This is a repost as I has a small error in my last submission...

*************************




The problem/question is..which is more useful in examining payout 
ratio in determining whether the company is viable in paying out the 
dividend?

The numbers at the the Merrill Lynch website are in agreement with 
those at Yahoo, at least for acas.

Question..then.. is the definition of ttm eps as currently used in 
QP, the same as the definition of the eps used in CALCULATING THE 
DIVIDEND YIELD???? It would appear not...which is a cause of great 
confusion. 

What I am saying is...in QP, it would appear that the definition of 
earnings yield is OUT OF SYNCH with the definition of ttm eps!!..and 
therefore a viable payout ratio cannot be computed.

If you look at acas at Yahoo..the dividend yield given matches what 
is given by QP Yet the p/e given at QP is almost double that given at 
Yahoo because of the ttm eps definition difference given by Reuters. 
In QP, then, there is a different eps figure used to compute the 
dividend yield than to compute the p/e.

I think they should both be the same...any comments?






--- In [email protected], "gary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> I've asked Reuters to clarify the numbers for me
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Gary Lyben
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: investor0329 
>   To: [email protected] 
>   Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 4:40 AM
>   Subject: [quotes-plus] what is the TTM EPS for ticker ACAS?
> 
> 
>   TTM EPS is twelve month trailing earnings per share
> 
>   According to QP data it is $3.11
> 
>   According to Yahoo, it is $6.55
> 
>   Which is it? If QP is right, than ACAS is paying more in dividends
>   than it earned. If Yahoo is right, then ACAS is doing great. Chat
>   board at Yahoo says ACAS is doing great because of the low 
dividend
>   payout ratio which is dividends payed divided by TTM EPS.
> 
>   Am I reading the above numbers correctly?
> 
>   TTM EPS has a specific definition, does it not?..no room for 
different
>   definitions, right?
>


Reply via email to