Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is actually even higher than the 2007 top. The consensus earnings figure you're referring to is the forecasted future operating earnings and not GAAP earnings.
It means very little to compare the number to historical figures since the companies have more latitude in the last two decades.
GAAP earnings are almost always much lower than as-reported GAAP earnings which are lower than "operating" earnings. Both Barron's and WSJ use the as-reported earnings. The forward estimate for the P/E uses the operating earnings. They describe the different earnings used in the footnotes.
that link verified my statement. 18x forwarding earnings is not "pricey"
S&P 500
24.52 23.53 18.27
Again though. PE's by themselves are not predictive of where the market is headed. That would be oversimplistic which markets are not. That said, the PE "argument" that stocks are "expensive" when we are at 18x future earnings is not true.
that link verified my statement. 18x forwarding earnings is not "pricey"
S&P 500
24.52 23.53 18.27
Again though. PE's by themselves are not predictive of where the market is headed. That would be oversimplistic which markets are not. That said, the PE "argument" that stocks are "expensive" when we are at 18x future earnings is not true.
You're comparing apples to oranges.
Using that definition of earnings means even less than the as-reported GAAP.
When they report the current earnings in another year, they will use as-reported which will be different from the number you're using.
There are no boring stocks, just boring people. Any stock or fund that makes you richer is not boring, unless you want to give it all up, live off the grid and have adventures in Darwinism.
Taking the temerity to speak for something like the consensus, in many of our humble opinions, most people should NOT be dabbling in individual stocks, .... let's not lose sight of the importance of portfolio-design.
I bet that people that are not jumping in-and-out of stocks all the time don't tend to do worse than the people who just buy a few funds which include the ETFs.
Most index performance is due to just five or ten big stocks anyway, but strip those away then you have another five or ten big ones and so on.
Most people invest to save for retirement. ( I assume. )
People won't invest unless they are interested. If what it takes is for me to want to take 80% of my portfolio(s) and just hold several to a dozen stocks and adjust them every year or so ( give or take 6 mos ), then I'll do just fine.
People are on here deriding others for their love of this or that sector or liking dividends or whatever
As long as people are giving up current consumption in order to save for retirement then if all they ever do is buy AT&T or Duke or P&G or Intel or whatever their thing is, they will come out ahead of almost everyone else ( who doesn't read this "investment" stuff ) who cares more about buying bling for their truck or a newer car or entertainment devices.
Someone making 3-5% ( infl-adj ) on $100k does better than Joe hotshot with $10k and a new Camaro. I don't care what his $10k is invested in.
Even if all you do is buy a gold coin every month and max-ing out your 401(k), you're still doing better than most people I've ever worked with.
I bet that people that are not jumping in-and-out of stocks all the time don't tend to do worse than the people who just buy a few funds which include the ETFs.
Most index performance is due to just five or ten big stocks anyway, but strip those away then you have another five or ten big ones and so on.
Most people invest to save for retirement. ( I assume. )
People won't invest unless they are interested. If what it takes is for me to want to take 80% of my portfolio(s) and just hold several to a dozen stocks and adjust them every year or so ( give or take 6 mos ), then I'll do just fine.
People are on here deriding others for their love of this or that sector or liking dividends or whatever
As long as people are giving up current consumption in order to save for retirement then if all they ever do is buy AT&T or Duke or P&G or Intel or whatever their thing is, they will come out ahead of almost everyone else ( who doesn't read this "investment" stuff ) who cares more about buying bling for their truck or a newer car or entertainment devices.
Someone making 3-5% ( infl-adj ) on $100k does better than Joe hotshot with $10k and a new Camaro. I don't care what his $10k is invested in.
Even if all you do is buy a gold coin every month and max-ing out your 401(k), you're still doing better than most people I've ever worked with.
Agree! It's not what you make, it's what you spend. Live a minimalist lifestyle and don't worry about buying big houses and cars, and invest the rest of it and have some fun doing so. You'll beat most of John Q Public......easily.
a penny saved is a penny earned but it will always be a penny less inflation . so unless you invest it wisely and get good compounding on it , saving all the pennies you can likely will not amount to a whole lot .
it takes both .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
