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 (48304)	10/25/2001 11:24:49 AM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

On principle I shouldn't agree with Thomas but when he is right he is right.<VBG> 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. Here Hear! Paul

To: Thomas Mercer-Hursh who wrote (48304)	10/25/2001 12:09:36 PM
From: RobertHChaney	Respond to of 54805

Chaz & Thomas have a great idea. 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. I agree that it should be pursued as a integral part of the standard discussion routine in evaluating companies on this board. IMO it deserves as many posts as specific issues such as lock-in, value chain, etc. Because, no matter how complete the evaluation of those specific issues, certain risks will still remain to exist in reality, and can vary widely from the levels perceived in the evaluation. Following the qualitative evaluation, an investor's willingness to take those risks is often dependent on valuation (or should be so). I think this is basically what Judith is saying as well. This approach should not only provide a more complete evaluation on a given company, but should also create better balance between general and company specific valuation discussions taking place on the board. And, as Thomas suggested, provide us with better understanding and insight into the general valuation technique someone may be advocating. Cheers, Robert