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 : Tekelec -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: WTSherman who wrote (1432)	4/4/2000 3:44:00 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1648

lml, I don't know that the "blue chip high techs" aren't any more ridiculously valued than dot.com's. That's right, WT, you don't. My point wasn't the valuation metric, but the "haircut" metric. If we accept your hypothesis about valuation, then by what measure? I don't mean to necessarily dipute your hypothesis; it has some merit, but my point is a relative one, not an absolute one. If any hi-techs deserve an excessively high PE, it IS the blue-chip hi-techs, particularly those that some might term as "gorillas." It is difficult to accurately project the growth of these "gorillas" because their historic growth is not necessarily reflect of their future growth, as gorillas can move into new high-growth market segments and dominate. What ORCL is doing is demonstrative of this point. I don't mean to argue or belabor this point with you. We both have better things to do now -- at least I do. But my point was a relative one in that it is rational to go with stronger dominant companies with proven success despite the high-growth nature of their markets & potential markets. To equate them with the dot-coms, and allow me to use NZRO as a excellent example, is ludicrous. In sum, your argument may hold water today, but it won't over a few days, or a few weeks. And that's what's really what I'm talking about: irrational selling leading to oversold conditions RELATIVE to other competing values in the marketplace.

To: WTSherman who wrote (1432)	4/4/2000 8:54:00 PM
From: jack bittner	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1648

i'm puzzled by your use of the past tense: "the valuations that cisco and oracle were at". oracle, at any rate, is still at over 100x earnings if we annualize last q's 17 cents a share. i don't follow csco, but it to, i think, is still triple-digit times earnings. OT: as long as you mention orcl. does anyone here know what orcl has other than the world's greatest databases, that particularly suit its drive toward B2B? yes, one needs extraordinary data for the planned exchanges like Ford/GM/Daimler - but they could've bought (or perhaps already own) oracle databases. but something made those big carmakers give orcl a piece of their exchange. what? and, given that decision, why did Boeing/Raytheon/BAE/Lockheed decide they didn't need oracle and use commerce one alone? (I'd agree there's not much here about Tekelec. My apologies)