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.

Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (55780)	11/17/2001 9:08:42 PM
From: advocatedevil	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 70976

Barrons: AMAT "Expensive by ANY measure" The valuation problem with many stocks is neatly illustrated by Applied Materials, the leading semiconductor-equipment maker. Applied Materials last week reported profits for its October quarter of just 3 cents a share, down from 77 cents a year ago. It gave a downbeat assessment of orders, due to depressed conditions in the semiconductor industry. But Applied Materials gained 0.75 to 39.26 last week and is up nearly 50% from its early October low of 26. Applied Materials now trades for about 200 times projected earnings of 20 cents in its current fiscal year ending in October 2002 and for about 40 times estimated profits of $1 per share in the following year. Looking back, the stock commands 17 times peak 2000 profits of $2.39 a share. Applied looks expensive based on virtually any measure of profits or sales. With a $33 billion market value, Applied trades for eight times estimated current-year sales and four times trailing sales. The stock troughed at two times sales in 1998. Worldwide semiconductor capital equipment spending is expected to drop 26% in 2002 to $30 billion, less than half peak levels in 2000, according to J.P. Morgan Chase. Investors seem to think that capital spending can get back to 2000 levels." ____________________ Note: I ran across the above which was posted on Yahoo! I can't verify its authenticity because I don't have a subscription to the Barron's site. If anyone here subscribes, I'd be interested in knowing if there was more to this article? ____________________ AdvocateDevil

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (55780)	11/18/2001 8:25:22 AM
From: Jerome	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

You got that right...>>I'm getting really tired of this Bear Market, range-trading requires a lot more attention than LTB&H<< What has got my attention is that even with range bound trading 80% of a portfolio trades where we expect it to and 20% goes in the sewer because of some unexpected announcement. Perhaps I should run two portfolios and call one, "Rangebound 80%", and the other "Sewer 20%" ...-) Regards, Jerome

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (55780)	11/18/2001 3:03:00 PM
From: Paul V.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

Jacob, In response to your following post I recently read in the IBD that Greenspan stated what we still have 50% productivity growth to go in technology. IM), this corresponds with what Greenspan states on page 223 of his book Maestro. Paul >The only scenario where I don't get richer (sooner or later), is if the Nas goes to 1000 and stays there for years. That scenario is, I think, still very unlikely. Even if the Nas stays in a range, say 1000 to 2000, for many years (a lot more likely scenario than going to 1000 and flatlining), I'll still get steadily richer, as I go to 40% cash when the Nas is at 2000, and 40% margin when the Nas is at 1000.<