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: Thomas Mercer-Hursh who wrote (44712)	7/19/2001 6:07:11 PM
From: Pirah Naman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Thomas: isn't the fact that the stock is probably near a low more important in this context than what its current ratios are? Speaking very generically here (forget SEBL for the moment) there are two problems which come to mind. One, what is the likelihood that our assumption of any stock being near a low is correct? Seems we've seen a lot of lows over the past couple of years which turned out to now be highs. Two, even if it is near a low, what does that tell us about its future movement? After all, there have been numerous companies over the years whose stocks basically did nothing for a few years, despite the businesses performing well. Why? Because the shares were recognized as overpriced. To somebody looking at them without considering valuation, they might have seemed to be "near lows" and "having sat for a long time, should be ready to rise." Sometimes, just outperforming relative to other businesses isn't enough. My suggestion, which will no doubt come as a total shock and surprise to you, is to look at the valuation, not the pricing. - Pirah

To: Thomas Mercer-Hursh who wrote (44712)	7/19/2001 11:37:00 PM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 54805

Thomas, isn't the fact that the stock is probably near a low more important in this context than what its current ratios are? For me, the inadequacy of that question is in the presumption that it's a FACT that the stock is probably near a low. If that's your opinion, you're right that it doesn't matter what the current ratios are given your other assumptions. However, if an investor believes that the stock could achieve the same Fool ratio of 1.0 again as it very recently did, the stock will fall to below $8.00. I don't have the slightest idea if it will achieve that ratio again. But if it does and if analysts don't raise estimates, people following this thread won't have any reason to repeat the criticism that we haven't discussed valuation enough. Frankly, I'm looking for strong support from the people who expressed concern about not having discussed valuation enough. I hope they will pipe in about the comment I'm making about Siebel. (They might have already done that. I haven't read most of the recent posts.) --Mike Buckley