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 : LSI Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: uu who wrote (21921)	4/15/2000 9:50:00 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Respond to of 25814

...however by looking into the present and future these stocks are extremely undervalued! How can they be undervalued when everybody's grandmother wants to get into them?

To: uu who wrote (21921)	4/16/2000 1:12:00 AM
From: E_K_S	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25814

Hi Addi: I agree with your statement "...with productivity increasing at an exponential rate... AND ...the economy is becoming dependent at an exponential rate on technology..." as key to why we have and will continue to see premiums in stock prices for companies that deliver these "new economy" products or services. My Dad is from the "old economy" (like Dippy) and I respect their experience living through the depression and all BUT their perspective is from the old industrial revolution time period 1940's-1970's (i.e. old economy). Our economy is benefiting from the HUGE productivity gains and efficiencies obtained from these new emerging technologies (starting in the 1980's with PC's and late 1990's with the Internet, microprocessors, ASICS, fibre optics etc.). LSI is but one of the key companies that should benefit from this "new economy" as the old economy companies utilize these technologies to become more efficient and profitable. For Dippy, I can site Ford Motors as an example. Their management is young and proactive and embracing this "new economy" theory. The company has established an Internet BtoB purchasing program which will cut over 35% of their overhead production costs in parts assembly. They utilize the newest computer chips in their automobiles to achieve the greatest fuel to power efficiencies ever. Ford has and continues to be one of the most profitable and efficient automobile manufactures BECAUSE it's management has adopted new technologies into it's production. =========================================================== LSI is one of these companies that continues to deliver new products to this worldwide economy that makes many of these main stream companies more efficient. IMO, this is why we are seeing the growth in many of LSI's different product sectors. I expect it to continue for some time too. EKS

To: uu who wrote (21921)	4/16/2000 11:10:00 PM
From: Jules V	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25814

I've held LSI for years, but did take profits in the 70's since it's historically been a cyclical (OK we'll see if it is this time). I admire the buy and hold approach, but: There's those 1929 sayings about selling when you start getting stock tips from the shoeshine boy: I am known as a stock guy, and in the last year, about half the office and most friends have come begging for stock tips "to get into the market". In the last 3-4 months, my 64 year old mother who has never bought stocks in her life decided to get into a BIG MO stock, and boss shifted out of CDs into tech funds, etc, etc. There's also the saying that stocks are supposed to discount the future, not the hereafter...It usually seems that when the chart goes vertical/exponential for a while like the NASDAQ starting last fall, it doesn't last. It's hard to believe anything's "undervalued" as the future was certainly discounted. Maybe they will be in a few more days though. Note the last line of this editorial from this weeks Barron's: ===================================================== As you can imagine, it's a huge temptation for an oft-baited bear like ourselves to revel in the carnage. And as we survey the wreckage, we can't help wondering which of the limbs sticking out from under the rubble belong to the momentum players, which to members of the buy-on-the-dip crowd, which to followers of the false prophets of Dow 36,000 and which to the other peddlers of New Era twaddle. But mother always told us not to be unseemly. Besides, nothing more unnerves us than the sound of weeping widows and wailing orphans. So we'll simply mention the fact that Nasdaq was down 25% for the week and 34% from its high, and the S&P 500 lost 10.5%, while the Dow caved a whopping 805.71 points over the five trading sessions. We'll refrain, too, from chronicling how individual issues, all of them yesterday's darlings, have melted like one of Ben & Jerry's cool creations in a microwave. Frankly, we're grateful to be able to muster such restraint. Otherwise, we'd feel compelled to cite such gory examples of former favorites in extremis as Amazon.com, off 58.5% from its yearly high of 113. Or Keynote Systems, 33 1/4 and sinking, down from 177 six weeks ago. Or Red Hat, which has crumpled from 151 in December to 24 1/8 last week. Or VerticalNet, suffering from a severe bout of vertigo that has dropped it from 148 plus in March to 28. Or CrayFish, which slid from 166 in March to 13. Our hearts go out, of course, to the victims of the Great April Massacre. Especially those poor innocents who discovered, thanks to their friendly online or old-fashioned broker, the joys of margin. One benefit: Having your broker unbidden sell your stock relieves you of the fuss and mess of doing it yourself. Making the horrendous fall of Nasdaq hurt all the more is that a lot of presumed pros, too blinded by success and/or greed (they're all too often boom companions) almost willfully refused to see it coming. Kid analysts continued to churn out buy recommendations even as the stocks they were recommending fell off the cliff, and fund managers wouldn't or couldn't lighten up before the market saved them the trouble. Resolutely on the alert for silver linings, we draw some comfort from the fact that one of the raging disputes of our time has finally been resolved -- yes, it was a bubble. ==============================================

To: uu who wrote (21921)	2/11/2003 4:39:14 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25814

With traditional standards of 100 years ago, yes these stocks are overvalued, however by looking into the present and future these stocks are extremely undervalued! Addi you said this almost 3 years ago... when LSI was around 75 or 80. Now, we are at 4... do you want to emphasize the word "extremely" in "extremely undervalued" by throwing in a few more (or a few hundred more) words?! Boy, I am out of this market, and yet this bear has gotten ME tired! Sigh!