Started By
Message

re: Random Money/Business/Finance Thoughts Thread

Posted on 6/19/11 at 12:46 pm to
Posted by RedStickBR
Member since Sep 2009
14577 posts
Posted on 6/19/11 at 12:46 pm to
I'm tempted by Toyota as a potential buy candidate. For one thing, they're expected to earn about $6.50/share over the next 12 mos., giving the company a Forward P/E of just over 12 and a Forward PEG of .33. To give that Forward P/E some context, only once in the last ten years has Toyota traded at a P/E of less than 10 at any point during the year. The PEG was derived from an expected 5 yr. earnings growth rate of 38.60%, which is particularly attractive.

Comp P/E ForwardP/E ExpGrowthRate

GM 5.12 5.75 22.63%
HMC 9.95 12.85 8.70%
NSANY - 15.53 61.76%
F 7.56 6.39 8.56%

The average P/E for the industry as a whole is 12.81 while the average Forward P/E is 9.76, giving the industry as a whole greater expected growth over the next year than what was realized in the past 12 months. If the industry is going to see expansion over the next year, the best within it will likewise see the most expansion and, with the exception of maybe Nissan, Toyota does appear to be the best of breed.

What about production output? Don't be worried. Toyota announced Friday they expect to be back at normal output levels by September, sooner than expected. This of course means that current analyst estimates and projected revenues/earnings should be a little off to the downside. I expect to see some revised estimates to the upside over the next few months, which should provide nice catalysts for price appreciation.
Posted by RedStickBR
Member since Sep 2009
14577 posts
Posted on 6/19/11 at 2:48 pm to
Congress is outperforming the market, perhaps in part due to the fact that insider trading laws don't apply to them:

LINK

Here's the raw research:

LINK

And here's what the Congressmen like, specifically:

LINK
Posted by RedStickBR
Member since Sep 2009
14577 posts
Posted on 6/19/11 at 2:53 pm to
Also interesting, John Kerry is the richest member of Congress, worth about an estimated 190M:

LINK
Posted by RedStickBR
Member since Sep 2009
14577 posts
Posted on 6/19/11 at 3:20 pm to
Good article on the Whole vs. Term (Life Ins.) debate from WSJ:

LINK
Posted by lynxcat
Member since Jan 2008
24970 posts
Posted on 6/19/11 at 3:23 pm to
RSBR, you just ruined my day...those are some depressing links. Legal insider trading
Posted by RedStickBR
Member since Sep 2009
14577 posts
Posted on 6/19/11 at 3:28 pm to
GE looks somewhat attractive at this price. With all those bastards invested in it and with Immelt's ties to the White House, where could you possibly go wrong, right?
Posted by lynxcat
Member since Jan 2008
24970 posts
Posted on 6/19/11 at 3:35 pm to
HP caught my eye. They have the TouchPad coming out soon which should increase profitability (even if it is not a sweeping success).

The stock is down almost 30% this year...
Posted by RedStickBR
Member since Sep 2009
14577 posts
Posted on 6/19/11 at 3:43 pm to
I haven't looked into HP in a while. The expected earnings growth isn't exactly stellar and justifies a sub-10 P/E ratio, which could still provide upside if earnings increase, but it's certainly not a no-brainer or anything.

I think I may dabble in some calls this week on Toyota or on the corn ETF.
Posted by lynxcat
Member since Jan 2008
24970 posts
Posted on 6/19/11 at 3:48 pm to
quote:

I haven't looked into HP in a while. The expected earnings growth isn't exactly stellar and justifies a sub-10 P/E ratio, which could still provide upside if earnings increase, but it's certainly not a no-brainer or anything.


I haven't checked their financials at all just caught my eye on being down 30%. Even though these Android tablets have pretty much all been copy cats of one another, most companies seem to be selling them prett well. I expect HP to continue with that trend which I don't think has been valued into the stock price just yet.

I'll take a closer look at Toyota later...I'll be honest in saying you know the financial metrics much better than me.
Posted by RedStickBR
Member since Sep 2009
14577 posts
Posted on 6/19/11 at 4:02 pm to
Yeah, well a lot of this long-term talk is moot anyway. If I see any kind of decent profit in the short-term on any stock, I'm taking that money off the table. It's the only way to play this market, in my opinion.
Posted by RedStickBR
Member since Sep 2009
14577 posts
Posted on 6/19/11 at 6:11 pm to
Posted by kfizzle85
Member since Dec 2005
22022 posts
Posted on 6/19/11 at 11:12 pm to
I'm skeptical of Toyota doing 40% growth. I admit I have no reference for that, I just can't believe they are growing at that clip still.
Posted by RedStickBR
Member since Sep 2009
14577 posts
Posted on 6/19/11 at 11:27 pm to
I think the growth percentage makes more sense if you take the most recent quarter's figures into account, which was understandably way below par.
Posted by RedStickBR
Member since Sep 2009
14577 posts
Posted on 6/20/11 at 10:21 am to
Bought some Nov. '11 $45 CORN calls this AM.
Posted by kfizzle85
Member since Dec 2005
22022 posts
Posted on 6/20/11 at 10:41 am to
Yahoo Fin has TM @ a PEG of 1.03. No idea if that's wrong, just pointing it out, obviously they're using a different growth rate. Agree with you about the 40% growth thing having looked at the YF page for a minute; however, I'm not sure that justifies buying it based off of a PEG ratio in as much as I think it skews the PEG ratio in the short-term. I've never looked at their financials though, so I have nothing to add from the POV.

Lynx, I definitely think HP might be oversold at this point. I'm just worried about their ability to properly utilize the corpse of PALM. We both know tech nerds love webOS, but unless it has a "killer feature" to differentiate itself from android and iOS, or unless they really get ahead of everybody on a pure hardware basis (which even then is an incredibly short clock these days) I'm just not sure it will have large consumer success. I'm worried about that, and I'm worried about tablet sales killing their laptop sales, and them not being able to fill the void with webOS. Those are long-run issues though.

Posted by RedStickBR
Member since Sep 2009
14577 posts
Posted on 6/20/11 at 11:00 am to
On phone. Don't mean to sound short. I was referring to the Forward PEG being about .33, not the current.
Posted by kfizzle85
Member since Dec 2005
22022 posts
Posted on 6/20/11 at 11:13 am to
All good. Yahoo Finance is calling this the "PEG Ratio (5 yr expected)." What are you using as your source? I'm curious to know why there is a difference. As far as I can tell (without doing any legwork whatsoever ) that is a forward PEG as well.
This post was edited on 6/20/11 at 11:14 am
Posted by RedStickBR
Member since Sep 2009
14577 posts
Posted on 6/20/11 at 11:25 am to
FinViz.

They are both forward in the sense that they both use projected growth rate figures, but PEG uses TTM P/E while Forward PEG uses Forward P/E.
Posted by kfizzle85
Member since Dec 2005
22022 posts
Posted on 6/20/11 at 11:37 am to
Gotcha.
Posted by kfizzle85
Member since Dec 2005
22022 posts
Posted on 6/20/11 at 3:03 pm to
A bunch of that IFRS pension information just got the axe.

From PWC-In Brief flash from late last week:

quote:

Recognition of actuarial gains and losses (remeasurements): ‘Actuarial gains and
losses’ are renamed ‘remeasurements’ and will be recognized immediately in ‘other
comprehensive income’ (OCI). Actuarial gains and losses will no longer be deferred
using the corridor approach or recognized in income; this is likely to increase balance
sheet and OCI volatility. Remeasurements recognized in OCI will not be recycled
through profit or loss in subsequent periods.

? Recognition of past service cost/curtailment: Past-service costs will be recognized
when a plan is amended; unvested benefits will no longer be spread over the vesting
period. Curtailments now only occur when an entity reduces significantly the number of
employees. Curtailment gains/losses are accounted for as past-service costs.

? Measurement of benefit expense: Annual expense for a funded benefit plan will include
net interest expense or income, calculated by applying the discount rate to the net
defined benefit asset or liability. This will replace the finance charge and expected
return on plan assets, and will increase benefit expense for most entities. There will be
no change in the discount rate, which is a high-quality corporate bond rate where there
is a deep market in such bonds, and a government bond rate in other markets.

? Presentation in income statement: There will be less flexibility in income statement
presentation. Benefit cost will be split, either in the income statement or in the notes,
between (1) the cost of benefits accrued in the current period (service cost) and benefit
changes (past-service cost, settlement and curtailment) and (2) finance cost/income.

? Disclosure requirements: Additional disclosures are required to present the
characteristics of benefit plans, the amounts recognized in the financial statements, and
the risks arising from defined benefit plans and multi-employer plans. The objectives
and principles underlying disclosures are provided; these are likely to require more
extensive disclosures and more judgment to determine what is required.

Distinction between ‘short-term’ and ‘other long-term’ benefits: The distinction
between short- and long-term benefits is based on when payment is expected, not when
payment can be demanded. A long-term benefit liability could therefore be presented as
current if the entity expects to settle it after more than one year, but does not have the
unconditional ability to defer settlement for more than one year.

? Treatment of expenses and taxes relating to employee benefit plans: Taxes related to
benefit plans should be included either in the return on assets or the calculation of the
benefit obligation, depending on their nature. Investment management costs should
reduce the actual return on assets. Other expenses should be recognized as incurred.
This should improve comparability but might complicate the actuarial calculations.

? Termination benefits: Any benefit that requires future-service is not a termination
benefit. This will reduce the number of arrangements classified as termination benefits.
A liability for a termination benefit is recognized when the entity can no longer
withdraw the offer of the termination benefit or recognizes any related restructuring
costs. This might delay the recognition of voluntary termination benefits.

? Risk or cost sharing features: The measurement of obligations should reflect the
substance of arrangements where the employer’s exposure is limited or where the
employer can use contributions from employees to meet a deficit. This might reduce the
defined benefit obligation in some situations. Determining the substance of such
arrangements will require judgment and significant disclosure.


Between the two of them, it really never stops.
Jump to page
Page First 11 12 13 14 15 ... 69
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 13 of 69Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram