lml, I don't know that the "blue chip high techs" aren't any more ridiculously valued than dot.com's.
That's right, WT, you don't. My point wasn't the valuation metric, but the "haircut" metric. If we accept your hypothesis about valuation, then by what measure? I don't mean to necessarily dipute your hypothesis; it has some merit, but my point is a relative one, not an absolute one. If any hi-techs deserve an excessively high PE, it IS the blue-chip hi-techs, particularly those that some might term as "gorillas."
It is difficult to accurately project the growth of these "gorillas" because their historic growth is not necessarily reflect of their future growth, as gorillas can move into new high-growth market segments and dominate. What ORCL is doing is demonstrative of this point.
I don't mean to argue or belabor this point with you. We both have better things to do now -- at least I do. But my point was a relative one in that it is rational to go with stronger dominant companies with proven success despite the high-growth nature of their markets & potential markets. To equate them with the dot-coms, and allow me to use NZRO as a excellent example, is ludicrous.
In sum, your argument may hold water today, but it won't over a few days, or a few weeks. And that's what's really what I'm talking about: irrational selling leading to oversold conditions RELATIVE to other competing values in the marketplace. |
