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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BGR who wrote (71298)	12/2/1999 4:03:00 PM
From: Michael Bakunin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

OK, since you ask, everybody's favorite, the NASDAQ. Because of cap-weighting, what you really mean is the top 100 (not the OEX, which they're now too embarrased to cap weight). Total capitalization is $2.6 trillion; total revenues are $103 billion, earnings are $35 billion, and dividends are negligible. Let us postulate that GDP grows at 5% because while all non-DAQ100 stocks do not grow much, the DAQ100 grows at 25% per year, at least until its revenues represent 90% of the slow-growing GDP (leaving a sliver of room for the government and those nasty, non-OEX companies). Dividends now are negligible, but after the high-growth period ends, they are upped to 50% of earnings. Expected rate of return in this, er, mildly bullish scenario? A fat 10.7%. Boy, BGR, you're right -- the equity premium is alive and well. <cough.. cough.. ackpht> -g- -mb

To: BGR who wrote (71298)	12/2/1999 7:07:00 PM
From: Freedom Fighter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

BGR, He hasn't exactly said he doesn't understand the "new era" of technology, although that's what most people think. What he has said is that it is very difficult to make firm estimates on the future earnings streams of technology companies. (especially for him) As a value guy, in order to make a quality estimate of intrinsic value, you really have to know what the company might look like 5-10 years down the line. Technology changes rapidly. Today's winners often become big time losers within a few years and often quite unexpectedly. It is therefore easier to value Coke, Proctor and Gamble, Gillette, etc.. than it is Oracle, Sun, Microsoft, and Cisco. You will have some big time disasters as well as scores in technology even if you understand them well. The same is not likely in more stable industries. I think it's a matter of preference and style. I might add that both he and Bill Gates have said that technology stocks should trade at a "discount" to high quality consumer companies due to the added business risk. That means that both he and Gates think MSFT, SUNW, ORCL, CSCO, the internuts etc... are wildly overvalued. You have to remember they're not to keen on the consumer stocks at these prices and the techs are selling at 2-3 times the multiple. Those comments were made at a presentation they made together a little over a year ago. Wayne