Good News & Bad News, page-40352

So, in conclusion, when things don’t go your way, you move the goal posts and try to be evasive. PE is PE, and BHP’s PE is 19.3, AND their TTM earnings are lower than their dividend, as I stated.

You didn’t lay a finger on the facts and figures I provided, and keeping in mind that YOU started the PE discussion with a factually incorrect statement to which I provided a sourced proof that you were wrong, the best you can do is say one of the most utilized metrics on Wall Street is unimportant?

No matter how you parse things, BHP still has a PE of 19.3. RIO is at 12.3, so their average PE is 15.8, and those are much larger firms, which tend to have lower PEs because they anticipate lower growth rates. A smaller firm with a provable 50% growth SHOULD have a higher PE than firms like RIO and BHP.

You’ve done absolutely nothing to “prove” your point. You’ve only made yourself look argumentative, and, frankly, unable to defend your position.

It does make one wonder why a non-holder would choose to take such positions on the thread of a non-held position if you’re not willing to make an intelligent defense of your position.

Best regards