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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Engel who wrote (68788)	8/14/1999 9:22:00 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573433

Re: That's the only real measure of value Hmmm.... I think that I'd call it the only real measure of a fair price - what someone's willing to pay at a given moment. I think we'd both agree that there is such a concept as overvalued - while not agreeing on which particular stocks that would include :-) Value and over (or under) valued are such handy terms to represent these concepts in discussion, I'd hate to have to give them up. Dan

To: Paul Engel who wrote (68788)	8/14/1999 11:12:00 AM
From: DRBES	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573433

re: "The last guy that bought Intel sure thought it was worth $79 3/4 - so that makes Intel worth $79 3/4. That's the only real measure of value." No...It is more a measure of that last guy's judgement. STAY TUNED!!!!!! DARBES

To: Paul Engel who wrote (68788)	8/14/1999 5:26:00 PM
From: Mani1	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573433

Paul Re <<The last guy that bought Intel sure thought it was worth $79 3/4>> How about the guy who sold it? Re <<That's the only real measure of value.>> Dan was talking about the intrinsic value not traded value. Using your argument you can never discuss a value of a any stock. It is my opinion that RBAK and JNPR are extremely over valued regardless of whether some one paid $200 for them. Mani