MarketWatching wrote:
Looks like the testicular autoplasty didn't work.
+1
MarketWatching wrote:
Looks like the testicular autoplasty didn't work.
+1
Igy con huevos grande. Mas duro.
Eggs?
good post
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
muy loca,
Spin the way you want. Talk to Howard if you have a problem. He has been doing this since you were a baby.
Igy
I'm 3 years older; he wrote the article; if you disagree contact him.
muy loca,
OK, funny.
Igy
"This is not to say that buybacks don’t impact stock performance, and therefore the stock level of the indices (and price is in P/E). It is only to say that the direct impact on the S&P 500 EPS is limited, even as examples on an issue level are becoming easier to find."
- See more at:
http://www.indexologyblog.com/2014/03/07/buybacks-and-the-sp-500-eps/#sthash.bK9u8Kb0.dpuf
muy loca,
You win the point on composition of the index.
My illustration was to this: "Buybacks are a major component of the support and upward push within markets, and a lot of that has been fueled by the ability to get cheap financing," said Howard Silverblatt, senior index analyst with S&P Dow Jones Indices. "For the sixth quarter in a row, companies are buying their (earnings per share) growth via buybacks."
Igy
My issue was not if they effect them. It's that 4% number you keep using that was apparently pulled out of thin air.
Idiot,
No not out of thin air. My admitted misinterpretation of Howard Silverberg's data, stock buybacks resulting in tailwind of individual issue EPS by 4%, but not for the index. Market cap weighting of the index, with rebalancing reduces impact.
I can be the idiot investor for the day.
Igy
Can you show me the numbers that generate that 4% number? I just don't see it.
There's nothing to see. He made it up or stole it from someone else. He may try to divert by insulting you or throwing some meaningless numbers at you, but he can't explain it because he doesn't understand it.
Lemons,
Have a glass of lemonade and celebrate that I misinterpreted Howard Silverblatt's data.
Igy
Idiot,
Interpret it the way you want: Silverblatt: "Issues with diluted share counts for Q1 2016 and Q1 2015 EPS (Full reporting lags releases) -> Therefore adding at least a 4% tailwind to their current EPS."
Q1 2016 lower shares 338
Igy
I'm not asking for interpretation. I'd like to see the calculation so that I can understand better.
Idiot,
My error that "Stock buybacks continue at a rate that adds a 4% tailwind to earnings, " should not diminish the other points in the post.
Read more:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5369837&page=606#ixzz4Apn7nZhq
That is, for Q1 2016 only 36% of companies reported GAAP earnings beats, and that Wall Street like to tout the 72% that beat on non-GAAP. Or, the fact that Last Twelve Months non-GAAP earnings are $98.70 and GAAP $86.50, yet Wall Street is 2016 estimates are $114.72 and $106.00 respectively. Or, that the non-GAAP PE is 20.87 and Wall Street likes to quote that the market is trading at 16 times earnings.
The last time the S&P 500 traded at the current earnings of $86.50, it was 660 points lower.
The stock buybacks are one of the smaller market distortions.
Igy
Is this what the other fellow meant by you would be diverting? Where's coach d when you need him?
this is fascinating:
part of the reason for the rise in the national debt is because of a change in how the gov't accounts for student loans. Now they go on the Federal Gov't balance sheet. They didn't used to.
By Brooking's estimate, it's around 15% of the rise of the debt.
And it creates a weird accounting trick - they aren't counted in the deficit, but they are counted in the debt.
I have to think this is a good thing...investing in educating people is probably one of the very finest uses of public dollars, and it will create a revenue stream, rather than a liability stream.
weird stuff. Not completely sure I understand the issues. But one more way that economics will surprise endlessly, and what we think we know isn't necessarily true.
http://financials.morningstar.com/ratios/r.html?t=AAPLidiot investor wrote:
I'm not asking for interpretation. I'd like to see the calculation so that I can understand better.
Compare Financial year ending 2014/9 to 2015/9; EPS 14 was 6.45 and EPS 15 was 9.22. Shares 2014 was 6,123 (mil) and 2015 it was 5,793 (mil); a reduction of 330 (mil) shares due to stock buybacks. If no reduction had occurred; EPS would have been 8.72, ( Net Income of 53,394 /6123 shares) Buybacks boosted EPS by 5.7% ( .50 / 8.72 )