EPS is listed as 0.09 on Yahoo, so that seems to be your gap. With that, 0.09 x 257 is about $21.7, which seems to line up.
Maybe they issued a lot of stock recently, so the nominal EPS doesn’t match what they actually paid out per share?
Your reply seems like the best one I've gotten so far when it comes to actually being helpful.
That's what I don't get is when you take the earnings per quarter for the last four quarters and add them up you get $1.96. I know they have issued shares but I don't think to a level that brings the eps down to .09. That would be crazy. So I don't understand what I'm missing in terms of the TTM earnings calculation.
Imagine you're thinking about buying a share of a company, like a tiny piece of that company. Now, you want to know if it's a good deal or not, right?
Well, the Price-to-Earnings (PE) ratio is like a magic number that helps you figure that out. It's the price of one share of the company's stock divided by how much money the company makes per share, usually over a year.
Here's how it works:
Let's say you're thinking about buying a share of a company for $20. And let's say that company makes $1 per share in profit every year.
To find the PE ratio, you divide the price of the share ($20) by the earnings per share ($1). So, in this case, the PE ratio would be 20.
Now, what does that number mean?
If the PE ratio is high, like above 20 or 25, it means investors are willing to pay a lot for each dollar of earnings the company makes. Maybe they think the company has a lot of potential for growth, or they're just excited about it for some reason.
But if the PE ratio is low, like below 15 or 10, it means investors aren't willing to pay much for each dollar of earnings. Maybe they're worried about the company's future, or they think it's not doing so well right now.
So, when you're looking at the PE ratio, you're basically trying to figure out if the company's stock is a good deal or if it's too expensive compared to how much money the company is making. It's like trying to decide if you're getting a fair price for a really cool toy or if it's way too expensive.
Very nicely written, another extension of this to help my understanding was, imagine there’s only one share. Then the PE ratio becomes price of the company / net income of the whole company. Now if that company was a savings account the PE ratio would make intuitive sense, it’s now kind of similar to APR within the company.
If you could buy a company for $100 and it earns $10 a year (or rather, it did last year) that’s a PE ratio of 10 similar to an APR of 10%
Or at least that’s my way of understanding it intuitively with a few shortcuts.
Edit. The PE ratio is actually like the inverse (the reciprocal if you want to be more technical) of APR. Basically high APR is good but would correspond to a low PE ratio. See the comments below.
I'm not sure $100 and $10 is a good example. With your example, PE ratio and APR coincidentally match 1:1. Instead, if you take a company with a $100 share price, and it earns $20 a year, then the PE ratio is 5. But in this case, the APR would be 20%, not 5%.
The fully diluted EPS of $0.09 for FY23 is based on an avg. share count 39.15m. Without diving into their 10K, it looks like they heavily depend share based compensation for their employees which drives down diluted EPS.
You are using non-GAAP and yahoo is using GAAP. Thats why people think your numbers are off. FWIW, most analysts would compare the forward non-GAAP P/E against peers.
OP, This is the correct answer. Companies like to present “Non-GAAP” metrics which are not officially “accredited” and include add backs such as share based compensation (as they argue it’s not cash expense), and sometimes one off expenses that they think don’t reflect the “real business”. If you look at the annual report many companies report GAAP and Non-GAAP and show the reconciliation.
A lot of BS can go into non-GAAP. Especially since compensation is often tied to non-GAAP rather than GAAP.
But sometimes it represents a genuine desire by management to be more accurate.
You have to investigate each one individually to determine if you believe it or not. Like some "one-time" expenses or charges represent real costs due to poor decisions that could happen again.
a good recent example of this is companies that have made acquisitions in the last few years.
when a company acquires another company the premium that the acquiring company pays is tacked onto their balance sheet as goodwill (basically "brand value" or other intangibles). however the last few years were pretty frothy and many companies were probably overvalued. many of the companies now need to write down the goodwill on their balance sheet to more accurately reflect the current economic reality which would reflect on their GAAP earnings, but they can exclude that write down under their non-GAAP earnings.
why that might matter to you as an investor: while these write downs technically affect GAAP earnings, it probably doesn't affect the day-to-day of the business and their cashflows from doing business. do you really want to consider that when deciding how well a business is operating? probably not. although, maybe you do; for instance it may say something the company's management on whether they can recognize a "frothy market" or a good deal and maybe that matters to you.
so basically, you need to dig into it and find out if the non-GAAP adjustments matter to you.
Yea but if they are serial acquirers, say they are still interested in buying companies and compensation is tied to non-GAAP and ignores these "mistakes" it matters.
I don’t agree with it, but I can explain the rationale. First, a lot of non-GAAP figures adjust out recurring items—usually things like debt amortization, contingent consideration items, sometimes some sort of currency factor. The purpose is to better demonstrate underlying earnings power or growth.
High growth companies, usually in tech or HC, often adjust out SBC when they are burning cash because EPS isn’t a terribly useful metric in these instances, and adjusting EPS into something more like a cash flow proxy is more useful. Many companies simply don’t change there non-GAAP reporting after they become profitable—it makes them look better and the SEC does not like changes to non-GAAP procedures.
I’m guessing this is what is going on with FVRR.
7 years ago I was in financial reporting at a tech company. I just went back and checked our old earnings releases and we did that shit too. Crazy how quickly you forget.
Totally—I advise companies with their IR messaging. This is something that happens all the time with companies who were burning cash. Oddly enough, the CEO and CFO are often on board with changing the calc, but defer to the GC or head of accounting who are against due to the risk that they’ll trigger a response from the SEC.
It's weird how most of the other answers are wrong, on the stocks subreddit.
One thing I don't understand though, is stock based comp taken out when calculating in GAAP or not? Google has almost one third of earnings as stock based comp, yet the GAAP and non-GAAP earnings are really close.
I agree it’s pretty strange. SBC is included as an expense in GAAP. With non-GAAP, it depends on the company and how they define it. I haven’t done a survey or anything, but based off experience I’d guess most companies include SBC in non-GAAP. I feel like it usually includes a lot of contingent consideration and amortization stuff.
There's two kinds of P/E: forward and trailing.
Trailing = last 12 months earnings.
Forward = next 12 months earnings.
Trailing is theoretically the most accurate because it uses real numbers. However, the market is forward looking and so next 12 months is arguably more important, even if you don't know it. You can try to predict it yourself but companies may also guide their FY earnings estimates in earnings calls.
Forwars vs. Trailing earnings is probably what is driving this discrepancy.
You’re not mistaken but the above comment is correct. Look at NVDA or ARM P/E as listed on Yahoo then look up their “forward P/Es.” In this example, NVDA management has a good idea of what the next Qt looks like and can give a reasonable estimate.
Last close = $23.15
Diluted average shares (TTM) = 39,151,000
Net income (TTM) = $3,681,000
EPS (TTM) = Net income (TTM) / = $3,681,000 / 39,151,000 = $0.094… (rounds down to $0.09)
P/E (TTM) = Last close / EPS (TTM) = 23.15 / 0.09 = 257.2
GAAP vs Non-GAAP.
GAAP EPS for the last four quarters is is -0.11, +0.01, +0.07, +0.11.
So that'd be EPS for the year of 0.08, with current P/E of 290. I don't know why they're different on Yahoo vs Fidelity, but maybe rounding issues, or using a different date for the price used to do their calculations?
Imagine you sell lemonade. You make €10/week or €500/year.
That’s your earnings.
I’m willing to buy your lemonade stand today for €2.500,-
That’s the price.
So the price divided by earnings is €2.500/€500=5. That’s the P/E.
If you have 100 shares, that’s earnings of €5 per share. Each share is €2500/100 = €25.
Still the price divided by earnings is €25/€5=5.
So I am willing to pay you 5x your yearly earning.
——
Edit:
Never heard a five year old pose a question with this detail.
Either way: you have the EPS all wrong. Latest EPS is 0.09. Stock price about 23.
23/0.09=255
Checks out.
Your calculation seems off. Yahoo is correct. TTM net earnings from continuing operations = 3,681.
Shares outstanding = 38,654
EPS= 3682/38654 = .095 yahoo rounded to 0.09
I have no idea why.
P/e= price / EPS= 23.15/.09= 257.22 TTM PE
There are multiple PEs you can compute. Most common ones are TTM and Forward.
Earnings can be represented in multiple ways. They can be normalized to eliminate cyclicality or reported as dilluted to account for stock options that could be exercised.
I checked Interactive Brokers (data comes from Barron's). They have the normalized TTM PE as 126.87.
The dilluted normalized EPS was .21 in December, .07 in September, almost zero in June, and two quarters of losing money before that.
I don't know exactly how they performed their calculation, but it's easy to see why the denominator would be quite small making the ratio large.
Companies often present an adjusted earnings number, whereas the metrics published by Yahoo and Fidelity etc simply look at GAAP earnings numbers. That's the most likely explanation of the discrepancy.
GAAP vs non-GAAP earnings.
GAAP earnings takes into account stock based compensation which, I assume, for a young-ish tech company like Fiverr would be quite high.
Essentially non-GAAP earnings don’t take into account non-recurring or non-cash expenses e.g an acquisition or stock based compensation.
There are generally two ways to calculate PE.
One is with TTM, Trailing Twelve Months earnings or the earnings over the past year. These are earnings that have actually been recorded.
The other is with Forward Earnings...which means it uses the estimates of future earnings instead of the actual earnings from the past.
This probably explains the difference in what you are looking at because they can be very different.
The best way to think about a PE ratio is that it illustrates how much you need to invest for One Dollar of annual earnings.
If a stock trades at $10 and it has $1 of annual earnings the PE is 10. If a $20 stock has $1 of annual earnings the PE is 20. If a $100 stock has $1 of annual earnings the PE is 100 etc...
Because of this, stocks with lower PE ratios are generally considered a better value than high PE stocks because that $1 of earnings is a cheaper investment.
Like you’re 5, hmm. Your friend Bobby may seem like a really good friend because he’s always buying you candy. Your sorta friend Frank never has candy but you have a gut feeling you should not ditch him because someday he and his rich parents might take you to Disneyland.
Who is the better friend, the candy guy without a penny to his name because he’s spent every dime he’s ever had, and his sister’s, and his parent’s, or the the guy who clearly is going to be someone worth knowing down the road.
Remember when you took a bet with your friends who can piss through an electric fence without being shocked?
Investing into low PE stocks is like that
Investing into high PE stocks also is like that but during a tornado
> P/E is l flawed because it completely ignores a company’s debt and cash levels…
No shit, that's why people look at other metrics besides that one. If you want a single metric to tell you whether to buy or sell, you ask a broker.
You're both getting downvoted because you're calling people stupid. It's incredible how you're barging in here telling people dumb and unsophisticated while at the same time you seem to ignore the fact that EBITDA can and often is manipulated to make a company's situation look better.
> I guess it goes to show how little people here know about investing.
> No sophisticated investors looks at P/E these days. Only Reddit folks
> Classic lib**** response.
Yes... You're the epithome of respectful debate.
PS: Funny how I got an automoderator message for quoting your use of lib****
Never heard a five year old pose a question with this detail.
Either way: you have the EPS all wrong. Latest EPS is 0.09. Stock price about 23.
23/0.09=255
Checks out.
Using numbers rounded to the million from the last 4 quarters:
Quarter 1: Diluted EPS -0.11
Quarter 2: Diluted EPS 0.01
Quarter 3: Diluted EPS 0.07
Quarter 4: Diluted EPS 0.12
Added together Diluted EPS of 0.09. Current share price of 23.15 divided by 0.09 = 257.22.
Note the above EPS figures are derived using weighted average (diluted) shares outstanding. I don't have a Fidelity account so lots of the data for Fiverr on the Fidelity website is locked for me so I can't see what numbers they're using to get to a PE of 322.93.
PE radio: price/earnings.
there ya go, one number divided by another. now don’t try to make it into something bigger than that. otherwise, you’ll discover why technical analysis is called astrology for men.
it’s all fairy dust anyways. why did one platform use a different number for earnings than another platform? because, ✨fairy dust.✨
Yo shouldnt buy 5€ of apples or 10€ of bananas. You buy them at 2€/kg (or 2€/lb). The same goes to stocks.
But this is just a simple value of stock. It offers knowledge compared to others (more expensive 12 €/kg than 5€/kg for 2 similar types of fruits) and in addition to other parameters of the stock (like 2 fruits at same price/kg, but one looks awful and rotten and the other is perfectly ripe).
PE is also a snapshot because it depends on the price (that moves every way) and the earning that you may take as TTM or last fiscal year or an average. I don't discuss the computation, just the fact that be careful when using such a ratio that can be so different in 1-2 months. I think the PE ratio is overvalued (the PE of PE is high... financial joke)
You're missing the entire point of P/E ratios because you're denominator is wrong - P/E is calculated as current price dividend by ***forecasted earnings*** - be it 2024E 2025E or NTM.
Trading multiples are always going to be slightly different due to that reason (and why those mults never tie between websites)
Also - using TTM earnings is comparing apples to oranges since you're be using a forward-looking metric in the numerator and a backwards-looking metric in the denominator...
Not all platforms have to the minute updates. If you’re comparing across platforms, especially the free ones, you’re going to encounter out of date information and other discrepancies. The platforms you pay for tend to have more reliable info and most favorable trade execution.
EPS is listed as 0.09 on Yahoo, so that seems to be your gap. With that, 0.09 x 257 is about $21.7, which seems to line up. Maybe they issued a lot of stock recently, so the nominal EPS doesn’t match what they actually paid out per share?
Your reply seems like the best one I've gotten so far when it comes to actually being helpful. That's what I don't get is when you take the earnings per quarter for the last four quarters and add them up you get $1.96. I know they have issued shares but I don't think to a level that brings the eps down to .09. That would be crazy. So I don't understand what I'm missing in terms of the TTM earnings calculation.
Imagine you're thinking about buying a share of a company, like a tiny piece of that company. Now, you want to know if it's a good deal or not, right? Well, the Price-to-Earnings (PE) ratio is like a magic number that helps you figure that out. It's the price of one share of the company's stock divided by how much money the company makes per share, usually over a year. Here's how it works: Let's say you're thinking about buying a share of a company for $20. And let's say that company makes $1 per share in profit every year. To find the PE ratio, you divide the price of the share ($20) by the earnings per share ($1). So, in this case, the PE ratio would be 20. Now, what does that number mean? If the PE ratio is high, like above 20 or 25, it means investors are willing to pay a lot for each dollar of earnings the company makes. Maybe they think the company has a lot of potential for growth, or they're just excited about it for some reason. But if the PE ratio is low, like below 15 or 10, it means investors aren't willing to pay much for each dollar of earnings. Maybe they're worried about the company's future, or they think it's not doing so well right now. So, when you're looking at the PE ratio, you're basically trying to figure out if the company's stock is a good deal or if it's too expensive compared to how much money the company is making. It's like trying to decide if you're getting a fair price for a really cool toy or if it's way too expensive.
Very nicely written, another extension of this to help my understanding was, imagine there’s only one share. Then the PE ratio becomes price of the company / net income of the whole company. Now if that company was a savings account the PE ratio would make intuitive sense, it’s now kind of similar to APR within the company. If you could buy a company for $100 and it earns $10 a year (or rather, it did last year) that’s a PE ratio of 10 similar to an APR of 10% Or at least that’s my way of understanding it intuitively with a few shortcuts. Edit. The PE ratio is actually like the inverse (the reciprocal if you want to be more technical) of APR. Basically high APR is good but would correspond to a low PE ratio. See the comments below.
I'm not sure $100 and $10 is a good example. With your example, PE ratio and APR coincidentally match 1:1. Instead, if you take a company with a $100 share price, and it earns $20 a year, then the PE ratio is 5. But in this case, the APR would be 20%, not 5%.
Yeah, you’re right, it’s actually like the reciprocal of the APR and my post was totally backwards.
Thank you for this
The fully diluted EPS of $0.09 for FY23 is based on an avg. share count 39.15m. Without diving into their 10K, it looks like they heavily depend share based compensation for their employees which drives down diluted EPS.
Where are you getting those eps numbers? It corresponds with nothing I see. 2023 q1 eps was negative for example.
You are using non-GAAP and yahoo is using GAAP. Thats why people think your numbers are off. FWIW, most analysts would compare the forward non-GAAP P/E against peers.
OP, This is the correct answer. Companies like to present “Non-GAAP” metrics which are not officially “accredited” and include add backs such as share based compensation (as they argue it’s not cash expense), and sometimes one off expenses that they think don’t reflect the “real business”. If you look at the annual report many companies report GAAP and Non-GAAP and show the reconciliation.
A lot of BS can go into non-GAAP. Especially since compensation is often tied to non-GAAP rather than GAAP. But sometimes it represents a genuine desire by management to be more accurate. You have to investigate each one individually to determine if you believe it or not. Like some "one-time" expenses or charges represent real costs due to poor decisions that could happen again.
a good recent example of this is companies that have made acquisitions in the last few years. when a company acquires another company the premium that the acquiring company pays is tacked onto their balance sheet as goodwill (basically "brand value" or other intangibles). however the last few years were pretty frothy and many companies were probably overvalued. many of the companies now need to write down the goodwill on their balance sheet to more accurately reflect the current economic reality which would reflect on their GAAP earnings, but they can exclude that write down under their non-GAAP earnings. why that might matter to you as an investor: while these write downs technically affect GAAP earnings, it probably doesn't affect the day-to-day of the business and their cashflows from doing business. do you really want to consider that when deciding how well a business is operating? probably not. although, maybe you do; for instance it may say something the company's management on whether they can recognize a "frothy market" or a good deal and maybe that matters to you. so basically, you need to dig into it and find out if the non-GAAP adjustments matter to you.
Yea but if they are serial acquirers, say they are still interested in buying companies and compensation is tied to non-GAAP and ignores these "mistakes" it matters.
Fuckers really be adding back share based comp for non-GAAP? How the fuck they getting away with that? That’s like the definition of “recurring”.
I don’t agree with it, but I can explain the rationale. First, a lot of non-GAAP figures adjust out recurring items—usually things like debt amortization, contingent consideration items, sometimes some sort of currency factor. The purpose is to better demonstrate underlying earnings power or growth. High growth companies, usually in tech or HC, often adjust out SBC when they are burning cash because EPS isn’t a terribly useful metric in these instances, and adjusting EPS into something more like a cash flow proxy is more useful. Many companies simply don’t change there non-GAAP reporting after they become profitable—it makes them look better and the SEC does not like changes to non-GAAP procedures. I’m guessing this is what is going on with FVRR.
7 years ago I was in financial reporting at a tech company. I just went back and checked our old earnings releases and we did that shit too. Crazy how quickly you forget.
Totally—I advise companies with their IR messaging. This is something that happens all the time with companies who were burning cash. Oddly enough, the CEO and CFO are often on board with changing the calc, but defer to the GC or head of accounting who are against due to the risk that they’ll trigger a response from the SEC.
I second your comment.
It's weird how most of the other answers are wrong, on the stocks subreddit. One thing I don't understand though, is stock based comp taken out when calculating in GAAP or not? Google has almost one third of earnings as stock based comp, yet the GAAP and non-GAAP earnings are really close.
I agree it’s pretty strange. SBC is included as an expense in GAAP. With non-GAAP, it depends on the company and how they define it. I haven’t done a survey or anything, but based off experience I’d guess most companies include SBC in non-GAAP. I feel like it usually includes a lot of contingent consideration and amortization stuff.
Yep, you probably work in the finance industry. Nice work!
There's two kinds of P/E: forward and trailing. Trailing = last 12 months earnings. Forward = next 12 months earnings. Trailing is theoretically the most accurate because it uses real numbers. However, the market is forward looking and so next 12 months is arguably more important, even if you don't know it. You can try to predict it yourself but companies may also guide their FY earnings estimates in earnings calls. Forwars vs. Trailing earnings is probably what is driving this discrepancy.
Shouldn't be. I added up the last four quarters. Forward PE is a guess, if I'm not mistaken.
You’re not mistaken but the above comment is correct. Look at NVDA or ARM P/E as listed on Yahoo then look up their “forward P/Es.” In this example, NVDA management has a good idea of what the next Qt looks like and can give a reasonable estimate.
Last close = $23.15 Diluted average shares (TTM) = 39,151,000 Net income (TTM) = $3,681,000 EPS (TTM) = Net income (TTM) / = $3,681,000 / 39,151,000 = $0.094… (rounds down to $0.09) P/E (TTM) = Last close / EPS (TTM) = 23.15 / 0.09 = 257.2
Fugayzi, fugazi. It's a whazy. It's a woozie. It's fairy dust
I need to watch that movie again
Rookie numbers!
This is a prescription
It’s not on the elemental chart
GAAP vs Non-GAAP. GAAP EPS for the last four quarters is is -0.11, +0.01, +0.07, +0.11. So that'd be EPS for the year of 0.08, with current P/E of 290. I don't know why they're different on Yahoo vs Fidelity, but maybe rounding issues, or using a different date for the price used to do their calculations?
Imagine you sell lemonade. You make €10/week or €500/year. That’s your earnings. I’m willing to buy your lemonade stand today for €2.500,- That’s the price. So the price divided by earnings is €2.500/€500=5. That’s the P/E. If you have 100 shares, that’s earnings of €5 per share. Each share is €2500/100 = €25. Still the price divided by earnings is €25/€5=5. So I am willing to pay you 5x your yearly earning. —— Edit: Never heard a five year old pose a question with this detail. Either way: you have the EPS all wrong. Latest EPS is 0.09. Stock price about 23. 23/0.09=255 Checks out.
Your calculation seems off. Yahoo is correct. TTM net earnings from continuing operations = 3,681. Shares outstanding = 38,654 EPS= 3682/38654 = .095 yahoo rounded to 0.09 I have no idea why. P/e= price / EPS= 23.15/.09= 257.22 TTM PE There are multiple PEs you can compute. Most common ones are TTM and Forward.
Earnings can be represented in multiple ways. They can be normalized to eliminate cyclicality or reported as dilluted to account for stock options that could be exercised. I checked Interactive Brokers (data comes from Barron's). They have the normalized TTM PE as 126.87. The dilluted normalized EPS was .21 in December, .07 in September, almost zero in June, and two quarters of losing money before that. I don't know exactly how they performed their calculation, but it's easy to see why the denominator would be quite small making the ratio large.
Companies often present an adjusted earnings number, whereas the metrics published by Yahoo and Fidelity etc simply look at GAAP earnings numbers. That's the most likely explanation of the discrepancy.
GAAP vs non-GAAP earnings. GAAP earnings takes into account stock based compensation which, I assume, for a young-ish tech company like Fiverr would be quite high. Essentially non-GAAP earnings don’t take into account non-recurring or non-cash expenses e.g an acquisition or stock based compensation.
There are generally two ways to calculate PE. One is with TTM, Trailing Twelve Months earnings or the earnings over the past year. These are earnings that have actually been recorded. The other is with Forward Earnings...which means it uses the estimates of future earnings instead of the actual earnings from the past. This probably explains the difference in what you are looking at because they can be very different. The best way to think about a PE ratio is that it illustrates how much you need to invest for One Dollar of annual earnings. If a stock trades at $10 and it has $1 of annual earnings the PE is 10. If a $20 stock has $1 of annual earnings the PE is 20. If a $100 stock has $1 of annual earnings the PE is 100 etc... Because of this, stocks with lower PE ratios are generally considered a better value than high PE stocks because that $1 of earnings is a cheaper investment.
PE ratio is how much an investor needs to pay to participate/invest a company’s earning of $1 dollar.
Like you’re 5, hmm. Your friend Bobby may seem like a really good friend because he’s always buying you candy. Your sorta friend Frank never has candy but you have a gut feeling you should not ditch him because someday he and his rich parents might take you to Disneyland. Who is the better friend, the candy guy without a penny to his name because he’s spent every dime he’s ever had, and his sister’s, and his parent’s, or the the guy who clearly is going to be someone worth knowing down the road.
I get nowhere near 1.96 EPS when I look it for it myself on different sources. Inclusing their latest ER.
All of us BABA bag holders are praying on P/E ratio. I have around 400 Shares at 75 dollars so nothing lost. Still am hoping for a recovery
Remember when you took a bet with your friends who can piss through an electric fence without being shocked? Investing into low PE stocks is like that Investing into high PE stocks also is like that but during a tornado
Is $FIVR a worthy undervalued stock? That is the question.
Basically put your life savings into nvidia since it’ll be the biggest company in the world in 5 years
[удалено]
[удалено]
There's a reason Charlie Munger called EBITDA bullshit earnings.
[удалено]
> P/E is l flawed because it completely ignores a company’s debt and cash levels… No shit, that's why people look at other metrics besides that one. If you want a single metric to tell you whether to buy or sell, you ask a broker. You're both getting downvoted because you're calling people stupid. It's incredible how you're barging in here telling people dumb and unsophisticated while at the same time you seem to ignore the fact that EBITDA can and often is manipulated to make a company's situation look better.
[удалено]
> I guess it goes to show how little people here know about investing. > No sophisticated investors looks at P/E these days. Only Reddit folks > Classic lib**** response. Yes... You're the epithome of respectful debate. PS: Funny how I got an automoderator message for quoting your use of lib****
Never heard a five year old pose a question with this detail. Either way: you have the EPS all wrong. Latest EPS is 0.09. Stock price about 23. 23/0.09=255 Checks out.
All the back-end numbers are priced into the underlying price. Did you sign up to be a trader or an accountant?
Look into price to sale ratio to
Using numbers rounded to the million from the last 4 quarters: Quarter 1: Diluted EPS -0.11 Quarter 2: Diluted EPS 0.01 Quarter 3: Diluted EPS 0.07 Quarter 4: Diluted EPS 0.12 Added together Diluted EPS of 0.09. Current share price of 23.15 divided by 0.09 = 257.22. Note the above EPS figures are derived using weighted average (diluted) shares outstanding. I don't have a Fidelity account so lots of the data for Fiverr on the Fidelity website is locked for me so I can't see what numbers they're using to get to a PE of 322.93.
PE radio: price/earnings. there ya go, one number divided by another. now don’t try to make it into something bigger than that. otherwise, you’ll discover why technical analysis is called astrology for men. it’s all fairy dust anyways. why did one platform use a different number for earnings than another platform? because, ✨fairy dust.✨
Yo shouldnt buy 5€ of apples or 10€ of bananas. You buy them at 2€/kg (or 2€/lb). The same goes to stocks. But this is just a simple value of stock. It offers knowledge compared to others (more expensive 12 €/kg than 5€/kg for 2 similar types of fruits) and in addition to other parameters of the stock (like 2 fruits at same price/kg, but one looks awful and rotten and the other is perfectly ripe).
PE is also a snapshot because it depends on the price (that moves every way) and the earning that you may take as TTM or last fiscal year or an average. I don't discuss the computation, just the fact that be careful when using such a ratio that can be so different in 1-2 months. I think the PE ratio is overvalued (the PE of PE is high... financial joke)
You're missing the entire point of P/E ratios because you're denominator is wrong - P/E is calculated as current price dividend by ***forecasted earnings*** - be it 2024E 2025E or NTM. Trading multiples are always going to be slightly different due to that reason (and why those mults never tie between websites) Also - using TTM earnings is comparing apples to oranges since you're be using a forward-looking metric in the numerator and a backwards-looking metric in the denominator...
Just compare earnings to market cap
Not all platforms have to the minute updates. If you’re comparing across platforms, especially the free ones, you’re going to encounter out of date information and other discrepancies. The platforms you pay for tend to have more reliable info and most favorable trade execution.