Talk:PEG ratio

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Accounting task force.

Finance & Investment Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Revision

My revision of this page needs someone to champion the "PRO" PEG argument. Any takers?

The example

The statement "Stock price after 3 years (P/E=15=P/22) = $330/share" assumes a PE of 15, but the long term PE can be different for other companies. I think this is a poor example. Shawnc 09:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is an historical fact that the average return is about 7.5%, and that the average PE is 15. This example is of a generic company that would abide by the norms. Of course the PE can be different for other companies, but this is because of investor's perception of how much they should pay for growth...exactly what I am trying to show here. For example, consider GE. For decades they earned a higher PE than normal, but eventually they too come to earth. You may argue that regardless of the long term average, the average today is not 15. But that is function of the negligible risk premium over inflation that all assets are demanding today. Something that will revert to the norm over time.Retail Investor 03:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this PEG ratio that is not based in math being spoken of? Why can't there be mention of one that is math-based such as (P/(12E(1+G)^2)) that actually makes sense. I didn't know where else to type this so excuse me if this is in the wrong location. P.S> long term average for PE ratio of the S&P500 is about 13, not including the recent bubble years that unduly influences it and for which enables the market to be inflated when reporters keep reinforcing a newer average PE ratio. Numbertruth (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about Division By Zero?

What if the Annual EPS Growth is zero? (not unreasonable.) Then PEG is undefined. What's the meaning of that?

Worse, IMHO, is if Annual EPS Growth is a number very close to zero, then the PEG could be extremely large. Since calculating or estimating the Annual EPS Growth entails some uncertainty, any value of PEG calculated with a small Annual EPS Growth could have a huge range of values and thus could be wildly misleading.

That's the danger whenever calculating a ratio with a small denominator.

Another issue is what happens when a company starts to swing from losing month to start making money? That means the denominator and numerator could both be negative or have opposite signs! The transition from small losses to small profits might create very distorted value of PEG.

(I guess this counts as original research, so I won't add these issues to the article...)

Clemwang (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does...

"A PEG Ratio cucky can also be a negative loe number" mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.45.182.9 (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on PEG ratio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040119002522/http://papers.ssrn.com:80/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=301837 to http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=301837

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]