The dividend futures-based model we invented to project the potential future trajectories the S&P 500 (Index: SPX) starts from a very simple observation:
Ap = m * Ad
In this relationship, Ap represents the change in the rate of growth of stock prices and Ad is the change in the rate of growth of dividends per share. The value m is an amplification factor that varies over long periods of time but can be nearly constant for short-to-intermediate periods of time.
Since we first formulated this relationship in April 2009, we've found that short-to-intermediate periods of time can be as long as decades. But eventually, the value of m does change and whenever it does it's a big deal because it means the market regime in which stock prices are set has changed.
The following chart tracks how the value of m has changed from January 2014 through the end of November 2025, which covers the period after we first developed the alternative futures chart we use to visualize the dividend-based model's projections. Our initial observations that set the value of m = 5.0 however go back to March 2010, when dividend futures as we know them today became a reality and made that estimation possible. We should also note that m was almost certainly at that same level for years before that point in time.
So what is m really?
A potential solution to that mystery was advanced by Xavier Gabaix and Ralph S.J. Koijen in their June 2021 working paper In Search of the Origins of Financial Fluctuations: The Inelastic Market Hypothesis. For us, this paper immediate leapt to the front of the pack for its potential explanatory power of what m represents because of a simple example they developed to explore one of their propositions. Here is a screenshot of the proposition:
Here is their example:
To think through the economics of Proposition 3, we found the following simple, undergraduate-level example useful. Suppose that there are just two funds: the pure bond fund and the representative mixed fund, which always holds 80% in equities (the magnitude suggested by Figure 1). Then, theta = .08, kappa = 0, so that zeta = 1 - zeta = 0.2 and and 1/zeta = 5. Then an extra 1% inflow into the stock market increases the total market valuation by 5%.
Or to put it more simply, a multiplier of 5 for this simple example, which puts it in the right ballpark for our observations.
It certainly is an intriguing possibility, especially if it can explain for how the value of m has changed in the period since 19 February 2020, during which the value of m has held at various constant levels for much shorter periods of time.
References
Xavier Gabaix and Ralph S.J. Koijen. In Search of the Origins of Financial Fluctuations: The Inelastic Markets Hypothesis. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 28967. [PDF Document]. June 2021.
Labels: chaos, ideas, stock market
Welcome to the blogosphere's toolchest! Here, unlike other blogs dedicated to analyzing current events, we create easy-to-use, simple tools to do the math related to them so you can get in on the action too! If you would like to learn more about these tools, or if you would like to contribute ideas to develop for this blog, please e-mail us at:
ironman at politicalcalculations
Thanks in advance!
Closing values for previous trading day.
This site is primarily powered by:
CSS Validation
RSS Site Feed
JavaScript
The tools on this site are built using JavaScript. If you would like to learn more, one of the best free resources on the web is available at W3Schools.com.
Other Cool Resources
Blog Roll
