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 : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (43243)	6/5/2001 2:00:39 PM
From: areokat	Respond to of 54805

>>For those of you who glossed over the Epoch report on Siebel, part of it is very rare and worth a hard look...<< Yes, It's 31 pages long but has a wealth of information. If they do similar reports on other gorillas Epoch could be a good source of information. Haven't finished it but looked at the CAP analysis. They cite our old friend Porter. Kat

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (43243)	6/5/2001 8:54:32 PM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 54805

For those of you who glossed over the Epoch report on Siebel.... I admit to being a report "glosser" with the intention to read the entire report later. I also admit to nearly falling out of my chair when I glossed the section titled "Traditional Multiple Analysis" to find Epoch stating that SEBL has a PEG of .7---which gives readers the clearly erroneous idea that SEBL's earnings growth rate exceeds it PE ratio. I hope the rest of the report, including the DCF section, is not as misleading. I just looked at this "Traditional Multiple Analysis" section in the report again, including Table 6, and imo, either a). Epoch partners doesn't have a clue what a PEG ratio is, b.) Epoch is intentionally misleading investors, or c.) the definition of a PEG was changed to relate PEs to revenue growth rates. I don't think the definition of a PEG has changed and I think Epoch knows what a PEG ratio is. The "PE" in PEG stands for price to earnings ratio and the "EG" in PEG stands for earnings growth rate. But near as I can tell, Epoch is comparing the forward 2001 PEs with the backward 2000 y/y revenue growth rates to arrive at a PEG. Earnings growth rates are not even in the table. What kind of grossly misleading PEG calculation is this? Again, what am I missing here? Never underestimate what lengths a Street research firm will go to to put a positive spin on a company for which it has underwriting business, stock options, rights or warrants. Hopefully the rest of the report is not as misleading as this PEG calculation is. Regardless, this is not to say SEBL can't be a great investment. I look forward to your comments on the report---which on balance (referring to your comments) I find to be much more accurate than the comments included in Street research reports. Best, Huey