What is the P/E ratio for a company with negative earnings?
Usually their PE ratio will just be listed as 0 or blank.  Though I've always wondered why they don't just list the negative PE as from a straight math standpoint it makes sense. PE while it can be a useful barometer for a company, but certainly does not tell you everything.  A company could have negative earnings for a lot of reasons, some good and some bad.  The company could just be a bad company and could be losing money hand over fist, or the company could have had a one time occurrence such as a big acquisition or some other event that just affected this years earnings, or they could be an awesome high growth company that is heavily investing for their future and forgoing locking in profits now for much bigger profits in the future. Generally IPO company's fall into that last category as they are going public usually because they want an influx of cash that they are going to use to grow the company much more rapidly.  So they are likely already taking all incoming $$ and taking on debt to grow the company and have exceeded all of those options and that's when they turn to the stock market for the additional influx of cash, so it is very common for these companies not to have earnings.   Now you just have to decide if that company is investing that money wisely and will in the future translate to actual earnings. "When presenting negative P/E values, most brokers and equity analysts show them as ""n.m."", which stands for not meaningful. I have never seen a P/E ratio of 0."
"The opposite of an economic bubble is a bubble burst :p! Jokes aside though, an economic bubble occurs when the economy is in bull market mode and asset prices are growing very fast. It's usually measured by ratio's like price to earnings and the levels of various market indices. So, the opposite would be when valuations are falling very fast or are very low, and price to earnings ratios are low.  This condition is usually a recession. A recession is a market slowdown, generally after a bubble bursts, and severe recessions can become depressions if they last long enough (Great Depression, 1930s).  A bubble is not necessarily negative - stock prices usually rise a lot so paper wealth is greatly magnified. If you can get out in time, you're golden. Similarly, a recession isn't bad for everyone. Some investors keep large amounts of cash waiting for recessions so they can ""buy low, sell high"". For most people, however, recessions are negative because unemployment increases and some people get fired, and the economy slows down. Asset prices have fallen so their investments are worth less than they used to be (on paper), and people mainly have to bide it out until the market starts growing again." The intrinsic value of a company is based on their profits year on year along with their expect future growth. A company may be posting losses, but if the market determines there's any chance they will turn a profit one day, or be a takeover target, it assigns value to those shares. In normal times, you'll observe a certain P/E range. Price to earning ratio is a simple way to say the I will pay X$ for a dollar's worth of earnings. A company that's in a flat market and not growing may command a P/E of only 10. Another company that's expanding their products and increasing market share may see a 20 P/E. Both P/Es are right for the type of company involved. If you don't have a good knowledge of finance, maybe you should not put too much money in individual stocks. But if you really want to invest, you can just compare the rate of return of the most known stocks available to you (like the one from the S&P for the US). The rate of return is very simple to compute, it's 100*dividend/share price. For example a company with a current share price of 50.12 USD that delivered a dividend of 1.26 USD last year would have a rate of return of 100 * 1.26/50.12= 2.51% Now if you only invest in the most known stocks, since they are already covered by nearly all financial institutions and analysts: If you are looking for lower risk dividend companies, take a sample of companies and invest those with the lowest rates of return (but avoid extreme values). Of course since the stock prices are changing all the time, you have to compare them with a price taken at the same time (like the closing price of a specific day) and for the dividend, they can be on several basis (yearly, quartely, etc..) so you have to be sure to take the same basis. You can also find the P/E ratio which is the opposite indicator (= share price/dividend) so an higher P/E ratio means a lower risk. Most of the time you can find the P/E ratio or the rate of return already computed on specialized website or brokers. Your observation is mostly right, that 1 is a the number around which this varies.  You are actually referencing PEG, P/E to Growth ratio, which is a common benchmark to use to evaluate a stock. The article I link to provides more discussion. "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." Stock price = Earning per share * P/E Ratio. Most of the time you will see in a listing the Stock price and the P/E ration. The calculation of the EPS is left as an exercise for the student Investor. "To my knowledge, there's no universal equation, so this could vary by individual/company.   The equation I use (outside of sentiment measurement) is the below - which carries its own risks: This equations assumes two key points: Anything over 1.2 is considered oversold if those two conditions apply.  The reason for the bear market is that that's the time stocks generally go on ""sale"" and if a company has a solid balance sheet, even in a downturn, while their profit may decrease some, a value over 1.2 could indicate the company is oversold. An example of this is Warren Buffett's investment in Wells Fargo in 2009 (around March) when WFC hit approximately 7-9 a share.  Although the banking world was experiencing a crisis, Buffett saw that WFC still had a solid balance sheet, even with a decrease in profit.  The missing logic with many investors was a decrease in profits - if you look at the per capita income figures, Americans lost some income, but not near enough to justify the stock falling 50%+ from its high when evaluating its business and balance sheet.  The market quickly caught this too - within two months, WFC was almost at $30 a share. As an interesting side note on this, WFC now pays $1.20 dividend a year.  A person who bought it at $7 a share is receiving a yield of 17%+ on their $7 a share investment. Still, this equation is not without its risks.  A company may have a solid balance sheet, but end up borrowing more money while losing a ton of profit, which the investor finds out about ad-hoc (seen this happen several times).  Suddenly, what ""appeared"" to be a good sale, turns into a person buying a penny with a dollar.  This is why, to my knowledge, no universal equation applies, as if one did exist, every hedge fund, mutual fund, etc would be using it. One final note: with robotraders becoming more common, I'm not sure we'll see this type of opportunity again.  2009 offered some great deals, but a robotrader could easily be built with the above equation (or a similar one), meaning that as soon as we had that type of environment, all stocks fitting that scenario would be bought, pushing up their PEs.  Some companies might be willing to take an ""all risk"" if they assess that this equation works for more than n% of companies (especially if that n% returns an m% that outweighs the loss).  The only advantage that a small investor might have is that these large companies with robotraders are over-leveraged in bad investments and with a decline, they can't make the good investments until its too late.  Remember, the equation ultimately assumes a person/company has free cash to use it (this was also a problem for many large investment firms in 2009 - they were over-leveraged in bad debt)." "what does negative Total Equity means in McDonald's balance sheet? It means that their liabilities exceed their total assets.  Usually is means that a company has accumulated losses over time, but that's just one explanation.   But, isn't McDonald a very healthy company, and never lost money? Just because a company has ""always"" money does not mean it's a healthy company.  It may have borrowed a lot of money in order to operate, and now the growth is not able to keep up with the debt load. In McDonald's case, the major driver in the equity change is the fact that they have bought back over $20 Billion in stock over the past few years, which reduces assets and equity.  If they had instead paid off debt, their equity would not be negative, but their debt may be so cheap (in terms of interest rate) that it made more financial sense to buy back stock instead of paying off debt.  There are too many variables to assess that in this forum."