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: Keith Feral who wrote (1290)	9/5/1999 11:55:00 PM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13582

Keith, I'm a valuation junkie, so I've got to respond to a comment of yours that is the second one I've seen like it in the last month. At $160, the stock is trading at 40 times EPS for 2000. Balance this PE with the growth rate of 200% for the Sep quarter YOY comparisons. Let's use $0.30 for the 98 Sept quarter and $0.90 for the 99 Sep quarter. That gives you a PEG of .20 -pretty cheap in my book. It's not valid to compare 9/98 with 9/99 as a predictor of ongoing growth because the fundamentals dramatically changed in between those two dates. The Ericsson deal was done and the infrastructure business was sold. Moreover, by definition, a PEG compares the PE with the estimated growth going forward 1 to 5 years, depending on the assumptions being used. What you called a PEG is unlike any PEG I've ever seen because its growth component only addresses the growth between the upcoming quarter and the same one of a year earlier. That's mostly the past, not the estimated forward growth. Each of us has to decide what we think the earnings will be a couple years from now. If you do that and compare it with the trailing PE (excluding one-time charges and revenues and also using the pro-forma data that excludes the infrastructure losses), you'll get a far different and much more realistic PEG ratio than the one you described. In summary, my long-winded point is that by any traditional definition of a PEG ratio I've ever seen, your calculation is wrong to the point of being very misleading. I'm not being critical, just making some observations that hopefully will be a help when using the PEG ratio as an analytical tool. --Mike Buckley