Down goes the Dow

Reality checker wrote:

Earnie(ings) Fact Checker wrote:

That is a false comparison. Everything you quoted is non-GAAP.

Need I say more.

LOL.

False. All numbers are "as reported" a.k.a. GAAP.

Agreed, the next six quarters will add up to $132.

You are entitled to your own prediction. I believe the numbers will be closer to what Howard Silverblatt has reported.

Reality checker wrote:

You are entitled to your own prediction. I believe the numbers will be closer to what Howard Silverblatt has reported.

More telling is the fact that the same Howard Silverblatt reduced the year end 2017 EPS from $135.95 on 3/31/2016 to $127.14 on 8/10/2017. Furthermore, the Forward Earnings are always a GAAP Number.

So back to work Mr. Reality Checker, because your reality is more than a little biased. Even a financial neophyte would have a hard time explaining the math of $26.99 going to $33 a share over the next year at this stage of the business cycle. Ain't going to happen. BS to convince Muppets like you that the market is cheap. Yet you foolishly ignore the 23.44 PE the market is trading at.

Really funny and typical of the DGTD posters.

Reality checker wrote:

Earnie(ings) Fact Checker wrote:

That is a false comparison. Everything you quoted is non-GAAP.

Need I say more.

LOL.

False. All numbers are "as reported" a.k.a. GAAP.

Do you think Igy was purposely lying, or did he honestly not know that 'as reported earnings' is the same as GAAP?

wondering wrote:

Reality checker wrote:

False. All numbers are "as reported" a.k.a. GAAP.

Do you think Igy was purposely lying, or did he honestly not know that 'as reported earnings' is the same as GAAP?

Does it really matter? The end result is the same.

Earnie(ings) Fact Checker wrote:

Reality checker wrote:

You are entitled to your own prediction. I believe the numbers will be closer to what Howard Silverblatt has reported.

More telling is the fact that the same Howard Silverblatt reduced the year end 2017 EPS from $135.95 on 3/31/2016 to $127.14 on 8/10/2017. Furthermore, the Forward Earnings are always a GAAP Number.

So back to work Mr. Reality Checker, because your reality is more than a little biased. Even a financial neophyte would have a hard time explaining the math of $26.99 going to $33 a share over the next year at this stage of the business cycle. Ain't going to happen. BS to convince Muppets like you that the market is cheap. Yet you foolishly ignore the 23.44 PE the market is trading at.

Really funny and typical of the DGTD posters.

It's funny that you accuse me of bias when I'm posting to counter that very aspect of your posts. There's a word for that.

Regarding the "hard time explaining the math", I would just say look at the recent past. The increase from 4Q2016 to 1Q2017 is higher than any of the predicted increases over the next 6 quarters. Or are you suggesting it's different this time?

Nice try but an incorrect interpretation. Energy companies were writing asset values down and taking losses as oil move to $30, and was reflected in 2016 puny earning. In late 2016 and early 2017 energy companies marked asset values back up as oil moved back toward $60. Very doubtful that scenario repeats, and most likely deteriorates. So nothing has changed even your distorted sense of reality.

First, congratulations on finally manning up and not hiding behind an obviously phony username. It's about time.

Second, my interpretation is based on recent history as well as the well-researched prognostications of people who know more about this than you and I combined. Aren't you the one who constantly touts the validity of market history? Either way, we won't know if it's an incorrect interpretation until it happens, so your conclusions are premature.

Reality checker wrote:

First, congratulations on finally manning up and not hiding behind an obviously phony username. It's about time.

Second, my interpretation is based on recent history as well as the well-researched prognostications of people who know more about this than you and I combined. Aren't you the one who constantly touts the validity of market history? Either way, we won't know if it's an incorrect interpretation until it happens, so your conclusions are premature.

First, you never man up, and always hide behind your various handles, registered and not. So no changes for you.

Second, in regards to earnings and market history LTM remains below Q3 2014. So the only thing that is a correct interpretationof market history is that investors are paying more for a unit of earnings, which has proven to be a poor strategy for investors. You can't spin that RC.

You've gone back to cherry picking. See above as to why that is so narrow minded.

As for paying more, you are correct. But those who bought "yesterday" are looking good. Sorry you and your clients missed out.

Funny. Yes I have clients, as opposed to you. You on the other hand are a genius. Exercising your wisdom in your E*Trade account, and the great bargin you got when you purchased 2 shares of AMZN bought on the 2% NASDAQ dip.

Again you project your fantasies onto others. That's a desperate attempt at rationalization. Unfortunately for you, it has been clinically established as a losing strategy.

FYI, companies don't mark up asset values, only down, unless they sell an asset (not the whole company). There is an exception for marketable securities in some cases but certainly not for a hard asset like oil and gas. There may have been a few sales of acreage in the quarter, but any gains were negligible in the context of the S&P. If you care

Reality checker wrote:

Again you project your fantasies onto others. That's a desperate attempt at rationalization. Unfortunately for you, it has been clinically established as a losing strategy.

The only thing that has been established is I am one of the few people here with any practical market experience. It is not surprising i rarely use my registered handle after despectable @$$holes like you that slam my employer, post using my wife's name, clone my handle, and create other stories that are gross mischaracterizations. You get the response you deserve. I noticed even agip has resorted to the same. What is clinically established is that you are a loser with few redeeming qualities.

Good night.

Djdgzyshshdhzhsvdh wrote:

FYI, companies don't mark up asset values, only down, unless they sell an asset (not the whole company). There is an exception for marketable securities in some cases but certainly not for a hard asset like oil and gas. There may have been a few sales of acreage in the quarter, but any gains were negligible in the context of the S&P. If you care

Not true. At the beginning of 2016 MSFT largely beat earnings on asset upgrade of their failed Nokia mobile business, previously marked down. Assets are written down, impairments, losses taken and adjustments made going forward, up or own.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

The only thing that has been established is I am one of the few people here with any practical market experience.

When was that established? Seems to me your arrogant fantasies are getting the best of you again.

Not hard to be more experienced than the numbskull who posts as "Investment Advisor."

So much for "good night."

Ghost of Igloi wrote: It is not surprising i rarely use my registered handle after despectable @$$holes like you that slam my employer, post using my wife's name, clone my handle, and create other stories that are gross mischaracterizations.

Good night.