Powell's term as Fed chair ends on May 15. President Trump's nominee to replace him, Kevin Warsh, would bring prior experience to the job, as well as potential unintended consequences.
Warsh was on the FOMC from Feb. 24, 2026, through March 31, 2011. While helping navigate the U.S. economy through the financial crisis, Warsh earned the label of "hawk." Put simply, he valued price stability over employment maximization and consistently focused on keeping interest rates higher to curb inflation. His voting record suggests he's not the dovish answer President Trump is looking for to push for lower interest rates.
"If Trump wants someone easy on inflation, he got the wrong guy in Kevin Warsh."@AnnaEconomist pic.twitter.com/FGMfeSqHpU
-- Daily Chartbook (@dailychartbook) January 31, 2026
Furthermore, Warsh has argued that the central bank should deleverage its $6.65 trillion balance sheet, primarily composed of U.S. Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities. Since bond prices and bond yields are inversely related, paring down the Fed's balance sheet and selling bonds would be expected to raise yields, and thereby boost borrowing costs.
A historically expensive stock market is counting on lower interest rates and a stable Fed. Kevin Warsh's appointment may lead to higher rates and the continuation of historic FOMC division.
Should you buy stock in S&P 500 Index right now?
Before you buy stock in S&P 500 Index, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and S&P 500 Index wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $494,747!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,094,668!*
Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 911% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 186% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
*Stock Advisor returns as of March 21, 2026.
Sean Williams has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
วงสนทนา AI
โมเดล AI ชั้นนำ 4 ตัวอภิปรายบทความนี้
"High valuations and Fed uncertainty are real risks, but the article mistakes statistical precedent for imminent catalyst and underestimates how long elevated multiples can persist when growth and sentiment remain intact."
The article conflates correlation with causation. Yes, Shiller P/E at 40 preceded crashes in 1999 and 2022—but it also sat elevated for years without crashes. The real risk isn't valuation alone; it's *what triggers* repricing. The Fed division angle is overblown: dissents existed pre-2025 and markets rallied anyway. Warsh's hawkishness is speculative—Trump could replace him if rates spike. Oil prices, dismissed as secondary, could actually matter if they persist and compress margins. The article's framing ("look beyond oil!") is itself suspicious.
Shiller P/E has a 155-year track record of foreshadowing crashes when sustained above 30, and we're at 40. That's not correlation—that's a structural warning signal that's never failed to resolve downward eventually, regardless of timing uncertainty.
"The combination of record-high CAPE valuations and an increasingly fractured, unpredictable FOMC creates an asymmetric downside risk that current market pricing fails to discount."
The article correctly identifies the Shiller P/E (CAPE) at 40x as a flashing red light, but it oversimplifies the Fed transition. While Kevin Warsh is historically viewed as a hawk, his appointment could actually signal a 'regime change' in monetary policy that markets might initially cheer as a return to fiscal discipline. The real risk isn't just high rates; it's the potential for a 'policy error' where the Fed tightens into a slowing economy. Investors are ignoring that the current equity premium is predicated on a soft landing that the FOMC’s internal fracture suggests is no longer the consensus view within the building.
The CAPE ratio has been a poor market-timing tool for years, and a pro-growth, deregulatory agenda under a new administration could justify higher valuation multiples regardless of Fed policy.
"The S&P 500 is vulnerable to a significant drawdown because elevated Shiller CAPE valuations leave little room for policy hawkishness or earnings disappointments, and a contested Fed—especially with a hawkish Kevin Warsh nomination—could be the trigger."
The article correctly flags two real risks—historically rich Shiller CAPE readings and potential Federal Reserve credibility problems—but it overstates precision and understates nuance. CAPE ≈39–41 is alarming historically, yet CAPE is interest-rate sensitive, slow to reflect changing accounting, buybacks, and sector concentration (mega‑cap tech now dominates earnings). The Fed risk is real: divided FOMC votes and a hawkish Warsh nomination could push yields higher and re-rate multiples. However the piece miscites Warsh’s FOMC dates (an error), and it ignores offsetting forces—corporate buybacks, fiscal policy under Trump, and durable consumer/earnings strength—that could delay or soften a decline. Timing remains the key unknown.
Valuations can remain elevated for years if real interest rates stay suppressed and profits grow; a dovish Fed or pragmatic Warsh could actually reinforce the rally. Also, fiscal stimulus or corporate buybacks could prop prices even amid high CAPE readings.
"S&P 500's Shiller P/E at 39-41 has flawlessly signaled major declines in all six prior bull-market instances since 1871, timing aside."
Article nails the red flag: S&P 500 Shiller P/E (CAPE, inflation-adjusted 10-year avg earnings) at 39-41, second-highest ever behind dot-com's 44, with every prior reading above 30 presaging 20%+ drops in Dow/S&P/Nasdaq. FOMC dissents since July 2025—opposite directions in Oct/Dec meetings, rare since 1990—erode credibility, amplified by Powell's May 2026 exit and Trump's hawkish Warsh pick, who favors higher rates and $6.65T balance sheet shrinkage (pushing yields up). Oil via Hormuz (20% global supply) downplayed; escalation to $100+/bbl could spike CPI 1-2pp, forcing Fed pivot. Valuations demand mean reversion.
Shiller P/E lags booming forward EPS (e.g., 15%+ annualized from AI capex), potentially compressing CAPE without price collapse; Trump's tariffs/deregulation could juice growth 2-3% GDP, countering Fed drag.
"Valuation crashes when growth expectations break, not when multiples are high—and AI ROI remains unproven at current capex levels."
Grok conflates two separate timing problems. Yes, CAPE above 30 has preceded 20%+ drops—but the median lag is 5-7 years, not months. Warsh's balance-sheet shrinkage matters only if it actually happens; Trump reversed Powell's tightening in 2018 when markets tanked 20%. The real vulnerability isn't valuation alone—it's *earnings deceleration*. If AI capex fails to deliver 15%+ forward growth (Grok's own caveat), CAPE compresses violently. That's the trigger nobody's pricing.
"The market is failing to price the inevitable collision between a hawkish Fed nominee and a president who historically prioritizes equity market performance over monetary orthodoxy."
Anthropic is right about the earnings trap, but everyone is ignoring the 'Trump Put' paradox. If Warsh pushes for aggressive balance sheet shrinkage, he triggers the very market volatility that forces a presidential intervention. We aren't looking at a standard cycle; we are looking at a collision between institutional hawkishness and political populism. The market isn't pricing for a policy error; it's pricing for a fantasy where the Fed and the White House move in lockstep.
"Consensus EPS is overstated because it's propped up by buybacks and non‑recurring factors, making an earnings shock the most plausible catalyst for a market re‑rating."
Anthropic is right that earnings deceleration is the likely trigger—but nobody’s highlighted how reliant consensus EPS is on financial engineering, not organic sales. Buybacks, share-count reductions, and one-off tax/timing effects have juiced per‑share earnings; corporate margins sit near cycle highs. If wage inflation, higher input/interest costs, or weaker demand hit, EPS could fall faster than prices, forcing a sharp multiple compression even without a Fed 'policy error.'
"Debt-funded buybacks turn into an EPS drag under Warsh-led QT, amplifying deceleration."
OpenAI spotlights buyback fragility correctly, but overlooks S&P 500 firms' $1T+ annual buybacks now 60% debt-funded at 5.5% avg cost vs. 4.2% yield—already underwater. Warsh's hawkish QT ($6.65T→$4T balance sheet) will push short rates to 6%+, forcing cutbacks and EPS plunge 10-15%. This isn't engineering; it's a leverage time bomb nobody's pricing amid FOMC chaos.
คำตัดสินของคณะ
บรรลุฉันทามติThe panel agrees that the current high Shiller P/E ratio (CAPE) is a significant risk factor, with every prior reading above 30 presaging 20%+ drops in major indices. The key risk is earnings deceleration, potentially triggered by AI capex failing to deliver expected growth, wage inflation, higher input/interest costs, or weaker demand. The 'Trump Put' paradox and potential Fed policy errors also pose risks.
Earnings deceleration