Resorting to ad hominem attacks does little to bolster your case. You have not responded to any of my points, which I take as evidence of your inability to do so. Suggest you either respond to specific points, or cut your losses and disappear. Bluster in the form of further personal attacks will only make you look worse.
To refresh your memory, here are the posts that you seem incapable of responding to>
To: Ben Wa who wrote (1641)
From: Mucho Maas Friday, Jun 9, 2000 11:46 AM ET
Reply # of 1651
Actually, I think I get your point about the sweet spot of growth and multiple expansion. My point to you has to do with your statement regarding EPS for 2000 and 2001:
eps of $1.27 & $1.66 respectively. that is eps growth rate of 31% from 2000-2001.
I believe these figures are understated significantly. Specifically, I believe FY2000 earnings are likely to be closer to the figure you quote for 2001 than 2000. FY01 numbers should be much higher. A WAG, based on 20% QoQ growth, is $3.22, or nearly double the number you are quoting.
I may be right or I may be wrong--time will tell--but my point is, the numbers one chooses to work with have an enormous impact on the expected outcome. I look at a company that is growing earnings and revenues at 20%+ sequentially--with a spike in the current quarter leading to revised guidance of 58% for EPS and 44% for revs. This is a company that has a history of beating analyst estimates by good-sized margins (not the Cisco one-penny variety). As long as they can maintain the sequential growth we are seeing, I believe analysts will consistently underestimate future growth and there will always be people using the lowball analyst figures to complain that the stock is too expensive.
After the Q4 earnings come out, we can come back and look at our exchange here and see who was closest to the truth.
To: Ben Wa who wrote (1644)
From: Mucho Maas Friday, Jun 9, 2000 1:37 PM ET
Reply # of 1651
but the pe for this and other optical stocks clearly reflect the belief that published estimates are too low
So unless you believe them, why use them as a basis...for anything? You brought up the figures, then derived 31% growth, as if this was saying something meaningful. But you seem to recognize that the figures you quoted could be too low, so I don't know why you're bothering to use them. You haven't really proved anything.
You acknowledge the possibility that the stock/group could rise, but state that it would be "based purely on price momentum buying". Again, this is just an arbitrary statement without any proof or logic behind it: it is false logic to deem any rise in stock price de facto evidence of "momentum buying". There could be any number of causes, no?
The one thing it seems you haven't done is actually look at the company, its business, and what is actually happening there that is driving the impressive numbers. That is a mistake that has kept a lot of the moral bears out of the techs.
As for momentum buying being a factor that got the Naz into trouble, I concur, but I would ask you to look at the different sectors and stocks and see what has been trashed and what has thrived. What are the stocks that have made new 52-week highs recently, and what sectors are they in? What stocks are still down 50% or more? I think you will find that the market is becoming a lot more discriminating. There has been a flight to quality. |
