To: Pirah Naman who wrote (23727 ) 4/27/2000 3:14:00 PM From: Mike Buckley Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 54805
Pirah, You probably know me well enough by now to realize that I encourage people to disagree with me. I would prefer that you not be so eloquent about it though, because it makes my rebutalls more difficult. :)Again, while I dislike the use of PEGs and YPEGs, it doesn't seem consistent to criticize the YPEG because it uses a guess, and then turn around and guess both earnings some years out and a PE some years out. I think there's a lot of vailidity to your train of thought. However, I believe there is no investment made in which ultimately the guess isn't made about earnings and PE. It might be an indirect arrival at both guesses, but no one would invest in anything if they didn't have a perception of the future intrinsic value of a company (its earnings, cash flow or whatever) and what the market will be willing to pay for it. If you're referring to the YPEG that uses 5-year growth estimates, there is an additional flaw that I didn't mention. The problem is that many of the 5-year estimates are completey incompatible with the two-year estimates. That incompatibility renders them useless. Not all five -year estimates are so flawed, and probably most aren't that flawed. But I've come across so many of them that are so flawed that I stopped looking at them.I also disagree with Mike about the Motley Fool's valuation guide. Its value lies in describing many of the things that people do, but that can just be confusing to the person interested in applying themselves to learning valuation. Each of us has to decide for ourselves about that. As an example, I am perplexed to recently learn that more than a few people who don't understand technology find Gorilla Game very confusing. Yet I liked it because, for me, it put technology in a context that doesn't require that I understand exactly how a router works. Yes, you may be right that the Fool's stuff is confusing. I, on the other hand, can identify hoards of people who finds their stuff at that site as unconfusing as discussions of valuations can be. And maybe more important, I find the Fool's pieces to be accurate and in context to a far greater degree than the financial stuff coming from their competitors.Frankly, you don't (and they don't) need a different way of valuing every different company. I agree with that. But to use one way that works in all cases often requires skills and interest that many novice investors will never consider. Thanks for your thoughts. I encourage all the readers to take them seriously. --Mike Buckley