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 : PMC-Sierra (PMCS) - moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Trader Dave who wrote (124)	11/28/2000 5:58:08 PM
From: Wizard	Respond to of 469

>>The only thing I disagree with in your comments is the "deceleration." I just don't see much evidence of that. I guess there is no universal definition of deceleration but my brokers have told me some of their accounts are selling positions because sequential growth next quarter is surely to be below last quarter (yet this Q will still be above consensus). Obviously, you can have faster Y/Y growth this quarter than last quarter but slower Q/Q growth. Analysts all build in deceleration into consensus because that is inevitible as numbers get big and % increases are anniversaried. However, downgrading stocks at this point with no numbers cut is a little bit like searching for the departed horse in the barn. The multiple might have been 50% higher 90 days ago (due to fundamental growth and stock price depreciation) yet its now downgraded. huh? PMCS hasn't even been below its 200 day moving average in 8 quarters (prior to this one) so we were long overdue for a correction and I even trimmed this stock the first time below where it is now (early in '00). Its been a hell of a ride on PMCS. I thank Mr Bailey and look forward to more good times someday.

To: Trader Dave who wrote (124)	11/28/2000 9:47:41 PM
From: techanalyst1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 469

"When I look around and see pe to growth ratios well below 1"... Well yeah, but what YOU think earnings and growth rates are could be vastly different than what scared fund managers think and in this market we might even overshoot pegs of 1. I bet they're discounting growth rates/future earnings as they fear either a recession or corporate debt and capex woes leading to either top or bottom line misses. Guess we'll have to wait for earnings to settle this whole thing since no one seems to believe ceos know more than journalists. I just have one question: Why is it that these "experts" of doom and gloom don't have a high paying job as the ceo or forcasting growth trends at major tech companies if they are so great? And don't tell me Dan Niles makes a boatload of money. I've seen enough of his calls to know why he doesn't get that kind of job. TA