Connect with us

Finance

How to think about earnings estimates during volatile times

Published

on

How to think about earnings estimates during volatile times

A version of this post first appeared on TKer.co

Earnings estimates for the next 12 months are rising.

And earnings estimates for 2025 and 2026 have been coming down.

The above statements sound like they’re in conflict. But they are actually two ways of communicating the same information. The differentiating factor: The passage of time.

We often hear analysts talk about earnings estimates based on calendar years. For example, coming into this year Wall Street strategists presented their estimates for 2025 earnings.

Advertisement

As time passes and information emerges, analysts will adjust those estimates. Historically, analysts tend to gradually revise down these calendar year estimates. And so far, this has been the case in 2025.

However, time can pass quickly. And with calendar year estimates, what was once a discussion about future earnings can quickly become a discussion about past earnings.

For example, at the beginning of the year, 2025 earnings represented the next-12 months’ (NTM) earnings. But it’s April now, which means any discussion of 2025 earnings involves an old quarter, and any discussion of NTM earnings involves a quarter in 2026.

Morgan Stanley’s Michael Wilson shared a nice side-by-side visualization of this somewhat confusing dynamic. The chart on the left shows the S&P 500’s NTM earnings per share (EPS). As time passes, you can see NTM EPS move up as it continuously incorporates the higher earnings expected in future periods.

The chart on the right shows EPS estimates for 2025 and 2026 — static periods in time. As time passes, you can see how analysts’ estimates have moved lower in recent months.

Advertisement

NTM earnings estimates look good despite calendar year estimates coming down. (Source: Morgan Stanley)

“NTM EPS estimates continue to advance on the back of stronger 2026 EPS growth,” Wilson observed. “However, NTM EPS may show signs of flattening in recent weeks as 2025/2026 estimates revise slightly lower (-1%).”

To be clear, both charts employ the same analysts’ estimates for earnings. They just differ in the way they reflect the effect of the passage of time.

And the two charts are currently telling us that the promise of earnings growth on a rolling future basis is more than offsetting deteriorating expectations for static periods.

This is important in the context of valuation metrics like the forward price-earnings (P/E) ratio. If earnings are expected to grow, then forward earnings (E) will rise as time passes. This leads to downward pressure on P/E ratios.

Advertisement

As we discussed last week, there are currently a lot of issues with analysts’ earnings estimates. Uncertainty is very high, and there’s evidence that the earnings estimates out there right now are stale.

But again, both visualizations are working off the same estimates. So if we believe the estimates for E is off, discussions about both NTM and calendar year estimates will similarly be off.

The bottom line: Be mindful about what you read and hear about earnings estimates. While it can be helpful to know what’s going on with revisions in certain calendar years, the information for a particular year will become less relevant as time passes. This is why it’s arguably more useful to look to NTM earnings because stock prices are heavily determined by expectations for the future.

There were several notable data points and macroeconomic developments since our last review:

Advertisement

🛍️ Shopping ticks higher. Retail sales increased 1.4% in March to a record $734.9 billion.

(Source: Census via FRED)

Unfortunately, there’s evidence that recent spending has been boosted by consumers front-running tariffs. The 5.3% jump in car and car parts sales is in line with this trend. From Renaissance Macro’s Neil Dutta: “It’s challenging to get a proper signal from retail sales data at the moment. Households are taking tariffs seriously and we have seen a front running of activity, particularly in consumer durables. Ultimately, follow underlying growth. It’s been softening.”

For more on consumer spending, read: We’re gonna get ambiguous signals in the economic data 😵‍💫 and Americans have money, and they’re spending it 🛍️

💳 Card spending data is holding up. From JPMorgan: “As of 10 Apr 2025, our Chase Consumer Card spending data (unadjusted) was 3.0% above the same day last year. Based on the Chase Consumer Card data through 10 Apr 2025, our estimate of the US Census April control measure of retail sales m/m is 0.50%.”

(Source: JPMorgan)

From BofA: “Total card spending per HH was up 2.3% y/y in the week ending Apr 12, according to BAC aggregated credit & debit card data. Among the categories we show, the biggest gains relative to last week were in entertainment, online electronics & grocery. The increase could be due to a dual boost from upcoming Easter and front-loading due to tariff uncertainty.”

Advertisement

(Source: BofA)

Similar to March retail sales, April spending is likely being boosted by consumers pulling forward purchases in an attempt to front-run tariffs.

For more on consumer spending, read: We’re gonna get ambiguous signals in the economic data 😵‍💫 and Americans have money, and they’re spending it 🛍️

💼 Unemployment claims tick lower. Initial claims for unemployment benefits declined to 215,000 during the week ending April 12, down from 224,000 the week prior. This metric continues to be at levels historically associated with economic growth.

(Source: DoL via FRED)

For more context, read: A note about federal layoffs 🏛️ and The labor market is cooling 💼

⛽️ Gas prices tick lower. From AAA: “As spring break travel winds down, gas prices are following suit, down five cents since last week. Softer demand is fueling this downward trend, and with crude as low as it’s been in a few years, drivers may continue to see lower pump prices as summer approaches.”

Advertisement

(Source: AAA)

For more on energy prices, read: Higher oil prices meant something different in the past 🛢️

👎 Inflation expectations heat up. From the New York Fed’s March Survey of Consumer Expectations: “Median inflation expectations increased by 0.5 percentage point to 3.6% at the one-year-ahead horizon, were unchanged at 3.0% at the three-year-ahead horizon, and decreased by 0.1 percentage point to 2.9% at the five-year-ahead horizon.”

(Source: NY Fed)

The introduction of tariffs as proposed by president-elect Donald Trump would be inflationary. For more, read: 5 outstanding issues as President Trump threatens the world with tariffs 😬

👎 New York area managers are worried about the future. From the NY Fed’s Empire State Manufacturing Survey: “Firms expect conditions to worsen in the months ahead, a level of pessimism that has only occurred a handful of times in the history of the survey. The index for future general business conditions fell twenty points to -7.4; the index has fallen a cumulative forty-four points over the past three months. New orders and shipments are expected to fall slightly in the months ahead. Capital spending plans were flat. Input and selling price increases are expected to pick up, and supply availability is expected to worsen over the next six months.”

(Source: NY Fed)

From the NY Fed’s Business Leaders Survey: “After plunging twenty-five points last month, the index for future business activity sank another twenty-three points to -26.6, its lowest reading since April 2020, indicating that firms expect a significant decline in activity in the months ahead. The index for the future business climate also fell twenty-three points, to -50.0, marking its lowest level since 2009 and suggesting the business climate is expected to remain considerably worse than normal. The future employment index turned negative. The future supply availability index dropped to -36.1, with 44 percent of firms expecting supply availability to be worse in six months. Capital spending plans turned sharply negative.”

Advertisement

(Source: NY Fed)

Keep in mind that during times of perceived stress, soft survey data tends to be more exaggerated than actual hard data.

For more on this, read: What businesses do > what businesses say 🙊

🛠️ Industrial activity ticks lower. Industrial production activity in March declined 0.3% from the prior month. Manufacturing output increased 0.3%.

(Source: Federal Reserve)

For more on economic activity cooling, read: 9 once-hot economic charts that cooled 📉

🔨 New home construction starts fall. Housing starts fell 11.4% in March to an annualized rate of 1.32 million units, according to the Census Bureau. Building permits ticked up 1.6% to an annualized rate of 1.48 million units.

Advertisement

(Source: Census)

🏠 Homebuilder sentiment ticks up. From the NAHB’s Buddy Hughes: “The recent dip in mortgage rates may have pushed some buyers off the fence in March, helping builders with sales activity. At the same time, builders have expressed growing uncertainty over market conditions as tariffs have increased price volatility for building materials at a time when the industry continues to grapple with labor shortages and a lack of buildable lots.”

(Source: NAHB)

🏠 Mortgage rates rise. According to Freddie Mac, the average 30-year fixed-rate mortgage increased to 6.83% from 6.62% last week. From Freddie Mac: “The 30-year fixed-rate mortgage ticked up but remains below the 7% threshold for the thirteenth consecutive week. At this time last year, rates reached 7.1% while purchase application demand was 13% lower than it is today, a clear sign that this year’s spring homebuying season is off to a stronger start.”

(Source: Freddie Mac)

There are 147.4 million housing units in the U.S., of which 86.9 million are owner-occupied and about 34.1 million of which are mortgage-free. Of those carrying mortgage debt, almost all have fixed-rate mortgages, and most of those mortgages have rates that were locked in before rates surged from 2021 lows. All of this is to say: Most homeowners are not particularly sensitive to movements in home prices or mortgage rates.

For more on mortgages and home prices, read: Why home prices and rents are creating all sorts of confusion about inflation 😖

😬 This is the stuff pros are worried about. According to BofA’s April Global Fund Manager Survey: “Trade war triggering a global recession is viewed as the biggest ‘tail risk’ according to 80% of investors, the largest concentration for a ‘tail risk’ in 15-year history.”

Advertisement

For more on risks, read: When uncertainty becomes unambiguously high 🎢, Three observations about uncertainty in the markets 😟 and Two times when uncertainty seemed low and confidence was high 🌈

📉 Near-term GDP growth estimates are tracking negative. The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model sees real GDP growth declining at a 2.2% rate in Q1. Adjusted for the impact of gold imports and exports, they see GDP falling at a 0.1% rate.

(Source: Atlanta Fed)

For more on GDP and the economy, read: 9 once-hot economic charts that cooled 📉 and You call this a recession? 🤨

🚨 The tariffs announced by President Trump as they stand threaten to upend global trade — with significant implications for the U.S. economy, corporate earnings, and the stock market. Until we get some more clarity, here’s where things stand:

Earnings look bullish: The long-term outlook for the stock market remains favorable, bolstered by expectations for years of earnings growth. And earnings are the most important driver of stock prices.

Demand is positive: Demand for goods and services remains positive, supported by healthy consumer and business balance sheets. Job creation, while cooling, also remains positive, and the Federal Reserve — having resolved the inflation crisis — has shifted its focus toward supporting the labor market.

Advertisement

But growth is cooling: While the economy remains healthy, growth has normalized from much hotter levels earlier in the cycle. The economy is less “coiled” these days as major tailwinds like excess job openings have faded. It has become harder to argue that growth is destiny.

Actions speak louder than words: We are in an odd period given that the hard economic data has decoupled from the soft sentiment-oriented data. Consumer and business sentiment has been relatively poor, even as tangible consumer and business activity continue to grow and trend at record levels. From an investor’s perspective, what matters is that the hard economic data continues to hold up.

Stocks are not the economy: Analysts expect the U.S. stock market could outperform the U.S. economy, thanks largely due to positive operating leverage. Since the pandemic, companies have adjusted their cost structures aggressively. This has come with strategic layoffs and investment in new equipment, including hardware powered by AI. These moves are resulting in positive operating leverage, which means a modest amount of sales growth — in the cooling economy — is translating to robust earnings growth.

Mind the ever-present risks: Of course, this does not mean we should get complacent. There will always be risks to worry about — such as U.S. political uncertainty, geopolitical turmoil, energy price volatility, cyber attacks, etc. There are also the dreaded unknowns. Any of these risks can flare up and spark short-term volatility in the markets.

Investing is never a smooth ride: There’s also the harsh reality that economic recessions and bear markets are developments that all long-term investors should expect to experience as they build wealth in the markets. Always keep your stock market seat belts fastened.

Advertisement

Think long term: For now, there’s no reason to believe there’ll be a challenge that the economy and the markets won’t be able to overcome over time. The long game remains undefeated, and it’s a streak long-term investors can expect to continue.

A version of this post first appeared on TKer.co

Finance

Lawmakers target ‘free money’ home equity finance model

Published

on

Lawmakers target ‘free money’ home equity finance model

Key points:

  • Pennsylvania lawmakers are considering a bill that would classify home equity investments (HEIs) and shared equity contracts as residential mortgages.
  • Industry leaders have mobilized through a newly formed trade group to influence how HEIs are regulated.
  • The outcome could reshape underwriting standards, return structures and capital markets strategy for HEI providers.

A fast-growing home equity financing model that promises homeowners cash without monthly payments is facing mounting scrutiny from state lawmakers — and the industry behind it is mobilizing to shape the outcome.

In Pennsylvania, House Bill 2120 would classify shared equity contracts — often marketed as home equity investments (HEIs), shared appreciation agreements or home equity agreements — as residential mortgages under state law.

While the proposal is still in committee, the debate unfolding in Harrisburg reflects a broader national effort to determine whether these products are truly a new category of equity-based investment — or if they function as mortgages and belong under existing consumer lending laws.

A classification fight over home equity capture

HB 2120 would amend Pennsylvania’s Loan Interest and Protection Law by explicitly including shared appreciation agreements in the residential mortgage definition. If passed, shared equity contracts would be subject to the same interest caps, licensing standards and consumer protections that apply to traditional mortgage lending.

The legislation was introduced by Rep. Arvind Venkat after constituent Wendy Gilch — a fellow with the consumer watchdog Consumer Policy Center — brought concerns to his office. Gilch has since worked with Venkat as a partner in shaping the proposal.

Gilch initially began examining the products after seeing advertisements describe them as offering cash with “no debt,” “no interest” and “no monthly payments.”

Advertisement

“It sounds like free money,” she said. “But in many cases, you’re giving up a growing share of your home’s equity over time.”

Breaking down the debate

Shared equity providers (SEPs) argue that their products are not loans. Instead of charging interest or requiring monthly payments, companies provide homeowners with a lump sum in exchange for a share of the home’s future appreciation, which is typically repaid when the home is sold or refinanced.

The Coalition for Home Equity Partnership (CHEP) — an industry-led group founded in 2025 by Hometap, Point and Unlock — emphasizes that shared equity products have zero monthly payments or interest, no minimum income requirements and no personal liability if a home’s value declines.

Venkat, however, argues that the mechanics look familiar and argues that “transactions secured by homes should include transparency and consumer protections” — especially since, for many many Americans, their home is their most valuable asset. 

“These agreements involve appraisals, liens, closing costs and defined repayment triggers,” he said. “If it looks like a mortgage and functions like a mortgage, it should be treated like one.”

Advertisement

The bill sits within Pennsylvania’s anti-usury framework, which caps returns on home-secured lending in the mid-single digits. Venkat said he’s been told by industry representatives that they require returns approaching 18-20% to make the model viable — particularly if contracts are later resold to outside investors. According to CHEP, its members provide scenario-based disclosures showing potential outcomes under varying assumptions, with the final cost depending on future home values and term length.

In a statement shared with Real Estate News, CHEP President Cliff Andrews said the group supports comprehensive regulation of shared equity products but argues that automatically classifying them as mortgages applies a framework “that was never designed for, and cannot meaningfully be applied to, equity-based financing instruments.”

As currently drafted, HB 2120 would function as a “de facto ban” on shared equity products in Pennsylvania, Andrews added.

Real Estate News also reached out to Unison, a major vendor in the space, for comment on HB 2120. Hometap and Unlock deferred to CHEP when reached for comment. 

A growing regulatory patchwork

Pennsylvania is not alone in seeking to legislate regulations around HEIs. Maryland, Illinois and Connecticut have also taken steps to clarify that certain home equity option agreements fall under mortgage lending statutes and licensing requirements.

Advertisement

In Washington state, litigation over whether a shared equity contract qualified as a reverse mortgage reached the Ninth Circuit before the case was settled and the opinion vacated. Maine and Oregon have considered similar proposals, while Massachusetts has pursued enforcement action against at least one provider in connection with home equity investment practices.

Taken together, these developments suggest a state-by-state regulatory patchwork could emerge in the absence of a uniform federal framework.

The push for homeowner protections

The debate over HEIs arrives amid elevated interest rates and reduced refinancing activity — conditions that have increased demand for alternative equity-access products. 

But regulators appear increasingly focused on classification — specifically whether the absence of monthly payments and traditional interest charges changes the legal character of a contract secured by a lien on a home.

Gilch argues that classification is central to consumer clarity. “If it’s secured by your home and you have to settle up when you sell or refinance, homeowners should have the same protections they expect with any other home-based transaction,” she said.

Advertisement

Lessons from prior home equity controversies

For industry leaders, the regulatory scrutiny may feel familiar. In recent years, unconventional home equity models have drawn enforcement actions and litigation once questions surfaced around contract structure, title encumbrances or consumer understanding.

MV Realty, which offered upfront payments in exchange for long-term listing agreements, faced regulatory action in multiple states over how those agreements were recorded and disclosed. EasyKnock, which structured sale-leaseback transactions aimed at unlocking home equity, abruptly shuttered operations in late 2024 following litigation and mounting regulatory pressure.

Shared equity investment contracts differ structurally from both models, but those episodes underscore a broader pattern: novel housing finance products can scale quickly in tight credit cycles. Just as quickly, these home equity models encounter regulatory intervention once policymakers begin examining how they fit within existing law — and the formation of CHEP signals that SEPs recognize the stakes.

For real estate executives and housing finance leaders, the outcome of the classification fight may prove consequential. If shared equity contracts are treated as mortgages in more states, underwriting standards, return structures and secondary market economics could shift.

If lawmakers instead carve out a distinct regulatory category, the model may retain more flexibility — but face ongoing state-by-state negotiation.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Finance

Cornell Administrator Warren Petrofsky Named FAS Finance Dean | News | The Harvard Crimson

Published

on

Cornell Administrator Warren Petrofsky Named FAS Finance Dean | News | The Harvard Crimson

Cornell University administrator Warren Petrofsky will serve as the Faculty of Arts and Sciences’ new dean of administration and finance, charged with spearheading efforts to shore up the school’s finances as it faces a hefty budget deficit.

Petrofsky’s appointment, announced in a Friday email from FAS Dean Hopi E. Hoekstra to FAS affiliates, will begin April 20 — nearly a year after former FAS dean of administration and finance Scott A. Jordan stepped down. Petrofsky will replace interim dean Mary Ann Bradley, who helped shape the early stages of FAS cost-cutting initiatives.

Petrofsky currently serves as associate dean of administration at Cornell University’s College of Arts and Sciences.

As dean, he oversaw a budget cut of nearly $11 million to the institution’s College of Arts and Sciences after the federal government slashed at least $250 million in stop-work orders and frozen grants, according to the Cornell Daily Sun.

He also serves on a work group established in November 2025 to streamline the school’s administrative systems.

Advertisement

Earlier, at the University of Pennsylvania, Petrofsky managed capital initiatives and organizational redesigns in a number of administrative roles.

Petrofsky is poised to lead similar efforts at the FAS, which relaunched its Resources Committee in spring 2025 and created a committee to consolidate staff positions amid massive federal funding cuts.

As part of its planning process, the committee has quietly brought on external help. Over several months, consultants from McKinsey & Company have been interviewing dozens of administrators and staff across the FAS.

Petrofsky will also likely have a hand in other cost-cutting measures across the FAS, which is facing a $365 million budget deficit. The school has already announced it will keep spending flat for the 2026 fiscal year, and it has dramatically reduced Ph.D. admissions.

In her email, Hoekstra praised Petrofsky’s performance across his career.

Advertisement

“Warren has emphasized transparency, clarity in communication, and investment in staff development,” she wrote. “He approaches change with steadiness and purpose, and with deep respect for the mission that unites our faculty, researchers, staff, and students. I am confident that he will be a strong partner to me and to our community.”

—Staff writer Amann S. Mahajan can be reached at [email protected] and on Signal at amannsm.38. Follow her on X @amannmahajan.

Continue Reading

Finance

Where in California are people feeling the most financial distress?

Published

on

Where in California are people feeling the most financial distress?

Inland California’s relative affordability cannot always relieve financial stress.

My spreadsheet reviewed a WalletHub ranking of financial distress for the residents of 100 U.S. cities, including 17 in California. The analysis compared local credit scores, late bill payments, bankruptcy filings and online searches for debt or loans to quantify where individuals had the largest money challenges.

When California cities were divided into three geographic regions – Southern California, the Bay Area, and anything inland – the most challenges were often found far from the coast.

The average national ranking of the six inland cities was 39th worst for distress, the most troubled grade among the state’s slices.

Bakersfield received the inland region’s worst score, ranking No. 24 highest nationally for financial distress. That was followed by Sacramento (30th), San Bernardino (39th), Stockton (43rd), Fresno (45th), and Riverside (52nd).

Advertisement

Southern California’s seven cities overall fared better, with an average national ranking of 56th largest financial problems.

However, Los Angeles had the state’s ugliest grade, ranking fifth-worst nationally for monetary distress. Then came San Diego at 22nd-worst, then Long Beach (48th), Irvine (70th), Anaheim (71st), Santa Ana (85th), and Chula Vista (89th).

Monetary challenges were limited in the Bay Area. Its four cities average rank was 69th worst nationally.

San Jose had the region’s most distressed finances, with a No. 50 worst ranking. That was followed by Oakland (69th), San Francisco (72nd), and Fremont (83rd).

The results remind us that inland California’s affordability – it’s home to the state’s cheapest housing, for example – doesn’t fully compensate for wages that typically decline the farther one works from the Pacific Ocean.

Advertisement

A peek inside the scorecard’s grades shows where trouble exists within California.

Credit scores were the lowest inland, with little difference elsewhere. Late payments were also more common inland. Tardy bills were most difficult to find in Northern California.

Bankruptcy problems also were bubbling inland, but grew the slowest in Southern California. And worrisome online searches were more frequent inland, while varying only slightly closer to the Pacific.

Note: Across the state’s 17 cities in the study, the No. 53 average rank is a middle-of-the-pack grade on the 100-city national scale for monetary woes.

Jonathan Lansner is the business columnist for the Southern California News Group. He can be reached at jlansner@scng.com

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending