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.

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

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (23735)	4/27/2000 4:26:00 PM
From: areokat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

Re: Oracle Special Meeting Does anyone know why ORCL is seeking approval of increasing their authorized shares from 4 to 11 billion? They just had a stock split so I wouldn't think that would be it. Are there any discussion of a buy out of anyone? Tom

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (23735)	4/27/2000 4:31:00 PM
From: Pirah Naman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Mike: You probably know me well enough by now to realize that I encourage people to disagree with me. Being relatively new to the thread, I don't think I know anybody very well. But I'm glad you have that attitude, and I assure all that I have that perspective as well. 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. Good insight; I revise my earlier position to say that concentrating on intrinsic value reduces the focus on guessing at future public sentiment. you may be right that the Fool's stuff is confusing I wrote with the clarify of finest mud. The individual valuation descriptions would seem clear to me, though with the background I already had when I read them, I am probably not qualified to fairly judge that. What I was referring to was the number of valuation techniques offered, with such brief explanations of when to apply each. I could well imagine a novice going though that and coming out thinking "for this company, I use X technique, but for this other company, I use Y technique. Or is it Z technique?" "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. Ah, but if one cannot master the use of one tool, how can one use multiple tools successfully? - Pirah