How to calculate PE ratios for indices such as DJIA?
The official source for the Dow Jones P/E is Dow Jones.  Unfortunately, the P/E is behind a pay-wall and not included in the free registration. The easiest (but only approximate) solution is to track against an equivalent ETF.  Here's  a list of popular indexes with an equivalent ETF. Source You could look up the P/E of an equivalent ETF, or break the ETF into components and look those up. Each index has its own methodology, usually weighted by market cap.  See here: http://www.amex.com/etf/prodInf/EtAllhold.jsp?Product_Symbol=DIA One thing to keep in mind when calculating P/E on an index is that the E (earnings) can be very close to zero.  For example, if you had a stock trading at $100 and the earnings per share was $.01, this would result in a P/E of 10,000, which would dominate the P/E you calculate for the index.  Of course negative earnings also skew results. One way to get around this would be to calculate the average price of the index and the earnings per share of the index separately, and then divide the average price of the index by the average earnings per share of the index. Different sources calculate these numbers in different ways.  Some throw out negative P/Es (or earnings per share) and some don't.  Some calculate the price and earnings per share separate and some don't, etc... You'll need to understand how they are calculating the number in order to compare it to PEs of individual companies.
"Stock market indexes are generally based on market capitalization, which is not the same as GDP.  GDP includes the value of all goods and services produced in a country; this includes a large amount of small-scale production which may not be reflected in stock market capitalizations.  Thus the ratio between countries' GDPs may not be the same as the ratio of their total market capitalization.  For instance, US GDP is approximately 3.8 times as much as Japan's (see here), but US total market cap is about 5.5 as much as Japan's (see here). The discrepancy can be even more severe when comparing ""developed"" economies like the US to ""developing"" (or ""less-developed"") economies in which there is less participation in large-scale financial systems like stock markets.  For instance, US GDP is roughly 10 times that of Brazil, but US total market cap is roughly 36 times that of Brazil.  Switzerland has a total market cap nearly double that of Brazil despite its total GDP being less than half of Brazil's.  Since the all-world index includes all investable economies, it will include many economies whose share of market cap is disproportionately lower than their share of GDP. In addition, according to the fact sheet you linked to, that index tracks only large- and mid-cap stocks.  This will further skew the weighting to developed economies and to the US in particular, since the US has a disproportionate share of the largest companies. Obviously one would need to take a more detailed look at all the weights to determine if these factors account precisely for the level of discrepancy you see in this particular index.  But hopefully that explanation gives an idea of why the US might be weighted more heavily in a stock index than it is in raw GDP." Efficient Frontier has an article from years ago about the small-cap and value premiums out there that would be worth noting here using the Fama and French data. Eugene Fama and Kenneth French (F/F) have shown that one can explain   almost all of the returns of equity portfolios based on only three   factors: market exposure, market capitalization (size), and   price-to-book (value). Wikipedia link to the factor model which was the result of the F/F research. "I am guessing that when you say ""FRENCH40"" and ""GERMAN30"" you are referring to the main French and German stock market indices.  The main French index is the CAC-40 with its 40 constituent companies. The main German index is the DAX, which has 30 constituents.  The US30 is presumably the Dow Jones Index which also has 30 constituents. These are stock market indices that are used to measure the value of a basket of shares (the index constituents).  As the value of the constituents change, so does the value of the index. There are various financial instruments that allow investors to profit from movements in these indices.  It is those people who invest in these instruments that profit from price movements.  The constituent companies receive no direct benefit or profit from investor trading in these instruments, nor does the government." The S&P 500 is a market index.  The P/E data you're finding for the S&P 500 is data based on the constituent list of that market index and isn't necessarily the P/E ratio of a given fund, even one that aims to track the performance of the S&P 500.    I'm sure similar metrics exist for other market indexes, but unless Vanguard is publishing it's specific holdings in it's target date funds there's no market index to look at. One thing I would add to @littleadv (buy an ETF instead of doing your own) answer would be ensure that the dividend yield matches.  Expense ratios aren't the only thing that eat you with mutual funds: the managers can hold on to a large percentage of the dividends that the stocks normally pay (for instance, if by holding onto the same stocks, you would normally receive 3% a year in dividends, but by having a mutual fund, you only receive .75%, that's an additional cost to you).  If you tried to match the DJIA on your own, you would have an advantage of receiving the dividend yields on the stocks paying dividends.  The downsides: distributing your investments to match and the costs of actual purchases. This is only a rule of thumb. Peter Lynch popularized it; the ratio PE/growth is often called the Lynch Ratio. At best it's a very rough guideline. I could fill up this page with other caveats. I'm not saying that it's wrong, only that it's grossly incomplete. For a 10 second eyeball valuation of growth stocks, it's fine. But that's the extent of its usefulness. "Here is how I would approach that problem: 1) Find the average ratios of the competitors: 2) Find the earnings and book value per share of Hawaiian 3) Multiply the EPB and BVPS by the average ratios. Note that you get two very different numbers.  This illustrates why pricing from ratios is inexact.  How you use those answers to estimate a ""price"" is up to you.  You can take the higher of the two, the average, the P/E result since you have more data points, or whatever other method you feel you can justify.   There is no ""right"" answer since no one can accurately predict the future price of any stock." "All of these frameworks, Markowitz, Mean/CVaR, CARA, etc  sit inside a more general framework which is that ""returns are good"" and ""risk/lack of certainty in the returns is bad"", and there's a tradeoff between the two encoded as some kind of risk aversion number.  You can measure ""lack of certainty in returns"" by vol, CVaR, weighted sum of higher moments, but even sector/region concentration.  Similarly do I want more ""returns"" or ""log returns"" or ""sqrt returns"" in the context of this tradeoff?  You don't need any formal notion of utility at that point - and I don't know what formal ideas of utility beyond ""I want more returns and less risk"" really buys you. The Sharpe ratio only really gets its meaning because you've got some formal asset-pricing notion of utility.   In my view the moment that you're putting constraints on the portfolio (e.g. long only, max weights, don't deviate too much from the benchmark ...) - really you're operating in this more general framework anyway and you're not in ""utility-land"" anymore." You could sum the P/E ratio of all the companies in the industry and divide it by the number of companies to find the average P/E ratio of the industry.  Average P/E ratio of industry  = Sum of P/E ratio of all companies in   Industry / Number of companies in industry I found a possible data source. It offers fundamentals i.e. the accounting ratios you listed (P/E, dividend yield, price/book) for international stock indexes. International equity indices based on EAFE definitions are  maintained by Professor French of French-Fama fame, at Dartmouth's Tuck Business School website. Specifics of methodology, and countries covered is available here. MSCI is the data source. Historical time interval for most countries is from 1975 onward. (Singapore was one of the countries included). Obtaining historical ratios for international stock indices is not easily found for free. Your question didn't specify free though. If that is not a constraint, you may wish to check the MSCI Barra international stock indices also. My level of analysis is not quite that advanced. Can you share what that would show and why that particular measure is the one to use?  I've run regression on prices between the two. VIX prices have no correlation to the s&amp;p500 prices. Shouldn't true volatility result in the prices (more people putting options on the VIX during the bad times and driving that price up) correlate to the selloff that occurs within the S&amp;P500 during recessions and other events that would cause significant or minor volatility? My r2 showed no significance within a measurement of regression within Excel.  But, *gasp* I could be wrong, but would love to learn more about better ways of measurement :) There are books on the subject of valuing stocks. P/E ratio has nothing directly to do with the value of a company. It may be an indication that the stock is undervalued or overvalued, but does not indicate the value itself. The direct value of company is what it would fetch if it was liquidated. For example, if you bought a dry cleaner and sold all of the equipment and receivables, how much would you get? To value a living company, you can treat it like a bond. For example, assume the company generates $1 million in profit every year and has a liquidation value of $2 million. Given the risk profile of the business, let's say we would like to make 8% on average per year, then the value of the business is approximately $1/0.08 + $2 = $14.5 million to us. To someone who expects to make more or less the value might be different. If the company has growth potential, you can adjust this figure by estimating the estimated income at different percentage chances of growth and decline, a growth curve so to speak. The value is then the net area under this curve.  Of course, if you do this for NYSE and most NASDAQ stocks you will find that they have a capitalization way over these amounts. That is because they are being used as a store of wealth. People are buying the stocks just as a way to store money, not necessarily make a profit. It's kind of like buying land. Even though the land may never give you a penny of profit, you know you can always sell it and get your money back. Because of this, it is difficult to value high-profile equities. You are dealing with human psychology, not pennies and dollars. P/E ratio is useful but limited as others have said. Another problem is that it doesn't show leverage. Two companies in the same industry could have the same P/E but be differently leveraged. In that case I would buy the company with more equity and less debt as it should be a less risky investment. To compare companies and take leverage/debt into account you could use the EV/EBIT ratio instead. Its slightly more complicated to calculate and isn't presented by as many data sources though. Enterprise Value (EV) can be said to represent the value of the company if someone would buy it today and then pay off all its (interest bearing) debt. EV is essentially calculated like this: (Market Capitalization plus cash & cash equivalents)  minus interest-bearing debt.  This is then divided by EBIT (Earnings before interest and tax) to get the ratio. One drawback of this ratio though is that it can't be used for financials since their balance sheet pretty much consists of debt and the Enterprise Value therefore doesn't tell us very much. Also, like the P/E ratio it is dependent on fresh numbers. A balance sheet is just a glimpse of the companys financial situation on ONE DAY, and this could (and probably will, although not drastically for bigger companies) change to the next day. Thanks. Just to clarify I am looking for a more value-neutral answer in terms of things like Sharpe ratios. I think it's an oversimplification to say that on average you lose money because of put options - even if they expire uselessly 90% of the time, they still have some expected payoff that kicks in 10% of the time, and if the price is less than the expected payoff you will earn money in the long term by investing in put options (I am sure you know this as a PhD student I just wanted to get it out there.)I guess more formally my question would be are there studies on whether options prices correspond well to the diversification benefits they offer from an MPT point of view. I have asked myself this exact same question many times. The analysis would be simple if you invested all your money in a single day, but I did not and therefore I would need to convert your cash transactions into Index fund buys/sells. I got tired of trying to do this using Yahoo's data and excel so I built a website in my spare time. I humbly suggest you try my website out in the hopes that it helps you perform this computation: http://www.amibeatingthemarket.com/