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: jhg_in_kc who wrote (7753)	4/1/2000 11:11:00 AM
From: David Perfette	Respond to of 9068

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. Jhg, It's not the volume of participation nor the regularity to which an investor, elite or not, puts his cash to work. It's the willingness to pay such a high price that creates a bubble effect. -David P.

To: jhg_in_kc who wrote (7753)	4/1/2000 6:15:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Respond to of 9068

jhg, I define a bubble as a condition in which the price of a stock (or commodity or any other economic good) cannot be justified on economic grounds. I don't consider it a pejorative, any more than describing somebody with a body temperature of over 100 as having a fever to be a pejorative description. Think about the following scenario. Suppose you have a basket of stocks that demands an expected holding period rate of return of at least 18% based on cost of capital and volatility considerations. Suppose, further, that the expected growth in cash flow is 35% pa. If the trailing P/E is about 200 (as in the case of CSCO), how many years of 35% growth must already be discounted into the current price of the stock to justify the P/E multiple? Under this scenario, each year the P/E would be reduced by 14.4%. Now suppose that we agree that the terminal P/E of such a stock should be about 45 (which implies plenty of growth still ahead of it). The answer is about 11 years! A simpler way of thinking about this is to ask yourself why growth in the price of the stock has exceeded expected growth in cash flow. The only rationales are: 1. Visibilty of future earnings has increased, reducing the riskiness of holding the shares; and/or 2. Interest rates are falling. Neither of those cases are true. Hence, I believe that the inflated prices of many stocks on the NASDAQ are indicative of a bubble. But that is not the case with many "old economy" stocks. So it is not a case of elitism. What we are seeing are normally rational people eschewing reason in favor of making a quick buck. For example, I once asked an acquaintance about XYZ, a company in which he invested heavily. This individual couldn't even tell me what business the company was in! His glib reply to me was, "they make money", which, in reality, meant that the price of the stock was going up. He had no idea of the company's earnings. TTFN, CTC