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.
The CBOE had a great article on this. I will search for it and edit. The normal dividends are not adjusted. Which is why you see early exercise of just out of the money options sometimes. To get that dividend. A special dividend, say a $50 stock with $1/yr dividend but now has a $3 one time dividend would likely result in an option strike adjustment. Ya, that's a lot of data - especially considering your relative lack of experience and the likely fact that you have no idea what to do with what you're given.  How do you even know you need minute or tick-based bid-ask data?    You can get a lot more than OHLC/V/Split/Dividend.  You can get:  * Book Value; * Dividend information (Amount, yield, ex date, pay date); * EBITDA; * EPS (current AND estimates); * Price/sales ratio; * Price/book value; * Price/earnings ratio; * PEG ratio; * Short ratio; * Market cap.  Among other things, all for free. Do you expect people who work at Sears to have a large allotment of skill assets in the first place?  Afterall I put Sears only a peg or two above McDonalds after adjusting for coming home smelling like fast food. Should be noted that pacoverflow's answer is wrong. Yahoo back-adjusts all the previous (not current or future) values based on a cumulative adjustment factor. So if there's a dividend ex-date on December 19, Yahoo adjusts all the PREVIOUS (December 18 and prior) prices with a factor which is: 1 - dividend / Dec18Close This should get interesting. BEA is a chronic under-performer, poorly managed and shareholders are suffering and Paul Singer is looking out for his shareholders. David Li has incredible political and social influence in HK and China. Elliott does not stand a chance. Paul Singer wants David to bow out with two times BEA’s current book value, and everyone would win but David's ego is not calculated into this equation. The picture talks is about assets on the Fed's balance sheet, which is very different than US government debt. Nor is there anything in the picture about corporate bottom lines, just US equities.   The implication of the picture is that the Fed's QE program is propping up US equity prices, and it is not a comment on the US debt or corporate earnings. You're reading things that simply aren't there. "The problem I have with this argument is exemplified by the following statement:  *""Focusing on share-restricted hedge funds between 1999 and 2008, Sadka and Ozik found that funds with recent inflows on average earned an additional 5.6 percent annually compared to funds that experienced outflows.*""  Funds that are doing well tend - on average - to see customer inflows.  Funds that are doing poorly tend - on average - to see customer outflows.  It's the concept of ""hot money.""  The authors here imply that it's the fund inflows that prompt the outperformance, when - in reality - outperformance prompts fund inflows." "See Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK-A) (The Class A shares)  and it will all be clear to you. IMHO, the quote for the B shares is mistaken, it used earning of A shares, but price of B. strange. Excellent question, welcome to SE.  Berkshire Hathaway is a stock that currently trades for nearly US$140,000. This makes it difficult for individual investors to buy or sell these shares. The CEO Warren Buffet chose to reinvest any profits which means no dividends, and never to split the shares, which meant no little liquidity.  There was great pressure on him to find a way to make investing in Berkshire Hathaway more accessible. In June '96, the B shares were issued which represented 1/30 of a share of the Class A stock. As even these ""Baby Berks"" rose in price to pass US$4500 per share, the stock split 50 to 1, and now trade in the US$90's.  So, the current ratio is 1500 to 1. The class B shares have 1/10,000 the voting rights of the A. An A share may be swapped for 1500 B shares on request, but not vice-versa."