#Infosys Biggest Falls
Apr 15, 2011---9.58%
Aug 18, 2017---9.56%
Mar 16, 2020--9.22%
Jul 15, 2016----8.82%
Mar 13, 2014--8.54%
Jul 12, 2012----8.36%
Jan 12, 2012---8.43%
Mar 12, 2020--7.99%
May 29, 2014--7.84%
Apr 18, 2022--7.84% (Today)
It has Seen Much worst Days
More from Infylongterm
1.6x PEG on forward PE is not cheap for most stocks but this is Infy...Pristine quality.
Infosys PEG ratio (1-year fwd PE/EPS growth) down to 1.4x from a peak of 2.7x as PE cut by 27% & EPS growth cut by 5% - trades at 23.3x PE for 11% FY23 growth. If this is a mid-cycle correction, its done BUT if this is the great valuation reset - more fall coming
— ThirdSide (@_ThirdSide_) May 25, 2022
Place your bets pic.twitter.com/9ZlaLDcxPZ
You May Also Like
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".