SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


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



To: Pirah Naman who wrote (23727)4/28/2000 12:47:00 PM
From: alankeister  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 54805
 
>>As I have said in previous posts, I dislike the use of PEGs and YPEGs, favoring free cash flow

Pirah, Mike - I have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion about valuation since I am a novice in this area. I have used several measures in the past including PEG, ROE, margins, and growth rates. These give me an indication of how a company may perform in the future. The comments from Pirah about free cash flow make it sound very useful. I have read the Motley Fool cash flow material but I don't see how it can be used to value a company like PEG because neither stock price nor market cap are part of the equation. What am I missing? Can you point me to some information about free cash flow?

- Alan