• Ghost of Igloi
      registered
      • RE: Earnie(ings) FactCheck 3/12/2017 4:49PM - in reply to Pleazse
      • Ghost of Igloi
        registered
      • Pleazse wrote:
        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.
        There is no average price number you numbskull. I gave you the data straight from the record keeper at Dow Jone S&P. You are 1) trolling with the same idiotic metric you tried to use before, or 2) truly a demented person that can't put 2 and 2 together, or perhaps 3) both 1 and 2.
    • agip
      registered
      • RE: Earnie(ings) FactCheck 3/13/2017 9:26AM - in reply to Joe Beet Soup
      • agip
        registered
      • Over the last year long term bonds have been the place to be despite a rise in rates. Because the higher coupon has bailed out investors.

        Short: +0.73%
        Inter: +0.59%
        Long: +1.34%

        I read a study on this - even in times of rising rates bond funds tend to make money, because of the coupon and constant buying bonds that pay more interest.

        but a sharp rise in rates would hurt the longer term bonds sure.

        But I do think it is fascinating how the conventional wisdom has been to own short term bonds and that has been wrong, on a peformance basis anyway. Prob not on a risk-adjusted performance basis.
    • agip
      registered
      • RE: Earnie(ings) FactCheck 3/13/2017 9:40AM - in reply to Gruntz
      • agip
        registered
      • Gruntz wrote:
        Not keeping up with inflation.
        truth.

        But my point is this:

        the 10 year yield went from around 1.95% a year ago to 2.58% now.

        I think most people would expect a 50% rise in the rate of the 10 year to spell big losses for interm and long term bonds. That's the conventional wisdom.

        But that didn't happen - in fact both made money. And they made more money than short term bonds, which is where people tend to hide out during fed rate hikes.

        So what now, going forward? Do we hide out in short term bonds, expecting more rate rises? Or do we be brave and buy inter and long term bonds, betting that the pattern of the last year will continue?
    • Ghost of Igloi
      registered
      • RE: Earnie(ings) FactCheck 3/13/2017 9:57AM - in reply to agip
      • Ghost of Igloi
        registered
      • agip,

        BLV lost -13.65 in NAV from July 2016 until today. In July 2016 the 10 Year Treasury was 1.35% rising to 2.6%, or 1.25%. Negative NAV pricing may accelerate if the market prices a steeper rise in rates. I can see how that may not happen, especially if the stock market struggles.

        Igy
    • agip
      registered
      • RE: Earnie(ings) FactCheck 3/13/2017 10:03AM - in reply to Ghost of Igloi
      • agip
        registered
      • Ghost of Igloi wrote:
        agip,

        BLV lost -13.65 in NAV from July 2016 until today. In July 2016 the 10 Year Treasury was 1.35% rising to 2.6%, or 1.25%. Negative NAV pricing may accelerate if the market prices a steeper rise in rates. I can see how that may not happen, especially if the stock market struggles.

        Igy
        the coupon! the coupon!
    • Vai
      • RE: Earnie(ings) FactCheck 3/13/2017 10:03AM - in reply to Ghost of Igloi
      • Vai
      • Ghost of Igloi wrote:
        There is no average price number you numbskull.

        I'm pretty sure that was his point. You can't calculate a PE without a price value as you were trying to do.
    • Ghost of Igloi
      registered
    • Ghost of Igloi
      registered
      • RE: Earnie(ings) FactCheck 3/13/2017 10:33AM - in reply to Vai
      • Ghost of Igloi
        registered
      • OK wise one, I will spell it out for you in plainly.

        Take careful notes.

        Price = Current S&P 500 Index level

        Earnings = projected Q4 2016 non-GAAP EPS x 4

        PE = Price / EPS

        21 = 2370 / 112

        Of course if I really wanted to burst YOUR BUBLE, I would use GAAP. Which would be:

        24 = 2370 / 96
    • Ghost of Igloi
      registered
      • RE: Earnie(ings) FactCheck 3/13/2017 10:51AM - in reply to Hiram
      • Ghost of Igloi
        registered
      • Yes, and go to your room without lunch, write 100 times "Hiram is a moron."
    • Pleazse
      • RE: Earnie(ings) FactCheck 3/13/2017 10:52AM - in reply to Pleazse
      • Pleazse
      • Pleazse wrote:
        Because you can't. Thus the insults.
        You can always tell The Detector Guy no matter what name he posts under because, while he may not know anything and is not in the least an independent or creative thinker or writer, he is world class in being obnoxious. A clear identifier/
    • Ghost of Igloi
      registered
      • RE: Earnie(ings) FactCheck 3/13/2017 11:25AM - in reply to Pleazse
      • Ghost of Igloi
        registered
      • What is the Detector Dude's story? Certainly seems detached from reality. Maybe really does live in mommy's basement. A diet of Top Ramen and Dominos week day $5 pizzas can do one in.
    • idiot investor
      • RE: Earnie(ings) FactCheck 3/13/2017 11:30AM - in reply to Ghost of Igloi
      • idiot investor
      • Ghost of Igloi wrote:
        OK wise one, I will spell it out for you in plainly.

        Take careful notes.

        Price = Current S&P 500 Index level

        Earnings = projected Q4 2016 non-GAAP EPS x 4

        PE = Price / EPS

        21 = 2370 / 112

        Of course if I really wanted to burst YOUR BUBLE, I would use GAAP. Which would be:

        24 = 2370 / 96
        The link you posted earlier says it's 26.63. Something's off somewhere.