Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Earnie’s numbers are the highest distorted EPS numbers, about 90% non-GAAP, inflating actual company EPS performance.
The actual data would suggest Earnie's numbers are about 50% non-GAAP.
(.95)(.70)(.76) = .5054
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Earnie’s numbers are the highest distorted EPS numbers, about 90% non-GAAP, inflating actual company EPS performance.
The actual data would suggest Earnie's numbers are about 50% non-GAAP.
(.95)(.70)(.76) = .5054
Nonsense.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
The data Earnie quotes is from FactSet and. is derived from Howard Silverblatt’s S&P 500 report. The EPS data quoted is “operating earnings” which is a non-GAAP number. Shove your Oh Snap! up your @$$.
I quoted no EPS data, only percentages of beats.
Do the math wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
FactSet, like Wall Street, uses the higher of GAAP or non-GAAP. The FactSet number is dominated by the 90% non-GAAP, and actually more distorted, since the firm will use a GAAP number if it higher than the non-GAAP.
Are you suggesting that 90% of companies generate non-GAAP data each quarter? The numbers I’ve seen suggest it’s lower than that. Where did you get that number?
Who cares? How a company does its accounting has eff all to do with its stock price.
How much fiction there is out there has everything to do with the stock market. Short term, fiction inflates prices. Long term, eventually the truth comes out and everything goes haywire. Never, ever, ever, ever trust the accountants.
Do the math wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Earnie’s numbers are the highest distorted EPS numbers, about 90% non-GAAP, inflating actual company EPS performance.
The actual data would suggest Earnie's numbers are about 50% non-GAAP.
(.95)(.70)(.76) = .5054
It matters not whether the numbers are GAAP or non-GAAP. There are two sets of financial data and they have their own set of estimates. In both cases, comparing the financial numbers to their estimates returns roughly the same values. Earnie's numbers are fine.
Mein Gott wrote:
Do the math wrote:
Are you suggesting that 90% of companies generate non-GAAP data each quarter? The numbers I’ve seen suggest it’s lower than that. Where did you get that number?
Who cares? How a company does its accounting has eff all to do with its stock price.
False.
Fact checker wrote:
Mein Gott wrote:
Who cares? How a company does its accounting has eff all to do with its stock price.
False.
.
The usual fact filled, well argued response one gets from those who have fallen of the official narrative.
Financial Advisor wrote:
Do the math wrote:
The actual data would suggest Earnie's numbers are about 50% non-GAAP.
(.95)(.70)(.76) = .5054
It matters not whether the numbers are GAAP or non-GAAP. There are two sets of financial data and they have their own set of estimates. In both cases, comparing the financial numbers to their estimates returns roughly the same values. Earnie's numbers are fine.
Earnie’s numbers are from FactSet and bear little resemblance to GAAP EPS. FactSet name alone has a “1984” ring to it don’t you think? If you wish to be deluded into believing the market is anywhere close to fair value, by all means use it. Same if you are a dotard. But don’t try to pass that EPS as “fine.”
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Financial Advisor wrote:
It matters not whether the numbers are GAAP or non-GAAP. There are two sets of financial data and they have their own set of estimates. In both cases, comparing the financial numbers to their estimates returns roughly the same values. Earnie's numbers are fine.
Earnie’s numbers are from FactSet and bear little resemblance to GAAP EPS. FactSet name alone has a “1984” ring to it don’t you think? If you wish to be deluded into believing the market is anywhere close to fair value, by all means use it. Same if you are a dotard. But don’t try to pass that EPS as “fine.”
Allow me to rephrase for clarity of point: Earnie's numbers are accurate.
Financial Advisor wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Earnie’s numbers are from FactSet and bear little resemblance to GAAP EPS. FactSet name alone has a “1984” ring to it don’t you think? If you wish to be deluded into believing the market is anywhere close to fair value, by all means use it. Same if you are a dotard. But don’t try to pass that EPS as “fine.”
Allow me to rephrase for clarity of point: Earnie's numbers are accurate.
Ah, so is the closing price on BitCoin.
Mein Gott wrote:
Fact checker wrote:
False.
.
The usual fact filled, well argued response one gets from those who have fallen of the official narrative.
Fallen of the official narrative? WTF does that mean.
The real question is, how much longer can the central banks keep stoking the markets?
Yes, a good question. Apparently and yet strangely the ECB is struggling to find bonds to buy. The Japanese Central Bank is becoming the majority shareholder of several issuers. China continues to support businesses that seemingly would ordinarily fail. One would think there would be limits to the insanity.
Cry uncle wrote:
Mein Gott wrote:
.
The usual fact filled, well argued response one gets from those who have fallen of the official narrative.
Fallen of the official narrative? WTF does that mean.
Take a guess. I am going with fallen for.
quantitative geezer wrote:
The real question is, how much longer can the central banks keep stoking the markets?
QE was a huge success in the US. Now that it has ended, the markets continue to set records. Hopefully the central banks overseas will see similar success.
Santa Claus rally in full swing - new highs across the board. And bonds and gold are up.
Probably much of this is dollar/euro swings. The German political crisis is probably driving money to US shores. As if the US were a safe and stable place politically.
Anyway. Huge rally.
Yippee!!
Certainly not Igy wrote:
Yippee!!
Please! Don't be fooled by this optical illusion that things are good.
Hopefully, you are reaping the rewards of being invested in cash.
But what do I know? I'm just a Blind Mellon.
Muppet Mellon should have bought on the “dip” last week.