Board logo

标题: Reading 43: Market-Based Valuation: Price Multiples- LOS [打印本页]

作者: wzaina    时间: 2009-3-9 16:54     标题: [2009] Session 12 - Reading 43: Market-Based Valuation: Price Multiples- LOS

 

LOS e: Explain and justify the use of earnings yield (E/P).

Q1. A common pitfall in interpreting earnings yields in valuation is:

A)   look-ahead bias.

B)   using underlying earnings.

C)   using negative earnings.

 

Q2. A common justification for using earnings yields in valuation is that:

A)   earnings are more stable than dividends.

B)   negative earnings render P/E ratios meaningless and prices are never negative.

C)   earnings are usually greater than free cash flows.

 

Q3. The observation that negative price to earnings (P/E) ratios are meaningless and prices are never negative is used to justify which valuation approach?

A)   Earnings yield.

B)   Dividend discount model.

C)   Dividend yield.


作者: youzizhang    时间: 2009-3-9 16:56     标题: [2009] Session 12 - Reading 43: Market-Based Valuation: Price Multiples- LOS

 

 

LOS e: Explain and justify the use of earnings yield (E/P). fficeffice" />

Q1. A common pitfall in interpreting earnings yields in valuation is:

A)   look-ahead bias.

B)   using underlying earnings.

C)   using negative earnings.

 Correct answer is A)

A common pitfall is look-ahead bias, wherein the analyst uses information that was not available to the investor when calculating the earnings yield.

 

Q2. A common justification for using earnings yields in valuation is that:

A)   earnings are more stable than dividends.

B)   negative earnings render P/E ratios meaningless and prices are never negative.

C)   earnings are usually greater than free cash flows.

Correct answer is B)

Negative earnings render P/E ratios meaningless. In such cases, it is common to use normalized earnings per share (EPS) and/or restate the ratio as the earnings yield or E/P because price is never negative. Price to earnings (P/E) ranking can then proceed as usual.

 

Q3. The observation that negative price to earnings (P/E) ratios are meaningless and prices are never negative is used to justify which valuation approach?

A)   Earnings yield.

B)   Dividend discount model.

C)   Dividend yield.

Correct answer is A)

The observation is used to justify the earnings yield approach. Negative P/E ratios are meaningless. In such cases, it is common to use normalized earnings per share (EPS) and/or restate the ratio as the earnings yield or E/P because price is never negative. Price to earnings (P/E) ranking can then proceed as usual.

 


作者: hitman1986    时间: 2009-3-10 00:22

1
作者: yy21    时间: 2009-4-21 13:54     标题: 哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈

哈哈哈
作者: dandinghe4748    时间: 2009-4-29 10:28     标题: 回复:(wzaina)[2009] Session 12 - Reading 43: Ma...

nice
作者: likui    时间: 2009-5-2 21:55

QUOTE:
以下是引用wzaina在2009-3-9 16:54:00的发言:
 

LOS e: Explain and justify the use of earnings yield (E/P).

Q1. A common pitfall in interpreting earnings yields in valuation is:

A)   look-ahead bias.

B)   using underlying earnings.

C)   using negative earnings.

 

Q2. A common justification for using earnings yields in valuation is that:

A)   earnings are more stable than dividends.

B)   negative earnings render P/E ratios meaningless and prices are never negative.

C)   earnings are usually greater than free cash flows.

 

Q3. The observation that negative price to earnings (P/E) ratios are meaningless and prices are never negative is used to justify which valuation approach?

A)   Earnings yield.

B)   Dividend discount model.

C)   Dividend yield.


作者: saifudan    时间: 2009-5-12 20:42

 thx
作者: queenscfa    时间: 2009-5-16 13:08

 what
作者: hkgee    时间: 2009-5-17 16:21

ThK!
作者: lenny_chen    时间: 2009-5-20 14:08

x
作者: leeyaoxee    时间: 2009-5-26 09:05

thx
作者: blustxz    时间: 2009-5-29 20:35

xz
作者: hkgee    时间: 2009-6-1 22:46

a
作者: frondzx    时间: 2009-6-2 13:04

up
作者: yunchuan    时间: 2009-11-2 12:32

thks
作者: ayumioscar    时间: 2009-11-10 15:44

平那你
作者: jrxx999    时间: 2009-12-23 16:00

踩踩踩踩踩踩踩踩踩踩踩踩
作者: maxsimax    时间: 2010-2-22 20:21

thanks
作者: Michjay    时间: 2010-2-25 23:54

thx
作者: duo1115    时间: 2010-4-28 08:02

see
作者: ztlbox    时间: 2010-5-3 04:34

dd
作者: suodi    时间: 2010-5-6 17:20

[em50]
作者: 沙胖胖    时间: 2010-6-5 07:00

thanks
作者: 梅子绿茶    时间: 2011-3-16 11:29

 aa
作者: vanisacarlton    时间: 2011-4-11 22:49

thanks
作者: 梅子绿茶    时间: 2011-5-25 01:22

 aa
作者: elea0930    时间: 2011-5-25 16:59

cac
作者: danforth    时间: 2011-5-25 17:48

dd




欢迎光临 CFA论坛 (http://forum.theanalystspace.com/) Powered by Discuz! 7.2