The joke is you criticizing a number without offering a reasonable alternative.
Think before you type.
The joke is you criticizing a number without offering a reasonable alternative.
Think before you type.
You are the sap destined to provide liquidity to the market. Buy on the dip next week.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
OK, a better fudged number would be 2,370 / 112 = 21.
Awhile back, the fallacy of this calculation was exposed on this thread. You might have been able to claim ignorance at that time, but now you are simply being dishonest.
Not really, the truth is you invest in fiction.
Maserati,
The following article supports your view.
Certainly should not breed comfort.
Igy
Yea, you have not only been there, you are there:
No, you think we forgot, but your lies were exposed long ago. And your math skills stink.
You'll get in the end.
That's pretty funny coming from someone named Ben Dover.
Ben There wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:OK, a better fudged number would be 2,370 / 112 = 21.
Awhile back, the fallacy of this calculation was exposed on this thread. You might have been able to claim ignorance at that time, but now you are simply being dishonest.
I thought Igy was a CFP. How can he not fundamentally understand P/E ratios?
"During the later part of the roaring 20’s, Irving Berlin wrote “Blue Skies,†which captured some of the optimism of the era that preceded the Great Depression. Unfortunately, untethered optimism is not the friend of investors, particularly when they have already committed their assets to that optimism, and have driven valuations to speculative extremes."
--Weekly Commentary, 3/13/2017, John P. Hussman, Ph.D.
Hussman's an idiot, but I'll bet at least he knows how to calculate P/E.
That is the current non-GAAP PE you dumb@$$.
For the brilliant Detector Dude, oh yea Pleazse, you Sleaze:
https://mobile.twitter.com/HussmanFunds/status/840956153353895936/photo/1
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
That is the current non-GAAP PE you dumb@$$.
21? You are clueless. Please just stop posting unless you wish to continue embarrassing yourself.
Prove otherwise one with head up rear.
Pleazse wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:That is the current non-GAAP PE you dumb@$$.
21? You are clueless. Please just stop posting unless you wish to continue embarrassing yourself.
You really are something stupid, when it is so easy to prove. The amazing thing is your gall to call others clueless. Go back to school buster.
https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fus.spindices.com%2Fdocuments%2Fadditional-material%2Fsp-500-eps-est.xlsxCell 114-F
What's with the insults?
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
OK, a better fudged number would be 2,370 / 112 = 21.
Fudged is right.
P/E is the ratio of price to earnings. For sake of argument, let's assume your 112 number is the correct average earnings number. But what about that 2370? It looks like you're using the S&P 500 index number there. That is obviously NOT the average price number.
Try again.
OK, I am not going to argue with an idiot.
Because you can't. Thus the insults.