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 : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: larry who wrote (46329)	1/8/2001 10:35:33 AM
From: The Phoenix	Respond to of 77400

Is that the reason? OK..... I was wondering.. Thanks for explaining. ;) FWIW I think most of the momentum players over the past few years don't look at it that way. Yes, they took some pain.. but they are so far ahead they can deal with it. Moreover, they know what got them there... (and those that didn't participate also know). I think too many people are thinking too much. :-) OG

To: larry who wrote (46329)	1/8/2001 1:46:29 PM
From: Tulvio Durand	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Larry, a recent WSJ article speaks to this valuation-still-too-high theme, public.wsj.com I felt the article does not properly address the growth-rate to P/E ratio in defining value, which then prompted my e-mail to the lead author which follows: Mr. Brown, your January 5 WSJ article "Stock Valuations Raise Questions About Future" does indeed raise questions for this reader, but not those same ones you and your co-authors raise. My questions: (1) Why did you not point out that valuations of tech stocks like Cisco have been reduced disproportionally, by a factor of five, more so than the S&P 500 (50% vs. 10%, respectively) while their earning expectations have not decreased by nowhere near the same amount? (2) Why not point out that those companies possess significantly larger growth rates than the S&P 500 average? (3) If you consider their valuation high, what then do you consider their proper valuation to be? (4) If the valuations remain sky high now, how come you didn't say so back then when they were at least twice as high, or at least admit that that they are much better now? With comments such as "... But it isn't clear that these companies' prospects have improved as dramatically as their share prices" in reference to Wednesday's one-day gains I detect a taste of sensationalism (fanning the fire) in your reporting rather than the dispassionate reasoning I expect from the WSJ. Tulvio