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.

Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Trader who wrote (39973)	11/25/2000 3:58:16 PM
From: brunn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

John, for past declines the length of the decline was sometimes about a year long vs. just under 3/4 year at this time. This probably is my biggest concern about putting more money into AMAT or other semi-equip companies at this time--that we may be sitting on dead money for atleast a few more months. In a way it has been troubling how 8 months have gone by with decreasing stock prices but increasing earnings. If the "market" is correct in predicting a downturn, how long will it take for the downturn to occur--we will then have to go through this downturn for possibly a few more months before business conditions and the stock rise. Optimistically, of course, we might see just a slowing of earnings growth as telegraphed in the last AMAT earnings conference--the problem is that AMAT historically either has dramatic earnings growth or dramatic earnings decreases. In a way I would prefer if AMAT and others would go ahead and have huge earnings shortfalls and get on with it--better sooner than later. (What if the end of the cycle predicted in the summer of 2000 does not occur until 2002 but the stock falls for 2 years based on this prediction? It may seem ludicruous but we might have seen the stock peak well before the business peak in which case you will have to wait more than 18 months.) Still, hopefully my chart illustrates that AMAT can no longer be considered over-valued--even if we are at the peak. Unlike many other tech favorites. Anyway, before putting too many eggs in the AMAT basket remember we may see 30 before we see 200. However, people who bought AMAT at 8 in 1996 probably aren't too worried anymore that they saw it fall to 5.5 before going to 100 four years later.

To: John Trader who wrote (39973)	11/25/2000 8:27:38 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 70976

Thanks for that thoughtful post. I agree, that a 2/3 decline from a mania top does not indicate a bottom. The PE or P/S ratios are only useful after you've answered the question, "has the cycle peaked?" If the cycle has peaked, then we still have in front of us a 12-month slide in bookings, which hasn't started yet, although the stock prices are anticipating this. If this last bookings report had shown a decline (making two in a row), then I would be saying now, "OK, we've seen the top in bookings, and the long slide isn't going to end till AMAT is at a P/S of 1-3, sometime in mid-late 2001." But bookings went up. It's hard for me to believe that the stock went from 115 to 38 based on the Street misunderstanding what's happening in the industry. It's easier for me to believe that the Street knows what it's doing, and knows things I don't. A 30% decline can be just a head-fake, but we're way beyond that. You said, "AMAT has a solid management team, is positioned at the core of the tech revolution (selling equipment to who ever wins in the various semiconductor tech wars), and the company has tended to use downturns as an opportunity to make strategic investments." True. But many investors, over the last year, have used that as a rationale to buy stocks that then got chopped in half, or worse. I know this from personal experience, and I suspect you do to. And I must disagree that AMAT is undervalued. It is reasonably valued now (= in the middle of it's historical P/S range) if, and only if, bookings are going to stay at today's high levels through 2002. Are they? I've discussed ad nauseum why I use P/S, not PEs. Briefly: 1. creative accounting is rampant in the E part of the PE. Harder to fake sales numbers. 2. cyclicals are better valued with P/S. 3. forward earnings guesses are totally unreliable. re: Fleckenstein: he tends to get the most news coverage for his continual "sell everything now" opinions, just as stocks are bottoming. When you see his face on the cover of Business Week, you'll know it's time to buy out-of-the-money LEAPs in techs. I agree, that TXN has better prospects than INTC. But the Street agrees also, and it's in the stocks. I also like MSFT (bought at 62 earlier this year) and QCOM (bought at 68). One last comment: we are all great stock pickers in a bull market. And our self-confidence gets hammered in a bear market, even when our stock-picking abilities haven't changed at all. Stock valuations got hammered in the 1970s because interest rates soared. Unless you think we're heading toward stagflation and 18% 30Y-fixed mortgages, there is no need to worry about a decade of flat stock prices.