Different Fundamentals results between WL 4.5 and
Author: wycan
Creation Date: 9/28/2008 12:36 PM
profile picture

wycan

#1
I'm still in the process of converting my scripts over from 4.5 to 5.1 and ran into something I'm hoping you could provide some help with.

The Problem:
In WL 4.5, GOOG on 5/3/2005 shows the following;
Earnings Growth (QoQ): 1,254%
Sales Growth (QoQ): $145%
ROE: 20.5%

In WL 5.1, GOOG on 5/3/2005 shows the following;
Earnings Growth (QoQ): 0%
Sales Growth (QoQ): 0%
ROE: 20.5%

In WL 5.1, GOOG shows zero for both earnings growth and sales growth. ROE matches exactly.

The code used in 4.5 is;
CODE:
Please log in to see this code.


The code used in 5.1 is;
CODE:
Please log in to see this code.


Interestingly, starting in late July of 2005, Earnings, sales and ROE match exactly between 4.5 and 5.1

Any ideas or suggestions on why GOOG shows 0% for both Earnings Growth and Sales Growth for 5/3/2005 in WL 5.1 ?

Thx.







profile picture

Cone

#2
GOOG started trading in Aug 2004, so it's not possible to properly calculate earnings growth from 5/2004 to 5/2005. Version 5.1 takes this into account whereas Version 4 did not.
profile picture

wycan

#3
Thx Cone. I guess that makes sense, although I'm not sure then how 4.5 was calculating it.

Here is one more with a descrpancy and I'm not sure what could be the issue, since in this case they are both calculating numbers but they are different.

BHP on 2/1/2005

WL 4.5
EG: 172%
SG: 93%
ROE: 39%

WL 5.1
EG: 198%
SG: 42%
ROE: 30%

.. and I'm assuming that when there are differences your suggestion would be to go with 5.1 ?


thx again.



profile picture

Cone

#4
QUOTE:
.. and I'm assuming that when there are differences your suggestion would be to go with 5.1 ?
Yes. But if there's a doubt, I suggest you look at the data being used. Use the example code for FundamentalDataItems in the QuickRef.

And again, generally in 4.5 a "year" of data were the last 4 reports, regardless of FQ/FY. And, FQ/FY were separate items that may or may not actually align with other quarterly data. Those bad assumptions (design) were corrected in V5, where each data item is tagged with the FY/FQ that it belongs to, and are aligned properly when annualizing.

That said, imho you're just asking for trouble by analyzing fundamentals for ADRs. Most of these animals don't have the strict reporting requirements that U.S. companies have, so data for ADRs should be assumed to be spotty at best.