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 : Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Math Junkie who wrote (12541)	2/28/2001 11:47:36 PM
From: geode00	Respond to of 42834

Food fight! Here are the peas....whap! Thx for bringing up the article. Task has since decided to track Bob's mistakes from time to time apparently. From the original TAsk article linked to before. Here's a very interesting quote that has, new, terrible meaning to those who believed him (Bob, not Task): Back in May, the market watcher estimated the theoretical price-to-earnings ratio for the 20 largest stocks with positive earnings in the Nasdaq 100 was a whopping 182 times estimated 2000 results and 134 times estimated 2001 results. This month, the newsletter calculated that the P/E for the 30 largest -- and presumably not the fastest-growing -- companies in the NDX was still a hefty 96 times 2001 estimates. "We are nowhere near a final bottom. It's not even on the radar screen," Brinker concluded after reviewing the figures. "Anyone who thinks we're going to have a happy ending is not realistic." ---------------------- "96 times 2001 estimates" Whaddya think he was getting the most conservative into this mess for? He was certainly right about the final ending. This nightmare courtesy of Bob Brinker.

To: Math Junkie who wrote (12541)	3/1/2001 12:28:08 AM
From: davidk555	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Richard, I believe you owe me an apology if you care to do so. Either way, the accuracy of my post will stand. You seem to have become so caught up in trying to prove me wrong, that you are ignoring the fact that Task printed a correction notice which contains the corrected information. The former article has since been changed to incorporate the corrected information. When I posted my thoughts and referenced the mistake made by Mr. Task, I had no idea that someone would try and impugn my research. I pride myself on getting facts straight and being objective as I was this time as well. I even have gone to the trouble to clear this up for you. The original article was posted on this thread last October. Go to this link and read the entire article as it originally stood before the correction. It should clear up any confusion you have. - David Message 14562191