|
Post by agito on Jan 9, 2010 19:31:50 GMT -6
is there a place where you can easily view p/e ratios of any company you want?
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 10, 2010 2:41:26 GMT -6
Here's 1 link you might try for Bank of America. It does show a "P/E" ratio (of 190). finance.yahoo.com/q?s=BACYou can substitute any other ticker symbol for BAC to get similar information for other companies.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Jan 10, 2010 10:28:00 GMT -6
www.bloomberg.com has a slot for a symbol where you can get P/E. I bought some COP, Conoco Phillips, at 60 a few years ago, because I read they were recommended in Money or one of those, as it had a P/E of only 7. I sold it a year or so later, because I saw in their annual report one of their directors was a Bushie involved in the outing of Valerie Plame. It was 70 at the time, and now I see it is 54, with a P/E of 13.7. I don't lose all the time... GB
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 10, 2010 16:59:24 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 10, 2010 17:57:43 GMT -6
Use this prefix: finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=After the "=" put any ticker symbol you'd like to look up. For American Express, it's 36. finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=AXPBank of America, it's 190. finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=BACGoldman Sachs, 38.9 finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=GSCaterpillar, 28 finance.yahoo.com/q?s=CATCisco, 25 finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=CSCONot surprisingly, a lot of them refuse to publish their 1-year trailing P/E ratios at Yahoo Finance. Chevron, 12.9 finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=CVXHome Depot, 21.6 finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=HDDupont, 45.6 finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=DDDisney, 18.0 finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=DISGE, 15.3 finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=GEHewlett-Packard, 16.7 finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=HPQIBM, 13.43 finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=IBMJC Penny, 23.3 finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=JCPStaples, 23.1 finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=SPLSTarget, 17.4 finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=TGTAgain, many of the firms that are doing poorly refuse to post their P/E ratios on Yahoo Finance. (Citigroup, Sears, Office Depot, Office Max, and Alcoa, to name a few). In all fairness, some that don't publish their Price/Earnings ratio probably have a legitimate reason--because they have negative returns. Mathematically, a fraction that has a negative in the denominator is undefined. So when they put "n/a", it may well be for just that reason.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jan 10, 2010 19:29:21 GMT -6
are you fucking kidding me? Look at that red-line go through the roof!
Great find there UnLC. thanks on the yahoo link too- i don't mind do a little legwork on my own.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 14, 2010 16:04:36 GMT -6
Here's another interesting excerpt from a Yahoo Finance story describing the variable ways that P/E ratios are reported. finance.yahoo.com/news/Two-Unlikely-Sectors-Are-etfguide-803513461.html?x=0&.v=1by Simon Maierhofer Thursday January 14, 2010 " Talking about asset bubbles of any sort hasn't been a popular subject. Stocks are up and nobody wants to rock the boat, it seems. But since the first decade of the new century has been called the bubble-bust decade and stocks have rallied nearly 70%, as have many other asset classes, it makes sense to pull out the bubble radar.
Bubbles always have one thing in common. They rise and pop unexpectedly. The very fact that there are no bubble trouble worries, is actually one of the key ingredients needed for bubbles to form, grow and ultimately bust....
The rally from the March 2009 lows has pushed stocks into grossly overvalued territory. Overvalued, how so you may wonder. The P/E ratio for the S&P is only around 16, which is in line with historic averages, right?
A P/E of 16 is based on estimated 2010 operating earnings. [ i.e., it's based on wishful thinking, not any factual data.] Operating earnings do not include expenses related to marketing, layoffs, financing and M&A. Those are significant expenses not considered. Furthermore, projected 2010 earnings are north of $75.
Keep in mind that at the end of 2008, analysts expected earnings for 2009 to clock in at $77. In reality, actual reported 2009 earnings will clock in around $55 - a 27% downside revision.
Anyone interested in the real value of the S&P (and stocks in general) will want to take a look at the P/E ratio based on actual reported earnings. Using Standard and Poor's most recent top down numbers, the P/E ratio is 88.92 (28.15 if using bottom up). No matter how you slice it, companies are overvalued.
The P/E ratio analysis is important because every major market bottom over the past 100 years saw P/E ratios drop to significant lows. We did not see such lows in March and we are certainly not seeing them right now.
The implications are clear. According to historic patterns, new lows are ahead as there was no true market bottom in 2009 just as there was no true bottom in 2002."
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Jan 16, 2010 19:25:59 GMT -6
That S&P PE chart is precisely why no sane person should be investing in stocks.
The market and almost all valuations are totally out of whack and driven not by investors but by the big investment firms like G-S and the Fed that is pumping untold billions into various firms so they can prop up the market.
It won't end pretty either.
|
|