Whoa! I didn't say that I saw anything positive. You got me mixed up with Tim!
Message 13939510
In fact, I didn't see much of anything in that article -
especially the stock picks!<VBG>
I found these quotes interesting -
Art Samberg
Having
said that price-to-sales doesn't matter on the dot.coms, I'm now
giving you an absurd price-to-sales ratio and saying I don't care.
Why? Because it is a patentable technology with clear economic
benefits to the user.
All of Gabelli's stuff but especially this -
A year ago the Dow was at 10,700. As we speak, it's
near 10,700. Yet in the past 12 months we've had an enormous
number of opportunities to make money, both in trading and
takeover situations. I think the next 12 months will be much like
the past 12 -- that is, just volatility in valuations. The big change
is that we'll have a new Administration in six months. It's not
significant in terms of the Presidency, because we've survived
all types. But it could have an incredible impact on the attitudes
of appointees at various government agencies.
Q: Such as the the Justice Department.
A: One could argue that Microsoft's problems would not exist
under a different Administration. Secondly, if the Republicans
control all branches of government, you could see a different
attitude at the Federal Communications Commission. If Colin
Powell's son becomes chairman, for example, new policies could
provoke another round of consolidation in the telecom and
media business, allowing American companies to size up to
compete more effectively globally. If the Democrats win, on the
other hand, the new chairman might take an even more
Draconian approach to regulation. There could also be lots of
changes with regard to tax policy. As for the big picture, a new
President wants to get re-elected. Therefore, if we're going to
have a slowdown to rebalance the world, the new guy will want
it early in his Administration. Using macroeconomic policy to
cool things off could have a chilling effect in 2001.
AJC -
Technology by itself had quadrupled as a percentage
of the S&P 500, and it wasn't going to quadruple again . . . And if our 2000 earnings forecast is
correct-namely, that there is a notable deceleration in earnings
growth under way-the Fed might decide it doesn't have very
much more to do this summer.
Biggs -
We're going to see the pricking of that bubble later this year,
but just when is impossible to forecast. The Ciscos, the Nokias,
the Nortels are absolutely marvelous companies. But at 80-120
times earnings, their multiples are too marvelous.
Scott Black-
Comcast has also been killed. It's trading at 36, down from
57. As a result of several recent and pending deals, there are
roughly a billion fully diluted shares outstanding. Comcast not
only offers cable distribution but it has tons of programming
assets and a big stock portfolio.
First let's review the balance sheet. As of March 31, it included
$751 million in cash and equivalents and about $12 billion in
marked-to-market investments. These encompass stakes in
Excite@Home and SprintPCS and a put to AT&T, as well as
investments in several cable channels, a sports arena, the
Philadephia Flyers and the 76ers. Although Comcast has $10.8
billion in long-term debt, net debt essentially is zero. On the
operating side we're looking for $2.63 billion in EBITDA in
2001. The stock is selling for roughly 12 times next year's
EBITDA, and we think it's pretty cheap.
Pretty pictures of who. Abby? Barton Biggs, Neff or Mario gabelli??
You must be joshing.<g>
Definitely! <VBG> |
