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 : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (48679)	11/9/1999 3:27:00 PM
From: Voltaire	Read Replies (10) \| Respond to of 152472

Nothing fascinates me more than people that are looking for meaning to something, especially markets. What we have chose to gamble in, is a market of overvalued pieces of S---!. You must first recognize what the market is, not try and create a market you desire, if so, you will be a long time waiting. What is being traded in the market place has absolutely nothing to do with success or failure, only ones ability to adjudicate the up or down of such. If the market is billions and billions in tons of elephant dung, the dung itself has nothing to do with gain or loss. There is either a market for elephant dung or not. Now if you will go back, take all your pencils, scratch pads, books by Buffett and last but not least your Zantac, throw them all out the window, sit in a chair for ten minutes, decide whether this market of pieces of s---! is going up or down, walk up to the window, make your bet like the rest of us, go home and tell your wife or husband that you made an investment and you do not know whether it will be good or bad, wait like the rest of us and strike what ever the result may be, up to genius or life, I feel at that moment, you will find the meaning of the markets. What ever else you have been led to believe, I swear to God, it is holds no more meaning than a simple bet on the direction of dung. selah, Voltaire

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (48679)	11/9/1999 4:28:00 PM
From: Dooker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

The internet has exponentially decreased the cost of communication,resulting in the increased ability of industry, individuals and even government to better understand markets and adjust strategies accordingly. This tremendous increase in competition, productivity and efficiency is what the promise of the interenet is all about. Your focus on highly valued companies like Amazon ignore the real providers of increased communication--Uniphase, QCOM,SUNW, etc. Retailing on the internet may prove very difficult, but this does not lessen the strengths of the builders. As to increased valuations, world markets are much bigger than before. With the end of the Cold War and opening of trade across the world, global companies who emerge as dominant will attain earnings the world has never seen. The internet is the triumph of capitalism and markets over communism and control. And the winners with their shareholders will be rich. SO THERE!

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (48679)	11/10/1999 12:24:00 AM
From: cfoe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Without agreeing or disagreeing with what you say (and you said it well, IMHO), two things came to mind as I read. The first comes from a colleague of mine who is a world class (based on long run performance) portfolio management personage. His take on the market: the main reason stock prices are increasing is that peoples' expectation as represented by the p/e ratio are increasing. That is they are willing to pay a higher price for future earnings (dividends + growth). It is as simple as that. Now the fun part (what makes horse racing interesting) comes when we argue why is this happening - fundamental change or irrational exuberance or whatever. Second is something I have seen Larry Kudlow say, but have also read from a few others. One way to look at the "new economy" or the "new paradigm" that is impacting valuations is as follows: The Internet age has ushered in an economy of increasing returns versus decreasing returns. (Of course this is overall, and not on a company by company basis.) I am not sure I can explain what this means very well, let alone defend it. But it would "explain" the increasing valuations we are seeing. FWIW