Lately, the stock market has been grabbing most of the headlines for its surprisingly strong performance since last March. But commodity prices have been surging as well. Favorable macro-economic trends are powering both markets.

The S&P 500 Index is up more than 50% from its March lows. Meanwhile, the CRB Index of commodity prices recently broke above the 280 level making new yearly highs - about a 40% advance from the lows of last year.

Therefore, no matter what America's grim economic data may be saying, the stock market and the commodity markets both agree that some sort of recovery is underway.

I how no opinion about where stock prices are headed next, but I feel fairly confident that commodity prices will continue trending higher over the coming years. That said, many commodity markets have already posted such large gains during the last few months that some investors may be skittish about climbing aboard.

I understand this fear, but investors must remember that commodities are not homogenous. Even though many of them have soared this year, some commodities have advanced very little. Corn is one of the notable laggards...and I think it has some catching up to do.

My recent research travels took me to the West Coast to revisit acquaintances made during the July National Chicken Marketing convention. (Yeah, that's what I do for fun!)

My big takeaway from this chicken confab was that most of the presenters and professionals in attendance believed that $3.00 corn was way too cheap and that corn prices would begin moving higher. I trust these guys. After all, it's their business to know the cost inputs from the egg to the bird on your plate. But their bullish outlook for corn was a minority opinion at the time.

Back in mid-summer, when this convention took place, the corn crop looked likely to make it through the summer months in great shape, with no threats in sight to disrupt high yields. Consequently, corn prices were languishing near multi-year lows.

But as it turns out, the "chicken crowd" was right to believe that corn prices were too cheap. And the corn price charts from last summer confirmed the strong potential for even higher prices. Though my view on trading weighs heavily on technical analysis, I learned long ago not to ignore important fundamental information. At the lowly price of $3.00 a bushel, the upside potential for corn seemed much greater than the downside risk.

That's why I urged the subscribers of my Resource Trader Alert (RTA) to enter a bullish trade on corn. Over at RTA we use options to directly play commodities themselves - options help limit our risks, while still providing ample opportunity to profit.

I recommended a six-month-long option play on corn, designed to benefit from any strong up-move in corn prices. The specific trade I recommended cost just a little more than $1,100 to initiate. I was looking for corn to move to $4.00 a bushel by then end of this year. But as it turned out, we hit that target in late October, which caused the value of the corn trade I recommended to more than double.

That's just how quickly the commodity options can move - a 25% rally in corn prices caused the recommended corn options to double. By using options we were able to maximize our profit potential and substantially limit our risk.

The reality of fundamental trading on things like weather, planting intentions, yields, exports or crop disease is that the information does not flow freely to everyone at the same time. The farmers, seed salesmen and grain elevator operators use their legal inside information in the market before others. Often, price charts reflect this "insider knowledge."

In other words, a price chart can provide an early indication that a market is about move into a bullish mode, even before any broadly disseminated public information would confirm the rising prices. Therefore, when you combine technical analysis with the informed insights of industry insiders, you can shift the odds of success greatly in your favor.

After a brief correction, corn is on the rise again and trading just above $4.00 a bushel. I'm staying with this friendly trend for now.

Regards,

Alan Knuckman
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Corn Prices on the Rebound
• Wheat Prices Look Set for a Move Up
• The Aussie Dollar as a Measure of Global Risk Appetite
• Nervous Investors ‘Short’ the Market By Buying Commodities
• Macmahon Holdings Limited (ASX:MAH) Near a 52 Week High

Immediately, I think to the Price-to-Earnings ratio of the S&P 500 index, as shown in Barron's, and sure enough, earnings have been trending down for the entire year, which is, of course, bad news, as is proved when you see that the market value of the S&P 500 is down by about half in the last year, meaning that if you owned the stocks in the S&P 500 for the last year, then you have lost half of your money, and you are probably plenty upset!

So you would think that, you know, the P/E ratio would have fallen, especially since the prices of the stocks in the index (which are the P in the P/E ratio) have fallen by half, and you have lost half your damned money, about which you are still plenty peeved.

But surprise! Even though the S&P 500 index itself has fallen from about 1,590 a year ago (with a P/E of 18.9) to where the index is actually down by about half, earnings are down by half, too!

So this means that although the company made half as much money, and you, the hapless investor, lost half of your money investing in their stocks, both the P and the E went down, and thus the Price-to-Earnings ratio is still at an elevated 19! It's actually higher! Hahaha!

Anyway, the point is that this current Price-to-Earnings ratio of 19 for the S&P 500 index is so high (audience shouts out, "How high, Mogambo?") that it is still near where, historically, the market soon started down in a huge bear market, and is still high even after losing half its value! Gaaaah! I'm scared!

In fact, you can still have a high P/E of 19, indicating a high price, even if the earnings of the entire S&P 500 fell to a measly 1-cent and the shares in the index sold for a collective 19 cents! Hahaha! It's weird!

You can tell by their faces that they are aghast that I would be ruining their presentation with my stupidities, and so they immediately get away from P/E ratios altogether, and instead turn to consumption and interest rates, whereupon they write, "consumers have started a spending strike, so any business that sells to them is heading into a huge headwind. This in itself is probably enough to do the damage but there's more. Credit markets are at worst, closed and at best, much more expensive", which they prove by noting, "Spreads for investment grade corporate bonds are 550 basis points over treasuries; even worse, junk bonds are a huge 20 percentage points above treasuries."

They then cite a statistic that I have never heard of before, perhaps because I am an ignorant and stupid guy, but I was surprised to learn that "Looking forward, companies have no option but to slash capital expenditure, which is to say, slash other companies' earnings, a vicious spiral that carries with it so much potential consequence that the Markit iTraxx Crossover Index is above 1000 for the first time since it was created, inferring that a record...number of companies are on the verge of default."

Now, naturally I have no idea what in the hell any of this means, but I am always very interested in indicators that are in record territory, and I am willing to believe anything bad after hearing the words "on the verge of default".

Then I remember that I am in gold, and I am calmed. Whew!

Of course, I'll be ecstatic when gold zooms in price in response to such fiscal and monetary madness, but right now I am calmed. But really looking forward to ecstasy! And at these rates of monetary insanity, it can't be far away! Whee!

Until next time,

The Mogambo Guru
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• S&P/ASX 200 Clears Resistance Line
• Wesfarmers (ASX:WES) Increases Revenues But Not Earnings With Coles
• S&P 500 Index Total Return Was Actually Negative
• June Producer Price Index Indicates Slower Inflation in Australia
• U.S. Markets Could Rally on Oil Price Decline

Their initial stake, as a 2002 research paper noted, increased five times over. Now that's real money!

But roll forward ten years, and the total return on the S&P 500 was actually negative for the decade ending on 30th June 2008.

Yes, you read that right. For the 10 years to last Monday, the S&P index delivered less than zero. That's even after accounting for dividends (good) as well as inflation (bad).

US equity buyers just suffered a "Decade of No Returns" in short. Looking back to the late Nineties from the late Noughties, it barely seems possible.

The S&P enjoyed two strong bull markets during that time. The first added nearly 50% in the 18 months following July '98; the second delivered more than 87% in the five years to Sept. '07. All told, the S&P rose in 69 months out of 120 - and yet anyone holding the 500 stocks included in Standard & Poor's index just wound up with a total return of sweet fanny adams.

Whatever happened to holding stocks for the long term?

"[The Noughties] are well on the way to being the worst decade for stocks since 1930-40, back when things were really messy," says the Wall Street Journal. It cites a note from Richard Bernstein, chief investment strategist at Merrill Lynch, who spotted this Decade of No Returns last week.

Even "the somewhat more-bullish Tobias Levkovitch, chief US strategist at Citigroup, pointed out recently that the S&P 500 returned just 1.66% from 2000-2007," the Journal goes on.

"He notes that all of the returns so far this decade have come from dividends; price return is slightly negative."

Dividends remain crucial to stock-market investing, in short. Ever more crucial, in fact...and perhaps more crucial still than either Bernstein or Levkovitch dare guess.

It should little surprise us. But while US equity investors saw the S&P's valuation rise more than four times over during the 1990s, its 500 constituent stocks didn't actually pay out four times as much in dividends each year.

Indeed, the capital gains enjoyed by Nasdaq and S&P owners between Jan. 1990 and the end of 1999 came at the cost of decent yields offered to new stock-market buyers. That decade saw dividend yields on the S&P fall in half, according to data from Robert Shiller at Harvard University - down from 3.3% to below 1.15% per year.

Any wonder the derriere eventually fell out of the "Long Boom" at the start of this decade? By way of comparison (and as marked on BullionVault's chart above) the long-run historic average sits nearer 4.3%.

That's the long-run average running back 120 years and starting in January of 1888.

The equity bull market of the 1990s, in other words, stands out as something of an aberration...an "outlier" event as dramatic in its own way as the stock-market wipe-out of the 1930s. But while the Great Depression took stock prices so low, dividend yields shot up towards 14% per year, the vanishing yields of the 1990s needed the bear market of 2000-2003 to set things right.

Only, of course, it didn't. Yields slumped and stayed slumped as the Tech Crash drowned financial, industrial and retail stocks in its wake. S&P dividends fell lower right alongside stock prices. Even at the low of Oct. 2002, the dividend yield offered by America's 500 biggest corporations remained well below 2.0%.

Fast forward to mid-2008, and the gap between what you might now earn in dividends and what investors have traditionally expected remains very nearly as wide as it was throughout the 1990s. The upshot? Unless things really are different this time, and investors are willing to buy stocks that pay less than half the rate of inflation - and less even than US Treasury bonds! - then the current bear market might be expected to roll on for a while longer yet.

Why? Because to push this decade's dividend-yield back towards the long-run historic average, the annual pay-out from S&P stocks would need to reach a staggering and never before witnessed 19% - and stay there - for the next 18 months.

Short of market-wide "earning surprise", you can guess what that would mean for stock prices, currently offering a little over 2.1% per year in dividend yield.

Either investors had better hope and pray earnings rise sharply...or inflation in their cost of living goes negative...before stocks look a good income-paying asset class once again.

If not, they're likely to continue swapping stocks for other investments until the return offered by equities gets somewhere near to its historic average - more than twice the current level today.

Adrian Ash
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• When Gold Ruled the Earth, Part I
• Bear Market to Last at Least Five Years
• Lehman’s Turn to be Rescued
• Dividend Drop-Off: When Cushions Turn To Rocks
• The Problem With a Well-Diversified Portfolio