but i checked wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:Sure I post articles I believe are relevant, but most of my posts are answering people like you.
Iggy.
Ignore this guy. Forever. He'll go away.
You want Iggy to ignore Igy?
but i checked wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:Sure I post articles I believe are relevant, but most of my posts are answering people like you.
Iggy.
Ignore this guy. Forever. He'll go away.
You want Iggy to ignore Igy?
Earnings Scorecard: As of today (with 91% of the companies in the S&P 500 reporting actual results for Q1 2017), 75% of S&P 500 companies have beat the mean EPS estimate and 64% of S&P 500 companies have beat the mean sales estimate.
Earnie(ings) FactCheckThese are non-GAAP EPS numbers, masking stock based compensation from tech companies and write offs from failing businesses in energy, industrials, materials and retailing. Take Ernie's numbers with a grain of salt, or if inclined to buy, a shot of whiskey.Igy
Earnie wrote:
Earnings Scorecard: As of today (with 91% of the companies in the S&P 500 reporting actual results for Q1 2017), 75% of S&P 500 companies have beat the mean EPS estimate and 64% of S&P 500 companies have beat the mean sales estimate.
What is it about the words REPORTING ACTUAL RESULTS that you don't understand?
Earnie wrote:
What is it about the words REPORTING ACTUAL RESULTS that you don't understand?
Actual results are GAAP, required to be reported to SEC, signed by CFO and CEO as accurate. What don't you understand? Obviously quite a lot.
So if Earnie's numbers are 'actual results' and 'actual results' are GAAP, then Earnie's numbers are GAAP.
Transitive property wrote:
So if Earnie's numbers are 'actual results' and 'actual results' are GAAP, then Earnie's numbers are GAAP.
Problem is Earnie's "actual results" are non-GAAP as in non-Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
[quote]Earnie wrote:
What is it about the words REPORTING ACTUAL RESULTS that you don't understand?
Actual results are GAAP, required to be reported to SEC, signed by CFO and CEO as accurate.
Certified as accurate by some corporate criminals to be clear.
Can you support your claim?
Specifically, what claim do you wish me to prove?
That FactSet uses non-GAAP numbers instead of GAAP numbers.
You realize that doesn't prove your point, right?
Huh?
Wondering,
Here is the actual data from Dow Jones S&P:
https://us.spindices.com/documents/additional-material/sp-500-eps-est.xlsx
Compare that data with FactSet most recent report May 12, page 20. The FactSet data is wildly inaccurate and paints a picture far from the truth. Oh and even their non-GAAP numbers are inflated.
Believe what you will or you prove otherwise.
Igy
So Factset is lying? Really?
Earnie wrote:
So Factset is lying? Really?
Well Mr. Earnie, as you can see from the data I have provided from Dow Jones S&P calendar year 2016 S&P 500 EPS was $106.26 non-GAAP and $94.55 GAAP. Guess what FactSet says the calendar year 2016 EPS was? How about $119.31?
So what do you think Mr. Earnie?
I think you're saying FactSet is lying. Of course, that's crazy talk.
Embellished in rather inflated way.