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: chaz who wrote (48300)	10/25/2001 9:02:25 AM
From: Larry S.	Respond to of 54805

Future Developements in Electronic Conferencing: 170.12.99.3 a comphrehensive article by Raymond JAmes analyst Phil Leigh. He talks about the factors that will promote electronic conferencing, video conferencing, and future internet evolution. a lengthy read, but quite learned in my opinion. larry

To: chaz who wrote (48300)	10/25/2001 9:19:34 AM
From: Judith Williams	Respond to of 54805

Chaz-- IMO, the thread needs valuation practice and theory It's not, in my mind, a question so much of need, but of practicality. GG is based on isolating competitive advantage early and with "relative" risk. GAP and CAP are central here, and ideas can be all over the map for a given company. But, as Don reminded us, any notions about GAP and CAP, if they pan out, have direct and pronounced effects on valuation. Someone else might say.... Again, for me, that statement goes to the heart of what makes this thread valuable. When Don and I did the BEAS Hunt, the most important takeaways came not so much from our own research, but from the scrutiny and insights the thread produced in the subsequent discussion. As one of the technologically impaired, this point is particularly important to me and I would hate to see us break down an integrated process into its components. The whole seems much greater than the sum of its parts. Judith

To: chaz who wrote (48300)	10/25/2001 9:39:14 AM
From: Jurgis Bekepuris	Respond to of 54805

Chaz, Interestingly enough when I mentioned my rather simplistic calculations on CSCO, MSFT and ORCL nobody commented. Similarly Malcolm's SEBL valuations and even Mike's SEBL PEG comments did not receive much attention. Part of it may be the charter of the thread to not recommend specific companies for investment. Saying "I sold XYZ because it is overvalued" may edge on bad taste for thread regulars. Jurgis - on the other hand theoretical valuation discussions... :-P

To: chaz who wrote (48300)	10/25/2001 11:06:29 AM
From: Thomas Mercer-Hursh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

Example: Today, I think ABCD company is worth $X. Here's how I arrived at that figure. Since the company's stock is selling today for $X+Y, that means I think the company's stock is over valued by Z%. (Or undervalued, or fairly valued.) I, for one, would love to see this kind of comparison done on a regular basis for all the major stocks we follow here. I think that making it explicit would give us a basis for discussing comparative approaches and thus the basis for choosing what we ourselves wanted to use.