Sentences with phrase «e multiple based»

This bears close monitoring, of course, but means I'm comfortable sticking with a 15 P / E multiple based on latest qtrly ex-interest diluted EPS of $ 0.1603.

These forecasted operating margins are important to investors who rely on using a P / E multiple based on forward earnings.

Not exact matches

Client inquiries about the appropriate P / E multiple to assign US stocks routinely ignore that margins are extremely high on a historical basis and have been stagnant for several years.

On the basis of P / E ratios, the S&P trades at a multiple of 26 compared to a historical norm of 14.

Nomura's price target is based on 27 times price to earnings multiple, lowered from 29 times P / E.

While the current price / peak - earnings multiple is already at an elevated level above 18, what I'll call the «P / E equivalent» multiples on other fundamentals are: 21 on the basis of book values, nearly 23 on the basis of enterprise value / EBITDA (which factors in the increasing share of debt on corporate balance sheets), over 25 on the basis of revenues, and 29 on the basis of dividends (largely because dividend payout ratios remain relatively low even on the basis of normalized earnings).

When the re-rating occurred, the profitable former high - fliers again traded based on P / E ratios, and the unprofitable ones traded as a multiple of cash on the balance sheet.

This range is based on a 12 month out multiple of 30x 2016E P / E and a tax rate from ranging 25 % — 36 %.

Specifically, the average P / E on the S&P 500 (based on trailing net earnings) was only 14 (with a median closer to 12), while the average dividend yield was 3.75 % and the average price / revenue multiple was just 0.90.

Even if they did, and you value the company at an appropriate P / E and / or P / S multiple based on those metrics, I'd be hard pressed to come up with a valuation much higher than today's market price.

Based on that, and flat earnings in 2013, a 10 P / E multiple (on EUR 27.7 cts adj dil EPS) seems more than adequate for the moment.

On balance, a valuation based simply on current metrics seems neither too harsh nor too optimistic — there are still plenty of higher TV / radio M&A multiples to reference, but I think a 12 P / E and a 2.0 P / S ratio (based on a 21.8 % operating profit margin) are pretty neutral values to apply.

When I look at the acquirers multiple basis I don't look at the P / E.

As a result, the distribution of S&P 500 P / E multiples was now its tightest in at least 25 years, implying less differentiation of companies based on valuation.

I submit there are NO valid price signals (P / B, P / E, TBV, etc.) to determine intrinsic value to aid capital investment while the Federal Reserve distorts the entire economy with: 1 - negative real after inflation interest rates and 2 — increases the monetary base by multiples with unlimitied quantitave easing for the bond market (ie; QE4 - EVA).

Despite its current 21.1 P / E multiple (and a rather amazing 33.2 P / E, based on diluted basic EPS), I'm sure shareholders will be reluctant to change their minds here, unless the business runs into some kind of trouble...

Stick - in - the - mud I am, I'll opt for / limit myself here to a 20.0 P / E fair value multiple, based on the $ 32 billion adjusted net income I derived above (though I'll assure you, I don't consider that an actual exit multiple).

[And that multiple's based on adjusted diluted EPS — use actual diluted EPS, and you're talking about a 37 P / E!?]

This would serve multiple purposes, of (a) weaning us from dependence on foreign oil and simultaneously depleting terror - exporting countries of their revenue stream, (b) reducing other pollutants besides CO2, (c) encouraging a more gradual and less economically disastrous transition from an economony based on a finite resource, (d) slow global warming, (e) move us in the direction of a VAT tax rather than an income tax (actually, personally I don't think e is such a great thing, but as many conversative groups favor it, I don't see why they would oppose a revenue - neutral tax on fossil fuels.