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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Waiting for the big Kahuna -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandeep who wrote (46314)	3/14/2000 11:42:00 AM
From: Charles P. Hubbard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 94695

take a look at the fundamentals of stocks like QSFT and ITWO. do these look healthy to you? there are hundreds more. CPH

To: sandeep who wrote (46314)	3/14/2000 12:20:00 PM
From: pater tenebrarum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 94695

sandeep, i disagree that the market is healthy. the internals stink since the a/d line peak in April '98. the majority of stocks has been in a vicious bear market ever since. why should there be a panic? because they always occur once parabolic advances have run their course. it's your choice: new era, or all of human history... i also disagree that the fundamentals are uniformly good. yes, there are many fundamental positives....but once you look beneath the surface, you have to acknowledge a plethora of imbalances, the most glaring of which are the explosion in private sector debt (including margin debt, which is another reason why a panic will occur at some point), and the vast current account deficit. due to the BLS using hedonic pricing in its GDP and inflation calculations it has unfortunately become impossible to get a true picture of those economic indicators that do look healthy at first blush. as for the company specific fundamentals, once again, it is necessary to look beneath the surface. a lot of accounting shenanigans are perpetrated, from pooling of interests accounting to the misuse of company pension fund surpluses to massage earnings. moreover, many cos are engaged in a massive misallocation of resources game by buying back their overinflated stock - mostly on credit as it were. valuations are so out of this world in the meantime that decades of phenomenal growth have been priced in already. and yet, specifically regarding tech cos, no-one knows for certain if the leaders of today will be the leaders of tomorrow. their technology could become obsolete overnight. therefore it makes absolutely no sense to completely disregard risk premiums, as is being done now. if you're looking for a reason why these stocks have advanced so much in recent years (beyond open-ended fantasy and in some cases the very good performance of the underlying businesses), look no farther than the explosion in the nation's money supply during Greenspan's tenure. as for the great performance of some of the businesses in question, well, while earnings have roughly doubled over the past decade, stocks have roughly risen by a factor of ten. strikes me as a bit out of kilter. finally, the great bull market has built up very unrealistic expectations. the fact remains that every secular bull has eventually been followed by a secular bear, dashing the hopes that often peak right with the market. finally, both Haim and i do trade bonds from time to time. regards, hb PS: i heartily recommend reading Warren Buffet's comments on the market in the latest BRK annual report. very enlightening.

To: sandeep who wrote (46314)	3/14/2000 2:28:00 PM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 94695

sandeep, have you anytime in your life tried to buy a business and applied for a loan to your friendly banker to finance that business?? (no pun intended, just reality check) If you have not done so before please do not define what a healthy or fairly valued market is. get familiar with banking comercial lending practices and you will understand my point. If a banker does not want to lend money to a business, then why should you???!! Banks do not finance dreams Venture Capital are that is why they are called "Venture" Just as a remark - if the company capitalization is above the non-public value of similar company by over 20% to 30% then the stock is overvalued. Those are my 2 cents. BWDIK Haim BTW any one watching MU, COMS, PALM?? interesting reversals.

To: sandeep who wrote (46314)	3/14/2000 9:00:00 PM
From: Lee Lichterman III	Respond to of 94695

>>When the fundamentals of so many companies such as Intel, Dell, Microsoft, Cisco, Yhoo are so good, why should there be any panic ?<< Uhmmmmm, maybe because 30% growth in earings or revenues doesn't match the 200% rises in stock price? Or even 80% increases in ORCL revenues doesn't justify 400% increase in stock price. Would you give me a dollar if I gave you a nickel. These mania traders are doing it every day and think they are getting a bargain. Good Thing our school systems are doing so well or this market would be in trouble. <ggg> Good Luck, Lee