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 : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Boplicity who wrote (72267)	5/23/2000 11:45:00 PM
From: Ruffian	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Good, I have a lot of Powder............<gg> eom.

To: Boplicity who wrote (72267)	5/23/2000 11:51:00 PM
From: Stu R	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Something seems out of whack with the chart. Between 1995 and 2000 the pe went from about 35 to 245 which is an increase of about 7X. If Nas peaked at about 5000 assuming no earnings growth for the Nas for 5 years that would give us a Nas of about 700 in 1995. I don't know what the Nas was but my recollection was that it was higher. In any event the 245 pe seems very suspect. Even the high pe big cap Nas stocks are nowhere near 245 pe, so where does this come from? Stu

To: Boplicity who wrote (72267)	5/24/2000 12:04:00 AM
From: waverider	Respond to of 152472

Greg with all due respect that chart doesn't reflect much of significance. It probably includes every loser as well as winner and the dot com things that never should have been born. Also the time frame needs a bit of adjustment. You can make any chart look scary by compressing the scale. So for my particular perspective from the chart below, I say we ain't seen nothing yet in terms of QCOM price appreciation. Do you think we have a business model at least as good as Dell did? siliconinvestor.com <H>