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 : Citrix Systems (CTXS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (7720)	3/31/2000 9:01:00 AM
From: Innuit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9068

CTXS has always been "overvalued" but the earnings always "caught up" to the price one to two quarters later. One buys a stock not for what it is worth today, but what it will be worth later. Later is defined as a day, a month, a quarter, a year, 3 to 4 years depending whether you are a day trader, a speculator, an mutual fund manager, or an medium or long term investor. What we are seeing now is the "quarter investor" shuffling accounts to window dress portfolios. CTXS makes money and is will make much more in 2 to 3 years when probably its software is part of the Symbian Consortium handset 16 bit operating system, and people stop shipping software by CD but use ASP technology. CTXS is at the forefront of two potentially explosive areas of growth. MSFT which owns 5 percent of CTXS desperately needs to become a player in the "new economy". Their cash cows, NT and Office, are "old economy". I have believed for a while that CTXS would be a wonderful takeover by MSFT or one of the established "new economy" companies (SUNW or ORCL). The price right now is not bad.

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (7720)	3/31/2000 10:30:00 AM
From: Dinesh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9068

Mike I suppose you could make the same statement of all hi-tech stocks, Nasdaq or not. I don't know if you meant to single out CTXS for more restrictive valuation criteria. AFAIK it has the dominating product in a rising market and merits a premium valuation for its premium position. THere will always be interested parties in jawing it down (just as I am long and want to see it up) and sometimes they are pretty influential ones. I will also take exception to annualizing the 2000 run rate. Or else I couldn't find fault with the CNBC analyst who said, during the first week of Jan, that QCOM may have been good for investors in 1999 but 'what has it done for the investors this year!'. Also, Malthus has been dead long time now. Regards Dinesh