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: Chuzzlewit who wrote (7736)	3/31/2000 3:11:00 PM
From: Innuit	Respond to of 9068

I agree that it is tough to decide how much to pay for a growth stock and what objective criteria to use. As Peter Lynch has said, in the very short run there is no correlation between earnings and price. In the very long run there is perfect correlation. What we are paying for is an estimate of what we think an enterprise will earn one day and how much the earnings will grow. Other variables include what is "hot", psychology, information and misinformation. Some of There have been times, about 3 years ago when people posted bogus stuff on SI about phantom competitors of CTXS.

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (7736)	3/31/2000 3:39:00 PM
From: Wigglesworth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9068

<<The demise of the Japanese market bubble, and the bursting of the nifty-fifty bubble are two recent examples of what can and will (IMO) happen to this market.>> This is the classic what-but-not-when prediction regularly pronounced by those who correctly identified 9 of the last 2 bubbles.

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (7736)	4/1/2000 1:17:00 AM
From: jhg_in_kc	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9068

<<We are currently in a market bubble>> chuzz, whenever people disagree, it is usually because they have not defined their terms. So i ask, by your lights, what is a "bubble?" I am sure you would agree this is a perjorative term, it implies something extremely fragile which will not last and will easily disappear. as in poof! But I also see, and have described to you, an economy which is strong and growing stronger. In this environment, many enterprises flourish, unempl;oyment is low, productivity is high, the government builds surpluses not deficits and there is no threat of inflation to the people of the United States. Because the people prosper and have discretionary income, they invest. Naturally, what they invest in--In greater amounts than perhaps ever before because of the democratization of investment vehicles-- goes up in value. But you say this is a "bubble." To me, in some ways, this implies elitism, as in when the Rockefellers and other old monied families invest, they are making sound decisions, because there are not enough of them to cause "a bubble." But when the average working man buys shares of stock on a regualr basis, by the volume of his participation, he creates a bubble. So, unless you can define "bubble" in a way which suits the times we live in, I must conclude that you are in favor of a stock market in which participation is limited to its traditional participants, elites who are not numerous enough to cause a 'bubble.' Surely this is not what you have in mind. Why can't I, a middle class guy--along with all the rest of my fellow middlebrows--buy stocks and be an investor, not some fool who is causing a dangerous bubble. Many more people want to--and can-- take control of their retirement destinsy now than ever before. Why is this a bubble? Perhaps, CTC must revise his valuation standards to take into consideration the new players in the market and their desires. A Rockefeller's bubble is a working man's retirment nest egg. Which brings me back to my original question: Why do you assert we are in a bubble? What is a "bubble?" If I knew for sure what you meant, then I could reply. Where do you recommend the middle classes to put thier discretionary money. In lottery tickets. In T-bills? all the best jhg