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 Naked Truth - Big Kahuna a Myth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (54101)	7/30/1999 11:28:00 PM
From: bobby beara	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86076

Heinz, people were worried about microsofts valuation in 1997, now they all believe it will be the first trillion $ company. Garzarelli who said sell all stocks in 1996, tonight on NBR said buy the dip on financials. The top has to be seductive enough to trap a large share of the professionals and public. bb

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (54101)	7/31/1999 11:44:00 AM
From: Joan Osland Graffius	Respond to of 86076

Heinz, >>they pointed out that the 'earnings growth' of the tech bellwethers is largely a mirage, as stock option schemes are not properly accounted for and that therefore their already lofty p/e's are in reality even higher. Sorry, I just posted this information. This fellow I was talking about said the growth in earning were 0 in many of the stock option burdened balance sheets. He is a growth fund manager and his discipline of course will not allow him to hold these companies in his fund. I wonder what would be a fair value for a company like this. Microsoft comes to mind, there is no dividend to the stockholder, there is no earning growth, there may be revenue growth, but a portion of the revenue is from employees paying for stock options and the companies unfair advantage with its investments, what is the value of an asset that has a life cycle that is short, etc. etc. Joan