Understanding company income statements: What is a good profit margin that would make it worthwhile to invest?
"The short answer is that it depends on the industry. In other words, margin alone - even in comparison to peers - will not be a sufficient index to track company success.  I'll mention Apple quickly as a special case that has managed to charge a premium margin for a mass-market product.  Few companies can achieve this. As with all investment analysis, you need to have a very clear understanding of the industry (i.e. what is ""normal"" for debt/equity/gearing/margin/cash-on-hand) as well as of the barriers-to-entry which competitors face. A higher-than-normal margin may swiftly be undermined by competitors (Apple aside).  Any company offering perpetual above-the-odds returns may just be a Ponzi scheme (Bernie Maddof, etc.).  More important than high-margins or high-profits over some short-term track is consistency of approach, an ability to whether adverse cyclical events, and deep investment in continuity (i.e. the entire company doesn't come to a grinding halt when a crucial staff-member retires)."
A company's stock price will reflect the general sentiment about a company's value now and in the future. Net income is only one figure. You need to crack open the net summary and see what's inside it. In the financials you reference in your question (http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/FTNT/financials), you'll also notice that  Ultimately, the stock price is just a reflection on what the market feels its (current) future is worth (you, me, other investors with future value calculators and strong opinions on what would provide value for them). So, the price-earnings ratio is price over earnings, easy enough. But obviously earnings are not static. In the case of a growing company, the earnings will be higher in the future. There will be extra earnings, above and beyond what the stock has right now. You should consider the future earnings in your estimate of what the company is worth now. One snag: Those extra earnings are future money. Future-money is an interesting thing, it's actually worth less than present-money- because of things like inflation, but also opportunity cost.  So if you bought $100 in money that you'll have 20 years from now, you'd expect to pay less than $100. (The US government can sell you that money. It's called a Series EE Savings Bond and it would cost you $50. I think. Don't quote me on that, though, ask the Treasury.) So you can't compare future money with present-money directly, and you can't just add those dollars to the earnings . You need to compute a discount. That's what discounted cash-flow analysis is about: figuring out the future cash flow, and then discounting the future figuring out what it's worth now. The actual way you use the discount rate in your formula is a little scarier than simple division, though, because it involves discounting each year's earnings (in this case, someone has asserted a discount of 11% a year, and five years of earnings growth of 10%). Wikipedia gives us the formula for the value of the future cash flow:  essentially adding all the future cash flows together, and then discounting them by a (compounded) rate. Please forgive me for not filling this formula out; I'm here for theory, not math. :) "Because I feel the answers given do not wholely represent the answer you are expecting, I'd like to re-iterate but include more information. When you own stock in a company, you OWN some of that company. When that company makes profit, you usually receive a dividend of those profits. If you owned 1% of the company stock, you (should) recieve 1% of the profits. If your company is doing well, someone might ask to buy your stock. The price of that stock is (supposed) to be worth a value representative of the expected yield or how much of a dividend you'd be getting.  The ""worth"" of that, is what you're betting on when you buy the stock, if you buy $100 worth of coca cola stock and they paid $10 as dividend, you'd be pretty happy with a 10% growth in your wealth. Especially if the banks are only playing 3%. So maybe some other guy sees your 10% increase and thinks, heck.. 10% is better than 3%, if I buy your stocks, even as much as 6% more than they are worth ($106) I'm still going to be better off by that extra 1% than I would be if I left it in the bank.. so he offers you $106.. and you think.. awesome.. I can sell my $100 of cola shares now, make a $6 profit and buy $100 worth of some other share I think will pay a good dividend. Then cola publicises their profits, and they only made 2% profit, that guy that bought your shares for $106, only got a dividend of $2 (since their 'worth' is still $100, and effectively he lost $4 as a result. He bet on a better than 10% profit, and lost out when it didn't hit that. Now, (IMHO) while the stock market was supposed to be about buying shares, and getting dividends, people (brokers) discovered that you could make far more money buying and selling shares for 'perceived value' rather than waiting for dividends to show actual value, especially if you were not the one doing the buying and selling (and risk), but instead making a 0.4% cut off the difference between each purchase (broker fees). So, TL;DR,  Many people have lost money in the market to those who made money from them. But only the traders and gamblers." Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPPs) were heavily neutered by U.S. tax laws a few years ago, and many companies have cut them way back. While discounts of 15% were common a decade ago, now a company can only offer negligible discounts of 5% or less (tax free), and you can just as easily get that from fluctuations in the market. These are the features to look for to determine if the ESPP is even worth the effort: As for a cash value, if a plan has at least one of those features, (and you believe the stock has real long term value), you still have to determine how much of your money you can afford to divert into stock. If the discount is 5%, the company is paying you an extra 5% on the money you put into the plan. "I'm a senior majoring in accounting and management information systems. Here is a question I answered a while back about financial statements and employee retention. In the answer that I provided at the bottom it was to assess a company's ability to pay by use of ratios. Likewise, similar accounting methods need to be understood and implemented when assessing stocks(which is where I believe Mr. Buffet was going with this). As we can see the severity of the questions decreases, but if you can not answer question 3 then you should study accounting principles.   So how much is enough just to get started? You will never have enough knowledge to start, period. You will have to continuously be learning, so start sooner than later.  However you need neither economics or accounting knowledge if you were to learn technical analysis, many doubt the workings of this technique, but in my experience it is easier to learn and practise. A comment on @Veronica's post.  Understanding economics and accounting are fundamental. Analysis, seeing trends, and copying are instinctual human traits that helped us evolve (we are very good at pattern recognition). Taking an intro economic and accounting course at a local community college is an excellent place to start when breaking the mold of pattern-thinking. You have to be critical in understanding what elements move a company's A/R in the statement of cash flows. Read. Literally, don't stop reading. Latest edition of of Kesio's accounting principles? Read it. Cover to cover. Tax policies on Section 874, 222, 534? Read it.  Take a class, read a book, ask questions! Good Luck, ""Welcome to [the] Science [of Business], you're gonna like it here"" - Phil Plait" Are you implying that Amazon is a better investment than GE because Amazon's P/E is 175 while GE's is only 27?  Or that GE is a better investment than Apple because Apple's P/E is just 13.  There are a lot of other ratios to consider than P/E.  I personally view high P/E numbers as a red flag.  One way to think of a P/E ratio is the number of years it's expected for the company to earn its market cap.  (Share price divided by annual earnings per share)  It will take Amazon 175 years to earn $353 billion. If I was going to buy a dry cleaners, I would not pay the owner 175 years of earnings to take control of it, I'd never see my investment back. To your point.  There is so much future growth seemingly built in to today's stock market that even when a company posts higher than expected earnings, the company's stock may take a hit because maybe future prospects are a little less bright than everyone thought yesterday. The point of fundamental analysis is that you want to look at a company's management style and financial strategies.  How is it paying its debt?  How is it accumulating the debt?  How is it's return on assets?  How is the return on assets trending?  This way when you look at a few companies in the same market segment you may have a better shot at picking the winner over time.  The company that piles on new debt for every new project is likely to continue that path in to oblivion, regardless of the P/E ratio. (or some other equally less forward thinking management practice that you uncover in your fundamental analysis efforts). And I'll add... No amount of historical good decision making from a company's management can prepare for a total market downturn, or lack of investor confidence in general.  The market is the market; sometimes it's up irrationally, sometimes it's down irrationally. "P/E is a pretty poor way to value the company as it exists today.  The company generates free cash flow yield of 2.5-3.3% which isn't remarkably high, but it's not nearly as bad as the earnings yield of 1.1%.  But let's operate within the P/E ratio for right now.  The company sells $40 billion of ""stuff"" each year with a net margin of 2%.  If they increased prices on every product by 1% (which really wouldn't be _that_ noticeable) their profit would grow 50%.  Thus, P/E drops from 90 to 60.    SGA expenses equal ~20% of their operating costs.  Cut 5% of SGA and you get the same 1% increase in net margin.  This could come from cost-cutting today, or by greater economies of scale in the future while keeping prices the same.    So, yes, it's priced as a growth firm, but it doesn't necessarily need customer growth in the traditional sense to be fairly-valued." I look at the following ratios and how these ratios developed over time, for instance how did valuation come down in a recession, what was the trough multiple during the Lehman crisis in 2008, how did a recession or good economy affect profitability of the company. Valuation metrics: Enterprise value / EBIT (EBIT = operating income) Enterprise value / sales (for fast growing companies as their operating profit is expected to be realized later in time) and P/E Profitability: Operating margin, which is EBIT / sales Cashflow / sales Business model stability and news flow I feel like IRR is the tool you want to use for this, then you can look at your output and determine if it's higher than what your discount rate is likely to be.  Similarly, you can just do a traditional NPV analysis and then examine the sensitivity by changing the discount rate. If you're safely in profitable territory then you're probably fine despite not knowing the discount rate. 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. The same applies if you were looking for a business to buy: would you pay more for a business that is doing well making increasing profits year after year, or for a business that is not doing so well and is losing money. A share in a company is basically a small part of a company which a shareholder can own. So would you rather own a part of a company that is increasing profits year after year or one that is continuously losing money? Someone would buy shares in a company in order to make a better return than they could make elsewhere. They can make a profit through two ways: first, a share of the company's profits through dividends, and second capital gains from the price of the shares going up. Why does the price of the shares go up over the long term when a company does well and increases profits? Because when a company increases profits they are making more and more money which increases the net worth of the company. More investors would prefer to buy shares in a company that makes increasing profits because this will increase the net worth of the company, and in turn will drive the share price higher over the long term. A company's increase in profits creates higher demand for the company's shares. Think about it, if interest rates are so low like they are now, where it is hard to get a return higher than inflation, why wouldn't investors then search for higher returns in good performing companies in the stock market? More investors' and traders' wanting some of the pie, creates higher demand for good performing stocks driving the share price higher. The demand for these companies is there primarily because the companies are increasing their profits and net worth, so over the long term the share price will increase in-line with the net worth. Over the short to medium term other factors can also affect the share price, sometime opposite to how the company is actually performing; however this is a whole different answer to a whole different question. Good questions. I can only add that it may be valuable if the company is bought, they may buy the options. Happened to me in previous company. "I primarily intend to add on to WBT's answer, which is good. It has been shown that ""momentum"" is a very real, tangible factor in stock returns. Stocks that have done well tend to keep doing well; stocks that are doing poorly tend to keep doing poorly. For a long-term value investor, of course fundamental valuation should be your first thing to look at - but as long as you're comfortable with the company's price as compared to its value, you should absolutely hang onto it if it's been going up. The old saying on Wall Street is ""Cut your losses, and let your winners ride."" As WBT said, there may be some tangible emotional benefit to marking your win while you're ahead and not risking that it tanks, but I'd say the odds are in your favor. If an undervalued company starts rising in stock price, maybe that means the market is starting to recognize it for the deal it is. Hang onto it and enjoy the fruits of your research." the implications are that the company's earnings per share may seem greater, (after the company buys them there will be less shares outstanding), giving wall street the impression that there is more growth potential than there really is. its an accounting gimmick that can work for a few quarters while the company evaluates how else to impress wall street "First, note that a share represents a % of ownership of a company. In addition to the right to vote in the management of the company [by voting on the board of directors, who hires the CEO, who hires the VPs, etc...], this gives you the right to all future value of the company after paying off expenses and debts. You will receive this money in two forms: dividends approved by the board of directors, and the final liquidation value if the company closes shop. There are many ways to attempt to determine the value of a company, but the basic theory is that the company is worth a cashflow stream equal to all future dividends + the liquidation value. So, the market's ""goal"" is to attempt to determine what that future cash flow stream is, and what the risk related to it is. Depending on who you talk to, a typical stock market has some degree of 'market efficiency'. Market efficiency is basically a comment about how quickly the market reacts to news. In a regulated marketplace with a high degree of information available, market efficiency should be quite high. This basically means that stock markets in developed countries have enough traders and enough news reporting that as soon as something public is known about a company, there are many, many people who take that information and attempt to predict the impact on future earnings of the company. For example, if Starbucks announces earnings that were 10% less than estimated previously, the market will quickly respond with people buying Starbucks shares lowering their price on the assumption that the total value of the Starbucks company has decreased. Most of this trading analysis is done by institutional investors. It isn't simply office workers selling shares on their break in the coffee room, it's mostly people in the finance industry who specialize in various areas for their firms, and work to quickly react to news like this. Is the market perfectly efficient? No. The psychology of trading [ie: people panicking, or reacting based on emotion instead of logic], as well as any inadequacy of information, means that not all news is perfectly acted upon immediately. However, my personal opinion is that for large markets, the market is roughly efficient enough that you can assume that you won't be able to read the newspaper and analyze stock news in a way better than the institutional investors. If a market is generally efficient, then it would be very difficult for a group of people to manipulate it, because someone else would quickly take advantage of that. For example, you suggest that some people might collectively 'short AMZN' [a company worth half a trillion dollars, so your nefarious group would need to have $5 Billion of capital just to trade 1% of the company]. If someone did that, the rest of the market would happily buy up AMZN at reduced prices, and the people who shorted it would be left holding the bag. However, when you deal with smaller items, some more likely market manipulation can occur. For example, when trading penny stocks, there are people who attempt to manipulate the stock price and then make a profitable trade afterwards. This takes advantage of the low amount of information available for tiny companies, as well as the limited number of institutional investors who pay attention to them. Effectively it attempts to manipulate people who are not very sophisticated. So, some manipulation can occur in markets with limited information, but for the most part prices are determined by the 'market consensus' on what the future profits of a company will be.  Additional example of what a share really is: Imagine your neighbor has a treasure chest on his driveway: He gathers the neighborhood together, and asks if anyone wants to buy a % of the value he will get from opening the treasure chest. Perhaps it's a glass treasure chest, and you can mostly see inside it. You see that it is mostly gold and silver, and you weigh the chest and can see that it's about 100 lbs all together. So in your head, you take the price of gold and silver, and estimate how much gold is in the chest, and how much silver is there. You estimate that the chest has roughly $1,000,000 of value inside. So, you offer to buy 10% of the chest, for $90k [you don't want to pay exactly 10% of the value of the company, because you aren't completely sure of the value; you are taking on some risk, so you want to be compensated for that risk].  Now assume all your neighbors value the chest themselves, and they come up with the same approximate value as you. So your neighbor hands out little certificates to 10 of you, and they each say ""this person has a right to 10% of the value of the treasure chest"". He then calls for a vote from all the new 'shareholders', and asks if you want to get the money back as soon as he sells the chest, or if you want him to buy a ship and try and find more chests. It seems you're all impatient, because you all vote to fully pay out the money as soon as he has it. So your neighbor collects his $900k [$90k for each 10% share, * 10], and heads to the goldsmith to sell the chest. But before he gets there, a news report comes out that the price of gold has gone up. Because you own a share of something based on the price of gold, you know that your 10% treasure chest investment has increased in value. You now believe that your 10% is worth $105k. You put a flyer up around the neighborhood, saying you will sell your share for $105k. Because other flyers are going up to sell for about $103-$106k, it seems your valuation was mostly consistent with the market.  Eventually someone driving by sees your flyer, and offers you $104k for your shares. You agree, because you want the cash now and don't want to wait for the treasure chest to be sold. Now, when the treasure chest gets sold to the goldsmith, assume it sells for $1,060,000 [turns out you underestimated the value of the company]. The person who bought your 10% share will get $106k [he gained $2k]. Your neighbor who found the chest got $900k [because he sold the shares earlier, when the value of the chest was less clear], and you got $104k, which for you was a gain of $14k above what you paid for it. This is basically what happens with shares. Buy owning a portion of the company, you have a right to get a dividend of future earnings. But, it could take a long time for you to get those earnings, and they might not be exactly what you expect. So some people do buy and sell shares to try and earn money, but the reason they are able to do that is because the shares are inherently worth something - they are worth a small % of the company and its earnings."