Regardless of Jim Rogers' history, my rationale for not getting into the US stock market at this point is that the prices are sky high and not justified by fundamentals, because:
- the market was hanging on to the hope of the Trump tax-cut coming true, after the hope of all other potential good news had been dashed.
- the market is largely supported by by companies borrowing money cheap and buying back their own stock, in an environment where the Fed is almost forced to keep raising rates.
To the credit of the elites, there are signs they are trying to deflate the bubble preemptively. (This is all very similar to 1928-29 BTW!) Though this is good policy, it's not a good sign for investors. The elites certainly know a lot more than we do. Either they succeed, in which case the prices should go down before they stabilize, or they fail, which means there will be a worse, market-driven crash down the road (and BTW the latter scenario must be why they try to deflate the bubble in the first place.)
Just about the only scenario that is short-to-medium term bullish for US stocks at these prices is that the elites succeed, in engineering a preemptive reset-by-inflation of the entire system (assuming they are pursuing this for this time frame, which is by no means certain.) In that scenario, it's best just to hold cryptos anyway.
I don't see the data backing you up on this. Price to earnings ratio of the S&P 500 as of May 2018 is 24.17 on a trailing twelve month basis (graph below), which is pretty inline with the average for where we are in the business cycle. It is above the
long term historical average, but a tad below the average since 1990 which stands at 24.43 (21.15 back to 1980), so prices are not "sky high" relative to the current era of earnings and especially considering that companies have only gotten more profitable since the tax cuts. The new tax savings will support continued capital returns to shareholders through buybacks and dividends in a rising interest rate environment, so debt will be less crucial for that and will mute the impact of rising interest rates.
My subjective conclusion that prices are 'sky high' is supported by my arguments lower down, which I hope you will address specifically, if possible. I didn't bring up P/E ratios for the following reason:
I understand the value of quantitative analyses in a supporting role, but the overall judgment of any asset value in this world must be subjective. Central banks are at the center of all asset values, and thus any bet on prices must, in the final analysis, be a judgment of whether a poker bluff will be successful.
Just like P/E ratios, you can bring up any number of arguments to say the prices will go up, or will go down. What I try to bring up are major fundamental factors concerning what the top elites are doing. If demand is fragile across the economy (due to a systemic debt overhang, for example,) the pricing power of firms becomes soft, and any comparison with past P/E values becomes suspect.
That is why, in situations like this, I prefer fundamental, qualitative analysis.