Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The PEG ratio's validity is particularly questionable when used to compare companies expecting high growth with those expecting low-growth, or to compare companies with high P/E with those with a low P/E. It is more apt to be considered when comparing so-called growth companies (those growing earnings significantly faster than the market).
The average P/E ratio for U.S. stocks from 1900 to 2005 is 14, [citation needed] which equates to an earnings yield of over 7%. The Fed model is an example of a system that uses the earnings yield as a method to assess aggregate stock market valuation levels, although it is disputed.
Robert Shiller's plot of the S&P composite real price–earnings ratio and interest rates (1871–2012), from Irrational Exuberance, 2d ed. [1] In the preface to this edition, Shiller warns that "the stock market has not come down to historical levels: the price–earnings ratio as I define it in this book is still, at this writing [2005], in the mid-20s, far higher than the historical average
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Robert Shiller's plot of the S&P 500 price–earnings ratio (P/E) versus long-term Treasury yields (1871–2012), from Irrational Exuberance. [1]The P/E ratio is the inverse of the E/P ratio, and from 1921 to 1928 and 1987 to 2000, supports the Fed model (i.e. P/E ratio moves inversely to the treasury yield), however, for all other periods, the relationship of the Fed model fails; [2] [3] even ...
Typically, any expense ratio higher than one percent is high and should be avoided. Over an investing career, a low expense ratio could easily save you tens of thousands of dollars, if not more.