Talk:P/E ratio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles..
Start	rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
High	rated as High-importance on the importance scale

Contents 1 Earnings and income are different 2 Stock advice from an encyclopedia 3 Market P/E histories 4 Conglomerates 5 P/E guideline table 6 Recent historic values 7 Referring to "we"

[edit] Earnings and income are different

This page currently contains the following text:

The Earnings per share (denominator) is the Net income of the company for the most recent 12 month period, divided by number of shares outstanding.

I'm no accountant, but earnings and income are two different things, aren't they? So this sentence can't be correct as it stands. Can someone fix it? --P3d0 14:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

no

P3d0 :
It seems that earnings and net income is same thing, no need to fix it. From Yahoo Finance Glossary

Earnings
Net income for the company during a period.
Net income
The company's total earnings, reflecting revenues adjusted for costs of doing business, depreciation, interest, taxes and other expenses.

Vcp 08:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stock advice from an encyclopedia

I wonder why some people feel uncomfortable with the clear-elaborated article. Daniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.18.25.35 (talk) 09:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone else uncomfortable with how much of this article tries to be stock trading instruction? The sentences containing "you" are particularly explicit in this regard. Not only is all of it POV, but it is also outside the scope of a reference work. Acceptable for Wikibooks maybe, but not Wikipedia.

I liked the article. It explained the P/E very clearly. 02:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment. I used the same argument to get rid of a lot of the advice on the Texas hold 'em page. --P3d0 14:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think the use of the word 'you' implies POV at all. Nor does make this into a How-to manual. I left messages at the home of both these contributors asking which POV they disagreed with. Neither of them has given any example. I say that if you don't have something to contribute you should.......Retail Investor 01:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think using the word "you" is encyclopedic. Rm999

This is simply using the information as an example....The reference in and of itself is related to something users of financial markets are interested in comprehending. In this case, "you" is implicit and does not create any need for change.Scarlson1 04:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)scarlson1

I agree, this does too much interpretation of what a P/E ratio 'means', when it should be about what P/E ratio 'is'. The opinion of its value unless taken from a sourced-piece I would say violates the 'no original research' policy of wikipedia. ny156uk 18:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV flag added. Edits to neutralize welcome.--Gregalton 20:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Market P/E histories

Does anyone have a link we could include that points to average market P/E ratios during various downturns? It would be very helpful to see real-life examples of where P/E ratios have ended up in the depths of a recession/depression. --RayBirks 00:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

P/E declining after a peak may sometimes suggests a downturn, but not always as Stocks for the Long Run argues. For historical data see http://www.investopedia.com/articles/technical/04/020404.asp At the very bottom market P/E has been below 10, but don't expect to get there anytime soon. --Chakreshsinghai (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Upon further thinking, I realized that you had a very good question. I have just added some data.--Chakreshsinghai (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conglomerates

I like this article in general -- excellent introduction -- but

The primary motivation for building conglomerates is to diversify earnings so that they go up steadily over time.

seems like rather a big assertion. There are other motivations: scale, market power, and so on. I would like some evidence. Subsolar 03:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] P/E guideline table

I think the table given can be quite misleading. A P/E higher than 17 can be quite justifiable for a growth stock(for example when its PEG is less than one). Please see earnings growth--Chakreshsinghai (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What is also misleading is that it does not show in parallel the real riskless rate (= 10 years sovereign bonds interest rate, at the same dates, deflated by the inflation index in the same periods) which is a key parameters in security valuation. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent historic values

Can the table color be changed into something less hideous ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.113.229.146 (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Referring to "we"

Many parts of the article say things such as "in reality, we calculate P/E using". Shouldn't it read, for example, "In reality, P/E is calculated using". After all, who is we? And why did we, who apparently does this calculating, write the article? Otherwise, good article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morphling89 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)