​
This is a new post after some interest in a comment why I believed the S&P is going to 1700.
Update 3: I am going to limit my answers in the comments guys; as the post becomes more popular it is becoming more diluted with snark etc. I don't expect anyone to follow my opinions; I just want to share one aspect of why I am making the trades I am. I maybe wrong. Random walk and all that..
Original Disclaimer: This is based on historical precedence and we are in unprecedented times but, with history as our guide a strong argument can be made for the S&P to decline to a level that is currently inconceivable. I have disclosed all my positions near the bottom.
Update 1: Slightly long; happy to be challenged in the comments, it is late in the UK (2am) so may tidy it up and add more references and charts tomorrow. Update 2: Have expanded the post to answer as many comments and requests for references wherever possible and tagged in the requestors.

Intro: Are we in a recession?

If you believe so, or that we are heading into a recession then there are four things needed to support a genuine rally out of a recession
​

• Fiscal policy
• Monetary policy
• Improving economic health indicators
• Accurate pricing reflecting the end of the recession and tempered optimism

We are missing 2 out of those 4 criteria; the overwhelming monetary and fiscal policy (world-records) are compensating for lack of positive indicators and volatile and bullish pricing.

What do you mean by pricing?

It can be argued that the current price of stocks is not discounting for the acute and likely chronic harm to consumer sentiment and spending power. For example; the UK clothing retailer Next Group closed their bricks and mortar stores (share price increased 4%) then they cancelled all online shopping (share price increased 3%) and finally they cancelled all orders with their supply chain (shares leapt 12.8% during the rally.) There is the massive amount of second, third and fourth order effects that this one company does to the UK economy (and Turkish factories). Suppliers, shipping, design, marketing etc all cancelled and the staff furloughed.
This is one example but the indexes are currently full of similar examples and some analysts are ringing the alarm bells.
​

Lazard Asset Management are concerned that the pandemic “will persist longer than many investors suspect and that the economic damage will be deeper and potentially longer-lasting”.

Reddit is quick to mention that stonks only go up but there is some truth to that sentiment at present since any negative factors are dismissed as being priced in and all positive factors are heralded as a cause for stocks to rally. If priced in was accurate then we would not see record-beating market rallies back to back. 10% volatility swings over 48 hours is the very definition of not priced in.
There is evidence to suggest that, well, the bullish sentiment is wrong and mainly because it is retail investors being taken for a ride whilst funds re-balance and offload.
Retail traders "buying the dips" is normally a contrarian signal, meaning that it's time to sell. This section is for u/lntoIerant in response to a comment.

Edit to answer some comments about this portion thus far.

Do retail investors move the market?

• No, they act as a sentiment indicator that the market is reaching a peak absurdity. Similar sentiments have preceded major recessions in the past. When you hear a layman offering stock tips or googling how to buy stocks then we are reaching the precipice of a depression. new market entrants are not the same as traditional retail investors.

Are retail investors buying in greater volumes?

• That is hard to say because the majority of retail trades are done off-book. The trades are mixed in with portfolio moves or using the retail service which is a dark pool.

Are retail investors dumb money?

• Well, no. Kind of. It depends. This white paper indicates that retail investors are more knowledgeable, more profitable and better informed than previously thought. However, a lot of their trades, as mentioned above, are done off-book as part of a larger portfolio and they simply lose a fraction of a basis point because market timing is not that critical.

​

What does this have to do with the S&P dividend and the EPS?

​
Major indexes are comprised of stocks that pay handsome dividends; normally 2% yield a year. The companies have reached their limit of growth (HSBC haven't discovered 5 million new customers and Shell are not finding new fossil fuels) so investors hold the stock for income-seeking reasons.
The FTSE 100 was priced in to generate £89 billion in dividends for 2019 and £90 billion+ in 2020. That has largely collapsed.
The only companies that pay dividends are those taking on debt to do so like Shell. And they have; a 10Bn credit line to maintain dividends. The Bank of Englandhad to slap 5 UK banks from issuing dividends at this time. That means that their primary valuations as income-generating stocks are questionable...
...especially since the dividends are not expected to return to the 2020 levels for another 10 years now. Edit to add: This portion is taken from the market report by BNY Mellon. You can see the chart here. The analyst is John Velis of BNY. Thanks to u/flash_aaaah_ahhhhh for prompting me.
​

“By 2021, the market expects dividends per share for the S&P 500 to be down to under $38 per share (a staggering 41 per cent drop from recent highs of approximately $63 per share) and then to start slowly rising again. Going out 10 years to 2030, the expectation is that dividends will just about recover to pre-Covid-19 levels.”

​

Main body: Onto the S&P

In 2021 the market expects the dividends per share for the S&P to be reduced to $38 per share. That is priced in and common knowledge.
That is a 41% drop from the recent highs of $63 a share and seems alarming for income seeking investors since we are not expected to recover to those prices for 8-10 years. Source.
But DataTrek have noted that we are still currently trading at 21X the trailing 10 year earnings of $122 a share.
Dividends per share normally don't fall as far as earnings per share. But they are inverted at present.
For the S&P to be trading at 2,650 level (or even higher) it means the market does not believe the pandemic or recession will have any long-term damage. That puts us squarely at odds with items 3 and 4 in our list of factors needed to exit a bear market.

Talk to me about 2008!

Thanks to u/mister_woody for asking for more data.
​

• S&P 500 high: 1565.15, Oct. 9, 2007
• Low: 682.55, March 5, 2009
• S&P 500 loss: 56.4 percent
• Duration: 17 monthts
• EPS decline: 86 to 7
• Dividend decline: 26-28 down to 22-24

In other recessions, including 2008, the dividend price per share drops approximately 12-15% but the earnings per share drop by considerably more; as much as 85%.
That means that in 2008 financial crisis and subsequent bear market; the dividends per share dropped by a lower percentage amount than the total index value drop.
You can see that in this chart here.
​

• The market drop was approximately 56% and the Dividend drop was 14%
• The market drop was 56% and the earnings drop was 85%

Right now, we have the reverse. Dividend share drop in this market is 41% (which is chilling) and market drop was approximately only 30% and rallying heavily back to the mid-20's only. That makes no financial sense unless the assets were being propped up by buyers...
​

• S&P ATH: 3386 to 2488 on April 4th (26.5% drop)
• S&P ATH Dividend: From $63 expected to $38 (a 41% drop)
• S&P ATH EPS:

If the S&P follows the same playbook at 2008-9, then we would expect to see levels of around 1400 at the bottom but that seems extremely bearish expecting that this crisis is worse than 2008.
If previous indications hold true, then we would expect the S&P to drop by approximately 50-60%ish at the true bottom to reflect the 41% decrease in expected shares plus additional discounts and negative market sentiment.
In reality, we are probably likely to pull back to between 13X and 15X trailing average which puts the S&P between 1600 (low side) and 1800 (high side).
​

You are putting a lot of faith in a re-run of the 2008 crisis

I am. No doubt about it. After October 2008, stocks fell for another four months, piling up 40% of losses before the recently ended bull market began in March 2009.

New market indicators

Since I wrote this post, the DJIA was up over 4% and closed down on the day.
Thank you to theTwitter feed of Jim Bianco for this: Since 1925 (95 yrs!), up more than 4% and closing down on the day has happened only one other time ... Oct 14, 2008 (Tsy Sec Hank Paulson forced the banks to take TARP money). The S&P 500 was up 3.5% at the high and closed down on the day. Since April 1982 (daily H,L,C began) has happened three other times...Oct 3, 08, Oct 14, 08, and Oct 17, 08.
This mkt continues to trade like Oct 08. It was six months and another 25% down before the low.
Bezinga are also playing up the 2008 similarities.

Why is bullish sentiment so wrong?

The negative reports are so wildly negative that the almost defy belief. We are dealing with insane numbers way beyond our traditional frame of reasoning. This is topped only by the insanity of the scale of quantitative easing. Less than a year ago, a small movement in the non-farm payrolls would lead to a 2-3% move in the markets; now we are hitting 700K jobs lost, a truly ugly number and the market rallies hugely. Future economic students will study this to try and understand what was happening.
In the space of weeks the majority of the Western economies have swung to being effectively state-sponsored, centralised economies and no one really knows how to unwind these positions.
It is impossible to reconcile being a bull with a centralised state economy and blue-chip stocks that refuse to pay dividends but the share price remains at the same levels as when they paid a 2% yield.
The UK forecast is for the deepest contraction since 1900. Business surveys have shown activity crashing faster in March than during the financial crisis. The Office for National Statistics has published experimental research on the impact of Covid-19 on the economy.
​

With entire swaths of the economy having shut down “traditional forecasting methods become irrelevant”, warned Chiara Zangarelli, economist at investment bank Nomura.

Michelle Girard, economist at NatWest, said that while there was huge uncertainty about the precise magnitude of the contraction in gross domestic product in the second quarter, “there is little doubt that it will be off the scale”
That is not a bullish sentiment. It means markets are acting irrationally since fundamentals are being dismissed as priced-in. In reality; nothing is priced in.

Disclosure

​
Spreads

• I am long VIX to 78 (expected by end of Apri but ideally by 24/4)
• I am short India to 7800 (expected by 15/05)
• I am short S&P to 2200 (expected by mid-late of May) and will be to 1810-50
• I am short Dow to 19000 (expected by mid-late May) and will be again to 17000
• I am short FTSE to 5200 and will be again to 4800 (expected by mid-late May)
• No current active hedges / all spreads due to being tax free profits in the UK
• Further spread betting the swings to the upside where I can to scalp

Equities

• I am holding a portfolio of streaming services and gaming companies
• I am holding Microsoft and Disney

Currency

• I own a very small quantity of crypto, primarily XRP

Edit to add: So, your entire thesis is totally destroyed if companies keep paying dividends?

Yes.
In a nutshell.
But something else will be destroyed; the western taxpayer and future growth.
​

• If companies are using 0% interest rates to take out loans and then transferring those loans a small 1% of the populace via dividends; that bill will come due to the citizen taxpayer and/or shareholder of the future
• If companies are taking federal or governmental aid to furlough workers but still paying dividends to shareholders? That bill will come due to the citizen taxpayer and effectively is an even more extreme form of socialising market losses; it means that we truly can never have a correction since the top 1% will lose. Not lose the investment itself, which can rebound, but will simply lose the yield on an investment and only for a short period of time. If we have reached a point where that is considered unacceptable then we truly are living in a new socialist, centrally planned world.
• Here is Tesco defending their decision today of £635m in dividends...despite receiving considerable amounts of VAT, Rates and Rental relief from the UK Government (£585m)...they have done an admirable job and are profitable but this market signal and their stated reasons for doing so are alarming.

CEO said 'every pound we receive [in rates relief] will be invested in ensuring Tesco is able to support British shoppers...' That is tax payers paying a subsidy to a free-market company for the ability to shop...and also...
Mr Lewis said that the needs of savers and pension funds also needed to be considered in the debate around dividends. “We’ve thought long and hard about our responsibilities here . . . we are in a strong position to pay out for the benefit of those people

​

Edit to add: What about the FED and stimulus

​
u/tauriel81 and u/aliveintucson325 and u/100PERCENTYOLO_VEQT
OK - to truly test my own assumptions; here is my argument AGAINST my position.
The Fed have not quite printed money as Reddit loves to meme. They have issued liquidity and central banks worldwide have allowed banks to relax their requirement to hold reserves of cash. That injects money into the business world by allowing lending and borrowing to continue. It also reduces theoretical risk since the models are back within tolerance.
When the time comes they will remove the credits gradually without causing hyperinflation. They do this by paying banks not to lend back into the system by holding a % of their assets at the Federal Reserve. So they pay the banks but the banks keep the deposit at the Fed and don't pass on the liquidity to potential borrowers..gradually and sustainably.
https://www.aier.org/article/powells-new-monetary-regime/
That means the borrower of the future (home purchasers, entreprenuers etc) will have very few credit facilities available so RIP to the long-term economic growth.
We also have unprecedented government support for citizens. The largest social security welfare plan since WW2, especially in Europe.
If you believe that the Western economies can weather this storm using the bridging devices by central banks then it pays to dollar cost average into the market and keep buying the dips as a retail investor.
Lots of buoyant news from European nations and China about the slowing pandemic is overwhelming the negative leading and lagging economic indicators about economic data.
If you believe the economy can return to normal within 36 months, then it pay to be bullish and invest.
If you are day-trading, swing-trading or short-term options trading then the overwhelming market moves are likely to crush people as the system flexes under lots of volatility. You are also likely prioritising the negative news and technical analysis in your filter bubble and de-prioritising the positive news particularly when that news is fiscal or monetary policy since those things are dry, boring and incomprehensible half the time.
So you miss Fed backstops critical bankingi and instead hear UK Prime Minister in intensive care.
If you want to know what is going on...
​

• Look at the short term fundamentals
• Zoom out. Re-look.
• Zoom out to an even longer timeline. Re-look.
• Zoom out to an even even longer timeline. Re-look.
• Zoom out to an even even even longer timeline. Re-look.

Decide where you making a prediction. Plan your trade, trade your plan.
How do the FED take money back out of the economy?
They FED purchase the security initially to then sell it back to the asset-holder later. So the balance of credit-deficit merely swaps but by paying a small premium on the excesses that they hold, they can cushion the inflation or deflation of the currency.
So, they effectively give the bank liquidity and then remove that liquidity later by passing the asset back...but also provide a small premium to cushion the blow; 50% of the premium is then held on Federal Reserve books so that the market is not flooded with new money.
The FED previously reduced their balance sheet from $4.4 trillion to $3.7 trillion but it remains to be seen if they can unwind a position of this size.
​

TL:DR

​

• 2 out of the 4 necessities for exiting a recession are not present
• S&P currently trading at 21X the trailing 10 year average dividend
• In previous recessions a 50% drop in the market was accompanied by a 15% drop in dividends
• Market analysts expecting for a 41% drop in dividends but only trading a 26% drop in the market. At present the S&P dividend per share drop is 41% but the S&P is rallying back to less than 20% drop...whilst dividends are not expected to return to 2019 levels of income for 8-10 years
• In previous recessions the dividend per share drop is much less than the overall index drop
• S&P highly overvalued, completely inverted when compared with dividend expectation and market dividend pricing
• S&P pull back to 1600-1800 over short-medium time frame (1 month-6 months).
• If market history is to be believed then 1400 is not unfeasible based on percentages but you have to be hoping for a total economic destruction for this to happen.; expect a total Governmental response if this happens.
• If S&P continues to rise then it indicates companies are taking on debt or other instruments to pay dividends rather than innovate, upgrade or consolidate their business position which some are (Shell etc).
• Economic data will eventually overpower the stimulus and the Coronavirus is not priced in; hardly anything is priced in and analysts are now saying so publicly.

​