Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Justa & Lars Honors Bob Brinker Investment Club -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chuck Rubin who wrote (6731)	7/12/1999 12:49:00 PM
From: Kirk ©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15132

Actually, I disagree. Valuation almost always rules. The big issue is "how"? Some are pricing companies like the multi year battle is already over and the winner is....pick a name with an extreme market cap. IF you think that AOL has a model and market name that others can't eat into, then you probably think they are cheap. IF you think AOL is nothing more than a commodity (an ISP with some content) that some box maker can decide to give away with their machines so they can sell stuff to the the buyers of the box, then AOL isn't worth $25. I am in the 2nd camp but I enjoy a healthy discussion of why people think I am wrong and AOL led by Steve Case is so smart that others can't do what AOL is doing and for a whole lot cheaper... You see, I am looking at "replacement cost" for my valuation model... BTW, the Motley Fools did a really nice discussion of valuation pro and con Saturday for Yahoo! They are not the idiots some make them out to be. regards Kirk out

To: Chuck Rubin who wrote (6731)	7/12/1999 12:50:00 PM
From: Carl R.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15132

Chuck, you posted that: the internet is not quantifiable yet you don't determine these stocks by valuation standards, but by who is going to be the biggest guy on the block in the future when e-commerce really kicks in valuation isn't driving these stocks now, it is market share and who is going to be dominant on the net. Interesting concept, and a totally foreign one to me. So essentially what you are saying is that you try to figure out who will be dominant on the web, and once you have decided, you buy them regardless of the price? And that since they aren't quantifiable yet, the price can be anything and still not be too high? And therefore that if you believe that YHOO will be a dominant player, you would buy them at $1,000 or even $10,000 per share? And that since they aren't quantifiable, you make no effort to estimate how big they will be in 5 or 10 years, nor any effort to project future earnings? And you don't try to envision a scenario where the company could become large enough or profitable enough to justify a decent return from today's price? You just close your eyes and push the buy button? Carl

To: Chuck Rubin who wrote (6731)	7/12/1999 4:08:00 PM
From: Math Junkie	Respond to of 15132

The thing that troubles me about what you're saying is that you say that traditional valuation methods don't apply to Internet stocks, but then you are unable to come up with anything objective to replace it. Instead you just tell me to "take action that feels comfortable for you". Well I can tell you with great certainty that a great many of the people who bought AOL for 175 felt comfortable at the time. In fact they thought they had a sure thing. As did those who bought AMZN for 220, YHOO for 240, UBID for 180, and ONSL for 105. The people who bought these stocks at the top are currently down 30%, 47%, 37%, 82%, and 78% respectively, and that doesn't even count the ones who were on margin. You're right that there is risk in all stocks. That is my point. A smart investor takes steps to manage these risks, through diversification, limiting high-risk investments to funds they can afford to lose, etc. Tell me, what do you think of someone putting 40, 50 or even more per cent of their funds into Internet stocks?