Darrell, RE: Dell didn't miss on revenue, the ANALYSTS missed on their projections.
Possibly true, but the stock might be discounting what the analysts say, right or wrong. That's why it's important to pay attention to an analyst miss.
What idiot wouldn't buy a company that is growing in excess of 25% in this market?
Depends on the price of the stock and the trend in margins. I can find a whole host of companies growing revenue at 25%. Of course, a lot of other factors are important.
Their NOW saying that they're NOT looking at THIS year, but NEXT! The goofs were saying the same in 1998 and 1999. They were looking at 1998, but 1999 in 1998. They were not looking at 1999 but 2000, in 1999.
But while they were wrong in '98, they were right in '99, and look to be right in 2000. The price of DELL until recently was probably discounting faster revenue and earnings growth than actually occurred.
Dell is already priced for a below a lousy 25% growth in 2000.
Probably true.
So you mean to tell me that you're willing to buy SUNW with 2X the market cap of Dell who is experiencing 40% growth and AND WAIT SIX YEARS for your 40% growth to equal the same Dell revenue of $110 billion achieved with 25% growth?
No, I'm not saying that. I have never talked about SUNW, you're the one bringing that up. And, although DELL certainly would like to start competing with SUNW, they don't now, not to any great extent. Comparing valuation with SUNW is no more applicable than comparing valuation with EMC.
there is clearly something wrong with WallStreets justification of stock pricing.
A couple of thoughts on this matter. First of all, an overpriced stock can get even more overpriced, as long as the trend in financials is positive. SUNW is a prime example, IMO. Nothing right or wrong with this, that is just one of the rules of the game. You and I don't set the rules, but as long as we're both playing the game, that is one of the rules that we have to face. As long as things go fine, the stock does fine. When there is a blip, things stop doing fine. Look back 2 years for DELL and you'll find the same thing.
Unrelated to SUNW's overpriced nature (about which we both agree on) is DELL's price. My experience is that if I'm wrong about the way a company is valued for an extended period of time, I must conclude that the mistake is within me, not the market. Sometimes I'm wrong, certainly, and the market vindicates my opinion. But far more often I find that it saves me from mistakes.
Is DELL undervalued at 31? Certainly possible. But before you could come to that conclusion, you would first have to understand why you were wrong when DELL was 50. If your conclusion is that back then the market was just plain wrong, then I'd suggest that you look harder.
BTW, thanks for attacking the argument and not me. It is highly valuable for me. |
