Dear community, I read in a post that if I wanted to post a question related to a stock's fundamental analysis then I could do so here. I hope it's right. My concern: As a fresh learner, I was going through the fundamental analysis for BAC Bank of America on csimarkets.com (very detailed site but don't know of any reviews..) So from the principal page to its valuation and looking at the PE for TTM 3rd Quarter, it lists the performance change (in %) of the stock in quarterly intervals. First it intrigued me and now it really confuses me... For example, it states " Bank Of America Corp's current Price to earnings ratio has increased due to shareprice growth of 57.92 %, from beginning of III. Quarter " Though If you look at it's actual stock values and make either Q/Q comparisons or Y/Y in stock price % change, then none of their values like the one stated are true. This doesn't make any sense so far. And all my attempts to pull up similiar results from other sites turned out to be non-existant. It seems like their values are just random. Though I doubt that. What am I missing here? Can anyone tell me how they calculated those stock performance changes? Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks
Haven't heard of that site, but if its one of those websites that auto-generates fundamental reports, then there is always the possibility of a bug. Good quality fundamental analysis is not something you can automate, it needs an experienced person to work through the numbers, otherwise you are very much at risk of GIGO ("garbage in, garbage out"). I would also be weary of abusing the P/E ratio. If you haven't read Aswath Damodaran's writings, I would urge you to do so. P/E can be useful but only when used correctly and considered alongside more detailed fundamental metrics.
Be aware people are either fundamental or technical (the majority), very few understand both and then you have to take in to account whether they are looking at income generation (short term) or capital accumulation (long term). It materially skews the answer. So, a simple whois on your site shows it's privacy hidden, not an ideal start. Anyone sensible will use Yahoo Finance (yes hedge fund managers use it), or one of the other equivalents. A quick google search which took all of 30seconds shows up YCharts (which I know of), a respected site. Yahoo and YCharts (with it's historical PEs) show more or less the same number. Your site is way off, then. YCharts.com Alexa Global Rank - 33,671 Finance.Yahoo.com Global Rank - 6 CSIMarket.com Global Rank - 126,624 If you want to get anywhere in trading you need to learn to explore the data from multiple respected sources, especially with fundamentals. Did you know that to be a millionaire you need to perfect making money better than 99.75% of the global population, you're not going to get very far with fundamentals if you can't explore the datasets for validity, because the higher the quality the more perfectly informed decisions you can make.
Dear Tim Smith , Dear birzos, Thanks for both your answers. I had my doubts about CSImarkets.com To be honest since it was one of the first that popped up in google search, and seeing as it has so much detailed info I kinda sticked to it. Also, different comments related to different companies with typo-mistakes made me believe that they are not auto-generated but actually written by someone. Other crunches I had done on their info for Bank of America only, had turned out correct. Maybe it's a bit of both - as Tim said "Garbage in , Garbage out " mixed with some degree of reliability. Though obviously that's not good enough. Rank 126,624 for it then. Based on your thoroughness I'm guessing you got that info from a reliable source birzos. Well, I'm not planning on burning my head over it. Guess the Site would have been too good to be true. I think that's the case. But Thank you. Your help is much appreciated.
CSIMarkets is someone technical who is trying to build a fundamental analysis platform, there will be holes in it and often you won't notice on the surface leading to decisions based on misleading, but not necessarily inaccurate, information. Yahoo or Bloomberg are fundamental businesses so they may not look very nice, but functionally are more accurate because that is their underlying structure. The problem these days is very simple, everyone thinks they are an elite, exploration is beneath them and for degenerates. Which is all well and good until you realize you made decisions based on mis-represented data, then as no-one has exploratory skills they have to hide the fact until they can work out who to coerce to explore it for them, otherwise a chain reaction starts which leads to a meltdown. Most are too distracted with daily life that they don't realize until after it happens. Which is also playing out in the markets today. So you either need to go to the best, or do it yourself, or find someone outside of the chain, and oddly Yahoo Finance is one of the best, YCharts and Barchart.com (Alexa 12,720) are also reliable, Alexa are owned by Amazon. Then we can go in to the discussion how there are only 1million materially relevant sites on the internet worldwide, and given 99% of traders fail you need to be in the top 1%, which means as close to Alexa 10,000 as possible. But I'm an explorer of wealth by nature in a caretaking and income based society, which makes for a very unique, and knowledgeable life.