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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KyrosL who wrote (100395)	5/7/2001 8:42:16 PM
From: RocketMan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

So, what you are saying is, if we remove the most obscenely over-valued bloated pigs from the dung, we are left with moderately obnoxiously over-priced POSs.

To: KyrosL who wrote (100395)	5/7/2001 9:03:36 PM
From: pater tenebrarum	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

as remarked on another occasion, this is not entirely correct. the LOWEST aggregate p/e estimate for the NDX is 78...the highest is in the 800ds. it all depends like you say, on whether one counts the loss makers and the 'one time' charges that seem the recur every quarter. this is not the only thing it depends on however...there are several different ways to arrive at p/e ratio averages. i will post more on the topic in coming days, to clarify this further. note, the information Jim Stack used to construct his p/e chart of the NAZ composite is from the Nasdaq itself. what is important about this chart is however not really if the methodology used to arrive at the p/e is THE last word in calculating a p/e, the important thing is that the data used are historically consistent. iow, a longer term chart would show (i will try to hunt up such a chart for a future post) that the p/e oscillated between 8.5 (yes, eight and a half) and 45 for about 25 years, most of the time between 15 and 30. until the bubble took off in the mid 90's that is. the argument that the NAZ contains a lot of loss makers is not really relevant, since it has ALWAYS contained many loss makers.