To: John Malloy who wrote (28370 ) 9/19/1999 2:25:00 AM From: Brian Malloy Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 77397
Yours is a good post and valid. Unfortunately, I leave on a trip in just a few hours so can not respond appropriately in depth. I'll try to do that next weekend when I return. Determining "Fair Value" is always difficult and as you point out, assumptions can really impact the findings. However, I do not believe that many of the traditonal measures of stock valuation developed for the industrial age are appropriate to the CSCO's, MSFT's and other's of information age. Current metrics understate their value, others perhaps overstate. But it is good that Glassman is wrestling with the issue(s) and sharing it with us right or wrong. Yes, he is using and adapting old metrics but he is attempting to get a better fit so to speak - unlike an Abelson who will not even contemplate change and if things don't fit his myopic view then people that invest must be irrational. I have read Glassman's articles for a number of years and as he points out he was of the conservative ilk. To me, this makes his work even more worthy of study. What caused him to change? What new insight does he have that allowed him to break the old mold. I like to consider myself a thinker in mold of the Sante Fe Institute. We often put a ceiling or wall around our thinking which can sometimes be suboptimal if a better answer, a more correct answer is right on the other side. Yet, the thinker on the other side has no wall, within this given space, he sees and understand what the first viewer does and is able to extend it and understand more. Bottom line, neoclassical economics which underpins many of the stock valuation metrics used today just isn't cutting it with respect to the info age.