Jack - On the heels of a definition for "ascendant" your statement, "if the stockholders will agree that the company is worth 100 times estimated revenue, it WILL be worth 100 times provided they also agree that estimated revenues are a sufficient basis" goes right to the heart of the matter - the matter being the investor's question - "Just what am I investing in?"
In the fields of biotech and comms, it has become almost impossible, sometimes, to know what exactly is going on.
Your statement reminds me that investing in high-tech, these days, is something like a game we used to play at parties, when I was a kid: the "mystery bag" game. A brown paper bag, bid a nickel, bid a dime, bid a buck. What's in there - a ten dollar bill, or a wad of crumpled newspaper?
And, as you say, Jack, until the moment you open that bag you have bought, you don't know what it's worth - you only know what others will pay for it.
I'll paraphrase Ray's wonderful remark about "vaporware, re-invent-the-wheel ware, we invented-it-here ware, never-gonna-see-it ware" (sorry, Ray, couldn't find your post); it feels like some peculiar lunacy has hit the markets. The paradox of the internet - knowledge flows instantly and freely; the more you learn, the less you know - leaves one clinging to the rock of Common Sense as a last resort.
It's not enough, sometimes: we get washed away by a wave of unrealistic hype, investor frenzy for another brown paper bag, for the "ascendant" technology, the "gorilla" stock. The Terrorbeam, indeed... but methinks the terror doesn't lie with the technology: it lies in huge expectations behind it. |
