Reading the Long Cycle: What This Market Is Actually Telling Us
Perspective Matters
KEY TAKEWAYS
Equity valuations are historically stretched — the Shiller CAPE ratio sits at 41.2, a level seen only once before, in the final months of the 1999 dot-com bubble.
The bond market's story may matter more: a 40-year decline in yields reversed a few years back, and today's rates are closer to the historical norm than to anything unusual.
Markets just flipped from expecting Fed rate cuts to pricing real odds of a hike, following a hawkish speech from new Fed Chair Kevin Warsh.
History says most bear markets have recovered within about four years on a nominal basis — the math behind why we size your cash reserve at 2–4 years of planned expenses.
None of this changes our approach: two buckets, five models, and a bias toward businesses that generate real cash.
Every few months I get the itch to step back from the day-to-day — the Roth conversions, the beneficiary forms, the "should I do a QCD this year" questions — and just look at the bigger picture. Where are we, really, in the long arc of the market? Not today's headline. The actual, decades-long cycle.
I did the research myself for this one, so let me walk you through what I found, where the evidence is strong, and — just as important — where it's thin. My goal here isn't to hand you a market call. It's to give you enough context that you can go back to ignoring your portfolio, which, if we're being honest, is the whole point of working with us.
EQUITIES: A HISTORIC EXTREME
Let's start with the uncomfortable one. The Shiller CAPE ratio — a valuation measure that smooths corporate earnings over ten years to cut through short-term noise — currently sits at 41.1. That puts us in the 98th percentile of every month going back to 1881. The only time it was ever meaningfully higher was the last gasp of the dot-com bubble in 1999.
Before you do anything rash with that chart: high valuations have historically said almost nothing about the next year or two — only about the next decade, and even that relationship rests on a thin data set, since the months this expensive cluster into just two episodes, 1929 and 1999.
There's also a real counterargument to the "this is just like 2000" narrative: today's largest companies actually generate meaningful profits. Goldman Sachs Research puts the seven largest S&P 500 companies at roughly a quarter of the index's total earnings. That doesn't make today's concentration risk-free — it changes the risk from "these companies might turn out to be empty" to "the price we're paying for their profits might turn out to be too high." Perspective matters – it’s worth knowing the difference.
BONDS: THE BIGGER STORY
Here's the part I actually think deserves more of your attention than the valuation headline. For forty years, interest rates mostly moved in one direction: down. That multi-decade trend reversed a few years ago, and I don't think investors have fully adjusted their thinking to what that means.
Today's 10-year Treasury yield of 4.80% isn't high by any historical standard — it's a return to something close to the 155-year average of 4.49%. What changed is that bonds can do real work in a portfolio again. A 10-year inflation-protected Treasury bond is currently yielding 2.44% above inflation, guaranteed, from the U.S. government — an option that barely existed for the better part of fifteen years.
On the flip side, the extra compensation for taking stock market risk over bonds is thinner than usual — about four-tenths of a percentage point by our math — and high-yield bonds pay historically little for default risk. None of this is a crisis signal; it's a reminder that "safe" and "risky" assets are priced closer together than usual right now.
One thing changed literally while I was writing this: for months, markets had been expecting the Fed to keep cutting rates. Then new Fed Chair Kevin Warsh gave an unexpectedly hawkish speech at Jackson Hole in late August, and markets began pricing real odds of a rate hike instead, at the September meeting. I mention it not because I think you should trade around it, but because it's a good example of how quickly the "obvious" narrative can flip — which is exactly why we don't build your plan around forecasts.
WHAT HISTORY SAYS ABOUT RECOVERIES
I also went back and looked at every U.S. bear market — a decline of 20% or more — since 1900, measured the way most people actually experience it: dividends included, not adjusted for inflation. There have been eleven of them. The median time to bottom was about 1.4 years, and the median time to fully recover was also about 1.4 years. Ten of those eleven times the market dropped at least 20%, it was back to even within four years of the low. (An inflation-adjusted view shows taking a bit longer for some of the cycles — another detail worth knowing, but the 2–4 year recommendations we make are grounded in this more everyday measure.)
1929 is the one true outlier — over twelve years to recover even with dividends reinvested, far beyond anything else on the list. The dot-com bust and 2008 crisis, by contrast, each recovered in under four years. That's the actual basis for how we size a cash reserve, which I'll get to next.
WHAT WE ACTUALLY DO WITH ALL OF THIS
Here's the thing: nothing above changes how we build your portfolio. It changes how deliberate we are about it.
We split every plan into two buckets. The first is your reserve — cash and ultra-short bonds sized to cover an emergency fund, two to four years of known expenses, and if it makes sense, a little extra so you can sleep at night regardless of what the market's doing. That reserve is exactly why that recovery data above matters: it's the arithmetic behind the goal of never having to sell stocks at the bottom just to pay your bills. Obviously, we can’t guarantee it won’t happen, but we always talk the probabilities of various outcomes, so this is no different.
The second bucket is everything else, invested for the long run, designed to try to protect you from the two things that actually threaten a thirty-year retirement: inflation and simply living a long time. We size that bucket across five model portfolios — from Prism Conservative up through Prism Aggressive Growth — based on your needs, preferences and comfort with risk, not based on a market forecast.
Within that long-term bucket, we lean toward companies with strong free cash flow and growing dividends. That's not a stylistic preference — it's backed by data. From 1973 to 2023, companies that grew or initiated dividends returned about 10.2% annualized, versus 3.9% for companies that paid nothing at all. Dividends have made up roughly 31% of the S&P 500's total return since 1926. On the other hand, I’m sure you’re not surprised that from 2014 to 2024, mega-cap growth stocks left this style in the dust. This is a decades-long tilt, not a bet on any single year — and when starting valuations are this stretched, we'd rather lean on cash a business actually generates than hope the next buyer pays more for it than we did.
THE BOTTOM LINE
Equities are expensive by almost any historical measure. Bonds have quietly become useful again. The Fed's next move is genuinely uncertain. And history says that however the next downturn unfolds, it will very likely end — usually within a few years. None of that is a reason to change your plan. It's the reason we built it this way in the first place.
If any of this raises a question about your own situation, or we simply haven't talked in a while, I'd love to hear from you. Schedule an Introductory Meeting here to discuss your financial situation. There's no obligation—just an opportunity to get answers to your questions and see if working together makes sense for you.
DISCLAIMERS
Julia Peloso-Barnes is a CFP® and a member of Ed Slott's Master Elite IRA Advisor Group™. She is the founder of Prism Planning and Solutions Group, a dba of PPSgrp LLC, an SEC-registered investment adviser. This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute personalized investment, tax, or legal advice. Investing involves risk, including the possible loss of principal; past performance is not indicative of future results. The information in this article draws on third-party sources, data, and publicly available research. While we've made every effort to ensure its accuracy, we cannot guarantee or warrant that it is complete, current, or error-free, and it should not be relied upon as the sole basis for any financial decision. Prism Planning and Solutions Group is not responsible for errors or omissions in third-party content. Please consult with your adviser before acting on any information presented here.
CFP®, Certified Financial Planner™, and the CFP® logo are certification marks owned by the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, Inc., and awarded to individuals who meet its education, examination, experience, and ethics requirements.
Subscribe HERE to receive alerts when new posts are published.
