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: Katherine Derbyshire who wrote (46120)	5/2/2001 11:39:28 PM
From: Paul V.	Respond to of 70976

Katherine, Cary, Gottfried, Tito and others, CEO James Morgan has reiterated numerous time that the SEM'S are progressing through 4 waves: circuitry reduction (Moore's Law), conversion to copper, increased sizes of the wafer to 300mm (12") and the internet. He expressed that we, in 1999, were in the third innings. With chips getting cheaper and smaller electronic devices be manufactured what inning are we in now? Will the number of chips needed create another bubble in technology again, especially, since HDTV broadcast coming on board in 2006 other explosive electronics in automobiles and other devices? Paul

To: Katherine Derbyshire who wrote (46120)	5/3/2001 12:53:34 AM
From: brunn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Right now the Nasdaq is right about where it was in August 1998. To argue that the index is still overvalued at this point is to argue that stocks were sooooo overvalued before the LTCM crisis that 2.5 years of robust economic growth still hasn't been enough for earnings to catch up to valuations. In essence, you are arguing that the economy as a whole is worth less now than it was then. When the Nasdaq was peaking at 2000 in 1998, valuations were probably being stretched imo. The following graph shows how P/E's of the tech leaders broke traditional valuation parametrics by 1997-98: quicken.com In retrospect, of course, these stocks probably deserved a premium at that time because it was looking forward to 2.5 years of unbelievable growth. This looking forward to great growth fed the phenomenon of basing current valuation on growth forecast further and further into the future and created the bubble of 1999-2000. (AMAT fortunately was relatively immune to this practice and is why its price has held up relatively well recently.) This huge runup to Nasdaq of 5000 is why 2200 seems cheap today, but is it? If I were to put "fair" non-bubble valuations of where the NASDAQ should have traded over the last few years: 1997 1200-1500 1998 1500-1800 1999 1800-2000 First Half 2000 2000-2100 2nd Half 2000 2100-1800 First Half 2001 1800-? depending on how tech/telecom industries recover in the 4th quarter. These Nasdaq levels would have supported much more traditional valuations, both on the way up and the way down. It also would have shown the greatest growth early when typically stocks move up the quickest and slowed down as fears of economic overheating/business peaking should have started surfacing. P/E's in a rational market would have been decreasing as we approached the peak rather than reaching for the sky (perhaps the definition of a bubble.) Instead, we saw the bubble with valuations reaching atleast twice what probably was merited. This was probably a result of momentum investing/day trading as well as the difficulty in analyzing so many new companies who were having unprecedented growth rates--partially fed by the greed of those very same day traders. Even with my scenario up above, Nasdaq would have seen approx. 20% annual growth for 3 consecutive years, which still would have represented quite a memorable rally. The market was intelligent in 1998 buying in the face of high valuations because of unprecedented growth in 1999 and early 2000. The market was very stupid in late 1999-early 2000 buying in the face of even higher valuations just as business conditions (and Greenspan's interest rates) were turning. And the reason that a Nasdaq of 2000 may have been justifiable in 1998 may not exist in 2001. (By the way, if I knew I would be writing this today when I was investing a year or two ago, I would be a lot wealthier today.)

To: Katherine Derbyshire who wrote (46120)	5/3/2001 11:03:26 AM
From: Cary Salsberg	Respond to of 70976

RE: "...you are arguing that the economy as a whole is worth less now than it was then." I generally accept GDP as the measure of the economy and it hasn't dipped for a while. I don't believe that Nasdaq has been a useful measure. I, too, am in better financial shape. In fact, the bubble has been a major benefactor. I don't believe that this is generally true and I am concerned for people who have been led to create unrealistic expectations for market derived wealth. The "pathetic" equipment bookings are not discounted in today's stock prices. If they are not "pathetic", but a regression to a more sustainable growth rate, some unhappy price moves are ahead. I am not confident about the "risk/reward equation." There is a supreme confidence in the technology outlook that allowed absurd valuations and now seems satisfied with historically extreme valuations. Cell phones and internet connections will continue to grow, but I am not sure that they will be sufficient technology drivers. I am not enthusiastic about anecdotal information I have been seeing which has indicated that web firms and former employees are turning to pornography as a stable haven in troubled times.

To: Katherine Derbyshire who wrote (46120)	5/4/2001 1:10:19 AM
From: John Trader	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Katherine, Thanks for your post. I think you make some good points. It seems we are at a turning point here that is difficult to call. I think there are good bullish and bearish arguments that one can make at this time. I happen to be bullish on techs now also, but I think neither argument can be won right now. I am glad that many are bearish, because that helps out the bullish argument. They say the market climbs a "wall of worry". We certainly were missing the worry part about a year ago. John