A question for everyone ...
(1) Something seems to have changed in the way "The Wall Street Journal" calculates their P/E ratios for individual stocks.
(2) Their 'explanatory notes' for 'The P/E ratio' seem to be the same, "The P/E ratio is determined by dividing the closing market price by the company's diluted per-share earnings, as available, for the most recent four quarters. Charges and other adjustments usually are excluded when they qualify as extraordinary items under generally accepted accounting rules."
Are you with me so far? .................. good
(3) For the stocks that I have interest in, among other things, I track P/E ratios. Let's take SUNW as an example.
Since the first of the year, the WSJ has reported SUNW's P/E as follows ...
January 3 .... 86
January 4 .... 81
January 5 .... 81
January 6 .... 76
January 7 .... 81
January 10 ... 88
January 11 ... 87
January 12 ... 84
January 13 ... 87
January 14 ... 90
January 18 ... 91
January 19 ... 93
January 20 ... 97 ... SUNW reported earnings after hours
January 21 ... 51
January 24 ... 48
January 25 ... 50
January 26 ... 48
(4) <<Note: I am NOT raising an issue about what type of P/E's are best to use in doing analysis (trailing, next year, two years out etc.) nor am I raising an issue as to what is or are the best financial newspaper(s) or journal(s) to read ... although it would be interesting to know what "Investors Business Daily" reported for SUNW's P/E on the same dates.>>
(5) My question is: where in hell did they find the numbers for the last four quarters to calculate a new P/E on January 21, and thereafter, that says (a) profits almost doubled as of that date, or (b) the stock price was cut in half as of that date.
I know that I am only slightly brighter than the average office stapler, but before I make a complete fool out of myself by calling the regional office of the WSJ here in Boston for an explanation, I figured that I would give my loving sisters and brothers here at 'All About SUNW' a chance to enlighten me.
I know, 'twit' has been trying to do exactly that for years without success ... but please, humor me.
PS: I went to see Bill Bradley speak in New Hampshire this past Monday (in the blizzard), and watched both the Republican and Democratic debates on CNN last night ... and I confess I have been pro Bradley since before he announced.
But, in my opinion, John McCain and Bill Bradley are the only two who are even close to being qualified to be our next president. If I thought that George W Bush and Al Gore
were really going to be the nominees, I would have to start vomiting now, so I will be used to it come August through November. Just my not so humble opinion, of course.
Do you think we would even know the name GWB if his name were George W Murphy? He is a real "flammer."
Ken Wilson
... time for my morning nap <g> |
