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: RetiredNow who wrote (52162)	4/26/2001 8:18:29 AM
From: JakeStraw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Cisco: Irrational Exuberance Still Exists In Todays Market theinternetanalyst.com Even though the stock is down 75% in the past year, the fact that it barely went down after such a negative announcement shows that irrational exuberance is still dangerously high. Cisco shareholders should use this as an opportunity to get out of the stock.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (52162)	4/26/2001 8:24:19 AM
From: willcousa	Respond to of 77400

Mindmeld - This is the best post I have read in some time. I have saved it for posterity - and for my periodic pep talks to the kids who are fully investing in QQQ on a monthly basis.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (52162)	4/26/2001 8:25:40 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Respond to of 77400

The only company that I can think of that might trade less than its DCF is Exxon mindmeld, i must disagree. there are plenty of REITs and real-estate stocks that pay dividends over 6%, some over 13%. in fact i think the average for REITs right now is around 6%. these dividends are a percentage of funds from operation, or FFO, and are net of operating costs and capital expansion requirements, typically ranging from 70-90% of FFO. show me a high tech stock that compares!

To: RetiredNow who wrote (52162)	4/26/2001 8:46:16 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

uno maas thing... The only company that I can think of that might trade less than its DCF is Exxon, but would you put all your money in that stock? Well, you may if all your were seeking was preservation of capital. personally, i don't think putting all of my money in any one stock can be a good capital preservation strategy. the energy market can do all kinds of crazy things. say there is a major lawsuit against XOM, or there is a big shakeup in Saudi Arabia that causes them to increase their output, thereby causing oil prices to drop. the only stock i would consider now as a "sole investment" with cap. preservation high on the list is Berkshire Hathaway, because that is basically a holding co for 100 operating cos. Even then, one would have heavy exposure to the US insurance biz. these are just off-the-cuff comments. i'm sure a devotee of MPT could give you reasons why some diversification is desirable for preservation of capital. note that in my book, "diversification" doesn't mean holding 50% SUNW and 50% CSCO instead of 100% CSCO. that to me is holding two baskets of eggs in the same hand. better to have some eggs in the henhouse, some in the fridge, some buried by your friend the platypus in Tasmania... Guess where you made more money over the long term? That's right. You made more money in the one's valued at a premium. You know which companies, I'm talking about? Intel, Microsoft, Cisco, Sun, and Dell. i would call this argument erroneous in composition. "long term" is defined as the 1990s, which was an extraordinary decade for high-tech stocks. a ton of investors came to think that this is the only type of market that can exist. it is very sad. it is like people at the end of the 70s, imagining that leisure suits could never go out of style... pause... AH! POLYESTER! -g- it really makes sense to see how relative valuations fluctuate through history. this is something most tech bulls don't do, as far as i can tell.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (52162)	4/26/2001 11:39:21 AM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Hi Mindmeld = an excellent reply, fully reveals the situation. You see, I am just thinking today like you plan to be thinking ten years from now. Your current priorities are capital appreciation. Mine are capital preservation. We can argue 'till the cows come home whether one is better or worse than the other in whatever current or future climate we want. Perhaps that would make a good discussion. But in this discussion, I am not arguing that equities don't get priced ahead of themselves, or shouldn't, or won't. In fact, most stocks should go there - sooner or later IMHO. For all the good reasons you cite: fools, imperfect information, hope, greed... those very optimistic characteristics that make us human. The trick is not in denying this reality. IMHO, the trick is to REALIZE how far apart the stock is priced from it's "value", and the trending direction of the gap. And then to position investment actions appropriately. And there is a time and a place for aggressive action and a time and a place to stand and watch, and another to run away. No stance is appropriate at all times. I have already enjoyed the fruits of a bubble. So delicious. There was aggressive action and > 20x returns and excitement and glee. I am currently standing aside. Poised as it were to flee or get aggressive again. With a definate bias against flight. Relative returns in this neutral period have been quite excellent. Particularly for the amount of work involved. Money for nothing. The American Dream. As to your intention to wait for 10 years before you seek shelter in income equities priced at value.... just one word of caution. There is an increasing cohort of folks ahead of you in this thinking. I was taught to never lose sight of the fundamental rule of the market: the last one always loses. John.