Mark, In general, all that you prove to me is that you can massage numbers. One can plug anything one wants to and get the answer they desire. The secret is not to come up with the answer and then find evidence, but to find the evidence first and then come to a conclusion. All of this debate is a bit tiring. I believe that they call it sophistry, or in politics, demagoguery. Using your logic, we would all be buying Apple, a company that did quite well historically, until stumbling recently.(Please don't respond by debating me on this point!!!!) Is the current trend of WIND vs. INTS temporary? Who can say based on numbers. What is interesting is looking at products, markets, technological trends etc. Mark, you just seem to spend your whole life looking into thge rear-view mirror. I don't think that applies well here.
The "irrationally exuberant" look at it the other way which is that WIND is executing and has taken the lead and will never look back.Yes, INTS may be under-valued because of overreaction to temporary poor performance and WIND may be overvalued because of overreaction to temporary excellent performance. I believe that this should be factored in. iT is an excellent point and I, for one, am enlightened. But is it necessary to say more than that? Make your point which is a good one and then that's enough. How about a little common sense here. |
