Is Peter Lynch talking about the Dividend Adjusted PEG Ratio in this quote?
Essentially, yes, Peter Lynch is talking about the PEG Ratio. The Price/Earnings to Growth (PEG) Ratio is where you take the p/e ratio and then divide that by the growth rate (which should include any dividends).  A lower number indicates that the stock is undervalued, and could be a good buy. Lynch's metric is the inverse of that: Growth rate divided by the p/e ratio.  It is the same idea, but in this case, a higher number indicates a good value for buying. In either case, the idea behind this ratio is that a fairly priced stock will have the p/e ratio equal the growth rate.  When your growth rate is larger than your p/e ratio, you are theoretically looking at an undervalued stock.
P/E can use various estimates in its calculation as one could speculate about future P/E rations and thus could determine a future valuation if one is prepared to say that the P/E should be X for a company. Course it is worth noting that if a company isn't generating positive earnings this can be a less than useful tool, e.g. Amazon in the 1990s lost money every quarter and thus would have had a N/A for a P/E. PEG would use P/E and earnings growth as a way to see if a stock is overvalued based on projected growth. If a company has a high P/E but has a high earnings growth rate then that may prove to be worth it. By using the growth rate, one can get a better idea of the context to that figure. Another way to gain context on P/E would be to look at industry averages that would often be found on Yahoo! Finance and other sites. &gt; He has a special class of shares that grants him 37 percent voting power even though his equity stake is much lower, and public shareholders will have less than 2 percent of votes.  Fuck off with your phoney stock. The Gordon equation does not use inflation-adjusted numbers. It uses nominal returns/dividends and growth rates. It really says nothing anyone would not already know.  Everyone knows that your total return equals the sum of the income return plus capital gains.   Gordon simply assumes (perfectly validly) that capital gains will be driven by the growth of earnings, and that the dividends paid will likewise increase at the same rate. So he used the 'dividend growth rate' as a proxy for the 'earnings growth rate' or 'capital gains rate'. You cannot use inflation-removed estimates of equity rates of return because those returns do not change with inflation.  If anything they move in opposite directions.  Eg in the 1970's inflation the high market rates caused people to discount equity values at larger rates --- driving their values down -- creating losses. The dividend is for a quarter of the year, three months. 80 cents is 3.9% of $20.51. Presumably the Div/yield changes as the stock price changes. On Yahoo, they specify that the yield is based on a particular stated date. So it's only the exact number if the stock trades at the price on that date. I am also confused by what he says. The DJIA has not been at 900 for decades. However a $36 dividend is 4% per unit if you get $9 per unit per quarter. 2/3 of 4% is 6%,so that is inside his 7.5% to 5.5%. How much you have in dividend paying stocks vs. Bonds most often is a function of your age. For example, I have heard the advice of subtracting your age in years from 110 and that would be the percent you hold in dividend paying stocks. At age 30 you would have 80% in stocks. At age 60 you would be 50% in stocks. There are retirement funds that do this for you.  But the 'bottom line' all depends on your risk tolerance. I have a large tolerance for risk. So even though I am currently retired I only have 10% of my money in a 'safe' investment (ticker=PGF). It pays 5.5% per year.  The rest is in a leveraged junk bond fund (PHK) that pays 15.5% per year. &gt; According to pretty well accepted corporate finance principles.  What are the names of those principles and where can I read more about them and how they apply to huge tech companies?  I'd like more than your word on something as huge as you are claiming. That all my stocks are holding way too much cash and are run by finance morons. The P/E ratio is a measure of historic (the previous financial year) earnings against the current share price. If the P/E is high, this means that the market perceives a big increase in future earnings per share.  In other words, the perception is that this is a fast growing company.  Higher earnings may also equate to big increases in dividends and rapid expansion.  On the other hand, if the P/E is low, then there is a perception that either earnings per share are decreasing or that future growth in earnings is negligible.  In other words, low P/E equates to a perception of low future growth and therefore low prospects for future payout increases - possibly even decreases. The market is (rightly) usually willing to pay a premium for fast growing companies. "Right, as I stated I agree that it will cause greater variance from the true intrinsic value for individual equities. To take this example to an extreme, traders can throw darts at a board of ticker symbols, purchase them, and still diversify away most firm specific risk. You're correct in stating that such a strategy will eventually cause systematic market failures if everyone does it, but the herd goes where they can make the most profit, and right now that is with ETFs.   When fund managers prove they have foresight enough to exploit any systematic failures that this causes, or can start beating ETF returns, the herd will flock back to them. I only meant to point out the reasoning behind why this is happening, not advocating one over the other, and also to point out that Paul Singer shouldn't whine. To re-purpose an old saying, ""Don't get mad, get even (by making your investors rich).""" / in relative to the Tesla's performance, and current inflation.  They can split and reverse split at anytime the board decides without any regard to inflation or performance.   OP points to Tesla at 350- he doesn't point to PE. It makes no differences what the price of one share is. If they split 10 for 1 it would be 35- but what difference does that make- the PE remains the same. OP does not understand value- only price. "My guess is that the point is that yields on bonds and cash equivalents is so low that inflation will cause the inflation-adjusted returns to be negative. There is something to be said for how much inflation can eat out of investment returns. At the same time, I would note the occupation of the person making that post along with what biases this person likely has. ""Entrepreneur, Started & sold several cos, Author 11 books (latest ""Choose Yourself!"") , Angel Inv., JamesAltucher.com"" would to me read as someone that isn't who I'd turn for investment advice when it comes to employer-sponsored plans. Be careful of what you blindly follow as sometimes that is how wolves lead the sheep to slaughter." "This was an article meant for mass consumption, written by a Yale law professor and an individual who has a PhD in economics (in addition to his practical, on the job experience managing the Yale endowment).  I'm having a hard time believing that it was ""poorly argued.""  As for proof, that's the sort of thing you find in financial and economic journals (for example, [The Effect of Maker-Taker Fees on Investor Order Choice and Execution Quality in U.S. Stock Markets](http://people.stern.nyu.edu/jhasbrou/SternMicroMtg/SternMicroMtg2015/Papers/MakerTakerODonoghue.pdf)).    One of the direct takeaways from the above paper states:  *""I find that total trading cost to investors increases, when the taker fee and maker rebate increase, even if the net fee is held fixed. The total trading cost represents the net-of-fees bid-ask spread and the brokerage commission to an investor wanting to buy and then sell the same stock.""*  I'm not here to argue for the paper.  I'm really here to tell you that these guys have far more of a clue than you realize.  ~~A dash of humility on your part may be in order, given the fact that you've already admitted to the reality that you aren't sure of any of this yourself.~~  *Edit*:  Thought I was responding to a different thread." "&gt;""Our support for these (shareholder resolutions on climate risk) proposals is not a matter of ideology, it's a matter of economics,"" he said. ""To the extent there are significant risks to a company's long-term value proposition, we want to make sure there is long-term disclosure of those risks to the market.""  the irony is indescribable" It looks like the advice the rep is giving is based primarily on the sunk cost fallacy; advice based on a fallacy is poor advice. Bob has recognised this trap and is explicitly avoiding it. It is possible that the advice that the rep is trying to give is that Fund #1 is presently undervalued but, if so, that is a good investment irrespective if Bob has lost money there before or even if he has ever had funds in it. It's probably worth distinguishing that I am talking specifically about revenues and speaking to the beliefs *about* revenue of people who make the cuts-for-growth claim.  I am tempted to say that *nominal rate* does not mean *money paid* is common knowledge. The challenge here is disentangling how common that knowledge really is from a cynical ploy for political gain. So if someone would invest 14000 credits on 1st April 2016, he'd get monthly dividend = ((14000 ÷ 14) × 0.0451) × (1 - 1.42 ÷ 100) = 44.459 credits, right? One would get ((14000 ÷ 14) × 0.0451) = 45.1 is what you would get. The expenses are not to be factored. Generally if a scheme has less expense ratio, the yield is more. i.e. this has already got factored in 0.0451. If the expense ratio was less, this would have been 0.05 if expense ration would have been more it would have been 0.040. Can I then consider the bank deposit earning a higher income per month than the mutual fund scheme? As the MIP as classified as Hybrid funds as they invest around 30% in equities, there is no tax on the income. More so if there is a lock-in of 3 years. In Bank FD, there would be tax applicable as per tax brackets.