Okay, perhaps I just haven't noticed it because I wasn't a financial rag magazine subscriber back then....but is it just me, or have all magazines and other financial sources begun the sneaky trick of using FORECASTED next year's fiscal year EPS to determine PE ratios? Or, have they always (i.e. last 10 years) done that?
Seems to me that not too long ago, people would use the trailing 12 months actual earnings to compute PE ratios and comment on whether it looks over/under valued compared to growth rates.
Also, note that trailing 12 months versus next year's earnings isn't just 1 years worth of "earnings inflation/PE Ratio deflation", it's TWO (going from trailing 12 months, skipping over current year EPS estimate, going to next year's EPS estimate).
Some might say it's just due to low inflation not creating as much worry, so we can use the liberty to stretch out from trailing 12 months to next years EPS...but has anyone else become a little 'worried' about this trend to quietly change how some people talk about PE ratios?
Or, am I just
(ok, perhaps that's already a given....)