|
#44
| |||
| |||
| On Dec 31, 6:35*pm, "Gil Faver" <rowdy'sb...[at]xxyz.com> wrote: - quote - > I don't get this at all. *The price of a company's share of stock is what
It also depends on what price people are willing to sell.> people are willing to pay for it. - quote - > *It has nothing to do with $1 worth of
Dividends influence at what price people are willing to buy and sell.> dividends in the future. *Am I missing something? Dividends are usually taken out of earnings, so don't expect dividends to consistently exceed earnings. Retained earnings which are earnings in excess of dividends are added to the book value and can be later paid out as dividends, so high book values mean there is a potential for high dividends. Retained earnings are used to make improvements to the company to increase productivity and sales which increases earnings. -- Ron |
|
#43
| |||
| |||
| Gil Faver wrote: - quote - > > My understanding is that the price of a company's share of stock is that
She defined P/E above, not the actual price. Aside from that (minor)> > which a buyer is willing to pay for $1 worth of dividends in the future; > > thus, price/earnings. > I don't get this at all. The price of a company's share of stock is what > people are willing to pay for it. It has nothing to do with $1 worth of > dividends in the future. Am I missing something? mis-speak, I liked Elizabeth's post. Joe www.blog.joetaxpayer.com |
|
#42
| |||
| |||
| - quote - > My understanding is that the price of a company's share of stock is that
I don't get this at all. The price of a company's share of stock is what> which a buyer is willing to pay for $1 worth of dividends in the future; > thus, price/earnings. people are willing to pay for it. It has nothing to do with $1 worth of dividends in the future. Am I missing something? |
|
#41
| |||
| |||
| On Dec 31, 3:33*pm, "Elizabeth Richardson" <erich...[at]worldnet.att.netwrote: - quote - > It is that willingness to pay which is crucial to
Elizabeth -> acknowledge, willingness often not based on facts. Very nice description of Mr. Market :-) You hit on the critical points of pricing. I'd just note that the PE is the price divided by the earnings per share. Usually, yield is given as a percent of price, but the 'price to dividends per share' is useful as a comparison to 'bond price per annual payment'. At Wednesday's close, for example, the Price to Annual Yield on the ten year Treasury works out to 44.56. The reason for that high ratio is the presumed assurance of the interest payout, and the assurance that all of one's capital will be returned on schedule. AT&T's px to div ratio is 17.39, for comparison. The earnings are critical for an evaluation of the company's operations. Some are more predictable than others. As earnings increase (if they do), more dollars become available for dividend increases, and as long as the future of the company looks good, the price of the stock will tend to rise. Since stock dividends are paid from earnings (with few exceptions), the proportion paid out is called the payout ratio. A lower payout ratio lends more confidence that the dividend will be sustained during a temporary decline in earnings. With bonds, neither the interest payout nor the redemption price vary. Under most market conditions, historically, bond yields have exceeded dividend yields. With an emphasis on capital appreciation (or depreciation) in stocks, many people focus on the price of the stock, but that's really the tail wagging. The earnings are the thing to watch. You're absolutely right "that people will be looking to make money buying stocks that they perceive as being cheap" - those people are usually known as the "smart money" :-) those who have done their homework in estimating the future earnings stream, and thus have some sound basis for their confidence. - George. |
|
#40
| |||
| |||
| This logic is pretty darn persuasive, assuming I am parsing the sentences in the first post here correctly. I think maybe I would not use the word "poised," because of the example of the 1970s, for one, when stocks and P/Es alike stayed rather flat. OTOH, I can buy the notion of stocks being poised for a decade or so. |
|
#39
| |||
| |||
| The advice thread has gotten long and tedious. I think there are some who might be confused as to how a P/E is determined. Being no expert, rather a long-time observer, I'm sure there are others who can explain it better than I. (But that won't deter me from trying.) My understanding is that the price of a company's share of stock is that which a buyer is willing to pay for $1 worth of dividends in the future; thus, price/earnings. It is that willingness to pay which is crucial to acknowledge, willingness often not based on facts. It is not the company who determines the price of the share of stock as most shares are sold by others owning the shares rather than company owned shares. Thus, movement up or down in the stock market is based largely on people's perceptions of a future event, an event which cannot be forecast to 100% accuracy. The discussion has been not on the P/E of a particular company, but on the P/E of an index. Discussing whether the P/E of General Motors will go up or down is not what is being discussed in the other thread, but that of a basket of 500 stocks. Evidence is more likely to exist for the movement of a particular stock, but the movement of a basket of stocks is more likely to be influenced by human behavior, and human behavior has evidence in a historical perspective rather than current events. That historical perspective tells me that people will be looking to make money buying stocks that they perceive as being cheap and it appears there are many who believe stocks are cheap now. Therefore, based on the law of supply and demand, stocks are poised to increase in price. Elizabeth Richardson |