vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
From Wikipedia -  To calculate the value of the S&P 500 Index, the sum of the adjusted   market capitalization of all 500 stocks is divided by a factor,   usually referred to as the Divisor. For example, if the total adjusted   market cap of the 500 component stocks is US$13 trillion and the   Divisor is set at 8.933 billion, then the S&P 500 Index value would be   1,455.28. From a strictly mathematical perspective, the divisor is not canceling out the units, and the S&P index is dollar denominated even though it's never quoted that way. A case in point is that the S&P is often said to have a P/E, and especially an E, the earnings attributed to one 'unit' of S&P. And if you buy a mutual fund sporting a low expense ratio, you can invest exactly that much money (the current S&P index value) and see the dividends accrue to your account, less the fee.
Thanks for your thorough reply.   Basically, I found a case study in one of my old finance workbooks from school and am trying to complete it.   So it's not entirely complicated in the sense of a full LBO or merger model.   That being said, the information that they provide is Year 1 EBITDA for TargetCo and BuyerCo and a Pro-Forma EBITDA for the consolidated company @ Year 1 and Year 4 (expected IPO). I was able to get the Pre-Money and Post-Money values and the Liquidation values (year 4 IPO), as well as the number of shares.   I can use EBITDA to get EPS (ebitda/share in this case) for both consolidated and stand-alone @ Year 1, but can only get EPS for consolidated for all other years. Given the information provided. One of the questions I have is do I do anything with my liquidation values for an accretion/dilution analysis or is it all EPS?
"To calculate a sector (or index) P/E ratio you need to sum the market caps of the constituent stocks and divide it by the sum of the total earnings of the constituent stocks (including stocks that have negative earnings).  There are no ""per share"" figures used in the calculation. Beware when you include an individual stock that there may be multiple issues associated with the company that are not in the index.... eg. Berkshire Hathaway BRK.B is in the S&P 500 but BRK.A is not.  In contrast, Google has both GOOGL and GOOG included in the S&P 500 index but not its unlisted Class B shares.  All such shares need to be included in the market cap and figuring out the different share class ratios can be tricky."
There's no unique way to split the profit, it's about claims and arguments.  I propose the approach based on internal rate of return. Consider we have a project with cash flow -500 at the beginning, -1000 at 3 months and +2300 (1000 profit - 200 fee + 1500 of initial investments) at 1 year. The balance looks as follows (simple compounding): The solution is r = 64% (not bad!). Now, the value of the 1-st investment is 500*(1+0.64)=820 and the value of the second is 1000*(1+0.64*0.75)=1480 (at t=1 year). This gives the shares of 35.65% (820/2300) and 64.35% (1480/2300). Then split the profit according to the shares.
If you want to see a more academic version of this look up Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC).   It's a formula that tells you how much it costs for a company to raise $1 of capital whether it be through issuing bonds or stocks.   One thing you learn is that there are times that if you take on loans (even if you don't need it) you can raise shareholder value and therefore the total company netvalue. The thought process is (as it states in the article above) that a company can issue debt for cheaper than issue shares and it will have extra cash which it can use to get a better return than its net effective interest rate.   I tried to give an example but I only ended up rehashing what it says in the article. Anyhow look up WACC and you'll understand the fundamentals.
"P/E is Price divided by Earnings Per Share (EPS). P/E TTM is Price divided by the actual EPS earned over the previous 12 months - hence ""Trailing Twelve Month"". In Forward P/E is the ""E"" is the average of analyst expectations for the next year in EPS. Now, as to what's being displayed. Yahoo shows EPS to be 1.34. 493.90/1.34 = P/E of 368.58 Google shows EPS to be 0.85. 493.40/0.85 = P/E of 580.47 (Prices as displayed, respectively) So, by the info that they are themselves displaying, it's Google, not Yahoo, that's displaying the wrong P/E. Note that the P/E it is showing is 5.80 -- a decimal misplacement from 580 Note that CNBC shows the Earnings as 0.85 as well, and correctly show the P/E as 580 http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/BP.L A quick use of a currency calculator reveals a possible reason why EPS is listed differently at yahoo. 0.85 pounds is 1.3318 dollars, currently. So, I think the Yahoo EPS listing is in dollars. A look at the last 4 quarters on CNBC makes that seem reasonable: http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/BP.L/tab/5 those add up to $1.40."
Furthermore, you want to calculate changes in working capital, i.e. the difference in net current assets from the previous quarter. What you're doing here is subtracting the company's accumulated equity capital from a single quarter's operating results, which is why you're getting an insane result that in no way resembles what appears in the statement of cash flows. Also you seem to be using the numbers for the wrong quarter - 2014q4 instead of 2015q3. I can't figure out where you're getting your depreciation number from, but the statement of cash flows shows they booked $486M in depreciation for 2015q3; your number is high. FB doesn't have negative FCF."
The correct p/e for bp.l is 5.80. Bp.l is on the London stock exchange and prices are in local currency. The share price of 493 is reported in pence (not dollars). The EPS is reported in pounds. Using .85 pounds = 85 pence, you calculate the EPS as follows: 493.40/85 = 5.80 PE Yahoo totally screwed up. They converted the .85 pounds into US dollars ($1.34) but didn't convert the 493 pence. By using the 493 as dollars, they got 493.9/1.34 = 368 pe! Notice that Yahoo reports the American Depository Shares (symbol 'BP') with an EPS of $8.06. That correctly reflects that there are 6 shares of BP.l per ADS (1.34 * 6 = 8.04). But why is the share price listed at $46.69? Well...  493 GBp (pence) = 4.93 pounds 4.93 pounds  = 7.73 USD 7.73 USD * 6 shares per ADS = 46.38 USD
Capital surplus is used to account for that amount which a firm raises in excess of the par value (nominal value) of the shares (common stock).. Investopedia has a much simpler answer. Somebody has tried to be smart on wikipedia and have done the calculations without much explanation. The portion of the surplus of a business arising from sources other than earnings :  all surplus other than earned surplus usually including amounts received from sale or exchange of capital stock in excess of par or stated value, profits on resale of treasury stock, donations to capital by stockholders or others, or increment arising from revaluation of fixed or other assets The number of shares a company wants to issue is decided and agreed with the regulators. They decide the par value and then decide how much premium will be charged, extra money above the par value. Take out any RHP of an issue and you find all these details. Par Value = 1  Issue price(Price at which investors buy) = 10 Premium = 9 For a single share the capital surplus is 9, multiply it by the number of shares issued and you have the total capital surplus.
"I don't have a formula for anything like this, but it is important to note that the ""current value"" of any asset is really theoretical until you actually sell it. For example, let's consider a house.  You can get an appraisal done on your house, where your home is inspected, and the sales of similar houses in your area are compared.  However, this value is only theoretical.  If you found yourself in a situation where you absolutely had to sell your house in one week, you would most likely have to settle for much less than the appraised value. The same hold true for collectibles.  If I have something rare that I need cash for immediately, I can take it to a pawn shop and get cash.  However, if I take my time and locate a genuinely interested collector, I can get more for it. This is comparable to someone who holds a significant percentage of shares in a publicly held corporation.  If the current market value of your shares is $10 million, but you absolutely need to sell your entire stake today, you aren't going to get $10 million.  But if you take your time selling a little at a time, you are more likely to get much closer to this $10 million number. A ""motivated seller"" means that the price will drop."
The PE ratio stands for the Price-Earnings ratio. The price-earnings ratio is a straightforward formula: Share Price divided by earnings per share. Earnings per share is calculated by dividing the pre-tax profit for the company by the number of shares in issue. The PE ratio is seen by some as a measure of future growth of a company. As a general rule, the higher the PE, the faster the market believes a company will grow. This question is answered on our DividendMax website: http://www.dividendmax.co.uk/help/investor-glossary/what-is-the-pe-ratio Cheers
How are shareholders sure to receive a fair percentage of each company?  At the time the split occurs, each investor owns the same proportion of each new company that they owned in the first.  What the investor does with it after that (selling one, for example) is irrelevant from a fairness perspective. Suppose company A splits into companies B and C.  You own enough stock to have 1% of A.  It splits.  Now you have a bunch of shares of B and C.  How much?  Well, you have 1% of B and 1% of C.  What if all the profitable projects are in B?  Then shares of B will be worth more than those of C.  But it should be the case that the value of your shares of B plus the value of your shares of C are equal to the original value of your shares of A.  Completely fair.  In fact, if the split was economically justified, then B + C > A.  And the gains are realized proportionally by all equityholders. Remember, when a stock splits, every share splits so that everyone owns both companies in the same proportion as everyone else.  Executives don't determine what the prices of the resulting companies are...that is determined by the market.  A fair market will value the child companies such that together they are worth what the original was.
"The key to evaluating book value is return on equity (ROE). That's net profit divided by book value.  The ""value"" of book value is measured by the company's ROE (the higher the better). If the stock is selling below book value, the company's assets aren't earning enough to satisfy most investors. Would you buy a CD that was paying, say two percentage points below the going rate for 100 cents on the dollar? Probably not. You might be willing to buy it only by paying 2% less per year, say 98 cents on the dollar for a one year CD. The two cent discount from ""book value"" is your compensation for a low ""interest"" rate."
"There is no such thing as a correct value. There are different ways to calculate (read: guess) an anticipated value, but neither of them is the ""correct"" one. Last not least this depends on your interpretation of the term ""correct"" in that context.  Why do you think paid Facebook such a huge amount for WhatsApp? Surely not, because it was the ""correct"" value."
From my understanding, only A and B are shareholders, and M is a managing entity that takes commission on the profit. Assuming that's true.  At the start of the project, A contributes $500,000. At this point, A is the sole shareholder, owning 100% of the project that's valued at $500,000.  The real question is, did the value of the project change when B contributed 3 month later. If the value didn't change, then A owns 33.33%, and B owns 66.66%. Assuming both A and B wants to pay themselves with the $800,000 profit, then A gets a third of that, and B gets the rest.  However, if at the time of B's contribution, both parties agreed that the pre-money of the project has changed to $1 million, then B owns half the project valued at 2 million post-money. Then the profit would be split half way.
P/E is the number of years it would take for the company to earn its share price.  You take share price divided by annual earnings per share.  You can take the current reported quarterly earnings per share times 4, you can take the sum of the past four actual quarters earnings per share or you can take some projected earnings per share. It has little to do with a company's actual finances apart from the earnings per share.  It doesn't say much about the health of a company's balance sheet, and is definitely not an indicator for bankruptcy.  It's mostly a measure of the market's assumptions of the company's ability to grow earnings or maintain it's current earnings growth.   A share price of $40 trading for a P/E ratio of 10 means it will take the company 10 years to earn $40 per share, it means there's current annual earnings per share of $4.  A different company may also be earning $4 per share but trade at 100 times earnings for a share price of $400.  By this measure alone neither company is more or less healthy than the other.  One just commands more faith in the future growth from the market. To circle back to your question regarding a negative P/E, a negative P/E ratio means the company is reporting negative earnings (running at a loss).  Again, this may or may not indicate an imminent bankruptcy.  Increasing balance sheet debt with decreasing revenue and or earnings and or balance sheet assets will be a better way to assess bankruptcy risk.
You can create something like that by: You'll have to determine the PE ratio manually from the financial statements.  To get the PE ratio for each company, you can try the Edgar database, though I doubt it goes as far back as 1950. This blog has a graph of the DJIA PE ratio from 1929 - 2009.
The current rate of return based on stock price and current earnings is what the market as a whole is willing to tolerate. This is how bonds are valued, based on a desired rate of return by the market, and it also works for stocks, with the caveat that the dividends, and what you'll get back at the ""end"", are no longer constant as they are with a bond. Now, in your case, the company doesn't pay dividends. Ever. It simply retains all the earnings it's ever made, reinvesting them into doing new things or more things. By the above method, the rate of return from dividends alone is zero, and so the future value of your investment is whatever you paid for it. People don't like it when the best case for their money is that it just sits there. However, there's another way to think of the stock's value, which is it's more core definition; a share of the company itself. If the company is profitable, and keeps all this profit, then a share of the company equals, in part, a share of that retained earnings. This is very simplistic, but if the company's assets are worth 1 billion dollars, and it has one hundred million shares of stock, each share of stock is worth $10, because that's the value of that fraction of the company as divided up among all outstanding shares. If the company then reports earnings of $100 million, the value of the company is now 1.1 billion, and its stock should go up to $11 per share, because that's the new value of one ten-millionth of the company's value. Your ROI on this stock is $1, in whatever time period the reporting happens (typically quarterly, giving this stock a roughly 4% APY). This is a totally valid way to value stocks and to shop for them; it's very similar to how commodities, for instance gold, are bought and sold. Gold never pays you dividends. Doesn't give you voting rights either. Its value at any given time is solely what someone else will pay to have it.
If I is the initial deposit, P the periodic deposit, r the rent per period, n the number of periods, and F the final value, than we can combine two formulas into one to get the following answer: F = I*(1+r)n + P*[(1+r)n-1]/r In this case, you get V = 1000*(1.05)20 + 100*[(1.05)20-1]/0.05 = 5959.89 USD. Note that the actual final value may be lower because of rounding errors.
If both companies increase their EPS by $1, to $6, and the P/Es remain the same, that means company ABC rises to $30, and company XYZ rises to $60. Hey! One went up $5, and the other $10, twice as much! That means XYZ was the better investment, right? Nope. You see, shares are not tokens, and you don't get an identical, arbitrary number of them. You make an investment, and that's in dollars. So, say you'd invested $1,000 in each. $1,000 in ABC buys you 40 shares. $1,000 in XYZ buys you 20 shares. Their EPS adds that buck, the shares rise to maintain P/E, and you have: ABC: $6 EPS at P/E 5 = $30/share. Position value = 40 shares x $30/share = $1,200 XYZ: $6 EPS at P/E 10 = $60/share. Position value = 20 shares x $60/share = $1,200 They both make you the exact same 20% profit. It makes sense when you think about it this way: a 20% increase in EPS is going to give you a 20% increase in price if the P/E is to remain constant. It doesn't matter what the dollar amount of the EPS or the share price is."
Ok well in that case here are my thoughts.  Its been a while since I've done this type of school work so hope it's right/helpful.  AR Oustanding = Avg AR / (credit sales/Operating Cycle*) = 35   *I'm guessing they didn't give you sales for the year or else I would divide by 365 but since you mentioned operating cycle I'm assuming thats the sales number you were given.  So you want to divide the sales by 50 and then times it by the 35.  Should give you the average AR.  Inventory - I really don't remember having to calculate this so I'm just thinking logically here.  You should be able to take COGS divide by the days in the period then times it by In Invetory.  So = (COGS/Operating Cycle)* In Inventory = (COGS/50)*15  Accounts Payable....man, I'm afraid to drive you in the wrong direction on this one.  Avg Accounts Payable/(COGS/Operating Cycle) = 40  Plug in COGS, divide by the operating cycle, 50 then times by 40, the days vendor credit.
Therefore solving for (Vc): (70-1*Vc)(e^(0.055*(12/12))) = (75.38-1*15.38) => (70-Vc)*1.056540615 = 60 => 70-Vc = 60/1.056540615 => Vc = 70 - (60/1.056540615) Which is similar to the formula given in your textbook, so I must assume that using 1+r would be simply a very close approximation of the formula above. Then it is easy to find that Vc = 13.2108911402 ~ $13.21 2. Risk-neutral valuation: Another way to calculate (Vc) is using a risk-neutral approach. We first introduce a variable (p) which is a risk-neutral probability of an increase in share price. p = (e^(r*t)-d)/(u-d) so in your case: p = (1.056540615-0.928571429)/(1.076923077-0.928571429) = 0.862607107 Therefore using (p) the (Vc) would be equal: Vc = [pVcu+(1-p)Vcd]/(e^(rt)) => Vc = [(0.862607107*15.38)+(0.137392893*5)]/1.056540615 => Vc = 13.2071229185 ~ $13.21 As you can see it is very close to the hedging approach. I hope this answers your questions. Also bear in mind that there is much more to the option pricing than this. The most important topics to cover are: Multi-period BOPM Accounting for Dividends Black-Scholes-Merton Option Pricing Model"
"P/E is price to earnings, or the price of the company divided by annual earnings. Earnings, as reported, are reported on accrual basis. Accrual basis accounting is...without going too deep, like taking a timeline, chopping it up and throwing different bits and pieces of every year into different piles.  Costs from 2008 might show up in 2011, or the company might take costs in 2011 that aren't necessarily costs until 2012.  Examples would include one-time charges for specific investments, like new shipping centers, servers for their hosting services, etc.    Free cash flow is the amount of cash Amazon is generating from its operations. Free cash flow is almost always different from earnings because it's the amount of Earnings + adjustments for non-cash activities - capital expenditures (long-term investments.)  Earnings is one thing.  Cash generation is a completely different animal.  There are plenty of companies that ""earn"" billions, but only have a few hundred million in cash to show for it because their earnings have to be reinvested into new stuff to grow/maintain the business.  To have a free cash flow yield of 2.5% is to have a company valued at $40 for each $1 of free cash flow that the company generates each year.  $1/$40 = 2.5%.  SGA = Selling, General, &amp; Administrative expenses.  These are the costs of running the company - paying salaries, advertising, etc.  This cost is second only to COGS, which is Cost of Goods Sold.    Currently, Amazon pays $.774 for every $1 product it sells.  Its operations add another ~$.20 to that total.  After taxes, Amazon keeps about 2 cents of every dollar's worth of product it sells.  This 2 cents is Amazon's net margin of 2%.  Net margin is (net income)/(sales).  If Amazon earned $3 for every $100 in sales it would have a net margin of 3%.     Let me know if this makes no sense.  If there's anything in particular that is especially confusing, definitely reply and I'll better clarify on specific items.  Fire away with any questions, also.  I love to discuss finance and accounting."
Let's say I have a large company with a sub-unit which accounts for 40% of their revenues. The company is traded at a foreign stock exchange, but have the sub-unit that is located domestically. The beta of the company can be easily found online or calculated manually. How do I determine the beta of a sub-unit of a multinational company?
I do not know for sure so do not quote me on this. But I would assume that you will get paid out to what the value of the buyout is.  Example if your company has 100 private shares and you own 1 share (1%), and the company sells for $1,000,000. Your share will be worth 1% of the $1 million.
This link does it ok:  http://investexcel.net/1979/calculate-historical-volatility-excel/ Basically, you calculate percentage return by doing stock price now / stock price before.  You're not calculating the rate of return hence no subtraction of 100%.  The standard is to do this on a daily basis: stock price today / stock price yesterday. The most important and most misunderstood part is that you now have to analyze the data geometrically not arithmetically.  To easily do this, convert all percentage returns with the natural log, ln(). Next, you take the standard deviation of all of those results, and apply exp().  This answers the title of your question. For convenience's sake, it's best to annualize since volatility (implied or statistical) is now almost always quoted annualized.  There are ~240 trading days each year.  You multiply your stdev() result by (240 / # of trading days per return) ^ 0.5, so if you're doing this for daily returns, multiply the stdev() result by 240^0.5; if you were doing it weekly, you'd want to multiply by (240 / ~5)^0.5; etc.  This is your number for sigma.  This answers the intent of your question. For black-scholes, you do not convert anything back with exp(); BS is already set up for geometric analysis, so you need to stay there. The reason why analysis is done geometrically is because the distribution of stock returns is assumed to be lognormal (even though it's really more like logLaplace).