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.

Technology Stocks : The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DWB who wrote (148)	7/24/1999 5:59:00 PM
From: gdichaz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

To Daniel: Your comment reminds me of the many blind man and the elephant jokes on their "view" of the animal. Agreed that the paragraph you cite re the Q in the Bloomberg article is "a terrible bit of reporting". But my focus is on another part of that paragraph (the elephant). [And by the way, in these days of political correctness, I am not saying we are both blind men in fact]. The PE used for the Q to supposedly show how high (and by implication, absurd and dangerous) the price of the Q is relative to earnings. As many of us know, the Q's price is at worst consistent with earnings growth and in reality the PE is (depending on the run rate used) around 45 times earnings or a PE of 45 right now using the pro forma earnings. This is hardly a worry. And looking at the probable earnings in the next calendar year of $5 plus probably, the forward PE for calendar 2000 earnings is nearer 30 plus. Once more this shows a reporter who is at a minimum lazy in using outmoded earnings to calculate the PE he then uses to show how high stocks are and taking a leap, why stocks are "overvalued". But all this just shows another reason why the Q is still misunderstood and underappreciated in the media. You would think he might have read some of the glowing upgrades of just this week after earnings and used those earnings estimates as data before filing his story. Not. Chaz

To: DWB who wrote (148)	7/24/1999 6:17:00 PM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

This begs the question... was this reporter sitting on pins and needles waiting for the Q to get added to the S&P so that they could mention the Q and bolster their story, or are they just oblivious to the reality that it was just added? Or are they also oblivious to the reality that their earnings have and will continue to grow at a pace that is far superior to the growth of the index. It certainly validates David Gardner's criterion that a stock must have been reported by at least one major media player as being overvalued to be considered a "rule breaker." --Mike Buckley