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 : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Warpfactor who wrote (14857)	7/3/2002 8:06:21 PM
From: que seria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

Warp: I concur about the signal to noise ratio on Zeev's thread; I read it for Zeev and very few others. But in fairness, I understand the criticism of the Fed model re: P/E ratio to be disbelief that the ratio is at all reliable. I share the skepticism. The criticism (as I understand it, just from reading posts) is that a forward-looking P/E has all the reliability of the analysts that collectively create it. As Dreman, Grant and many others have pointed out with simple history lessons, the seers haven't exactly covered themselves in glory with their projections. However, I do sense double-counting when people deride use of the Fed ratio because they don't agree with the forward-looking P/E, and they say analysts are too optimistic. Seems to me to be the same point. How 'bout we mark the bottom when use of trailing earnings for ratios comes back into fashion? I'll bet on the come, being a tech "investor," but I want to do it with at least one set of real money numbers, as opposed to projected money. I'd even settle for GAAP projections, instead of projections based upon pro forma accounting. It's a bit like defining terms in the law; you win that fight, you may win the battle.

To: Warpfactor who wrote (14857)	7/3/2002 8:32:05 PM
From: chowder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23153

I'm assuming longer term that the market goes lower. By assuming opposite of what I wish to happen, it helps to keep my head clear and eliminate most emotion. By assuming opposite what you wish or believe, it forces you to come up with a good plan of defense. Having said that, I notice that all of the sectors that have led the market recently, are now breaking down, (HMO's, Homeboys, Gold, etc.) It would seem to me that two options are available. 1. A total breakdown in the market as no sector steps forward to establish leadership. 2. Money rotates into sectors that are beaten down the most. It wouldn't be sporting for the markets not to provide a little hope on occasion. Any fisherman can tell you they prefer a little fight in the fish. The markets surely would prefer for us fish to fight a little, wouldn't they? If we're going to get a bounce in the market, it would need to come by as early as next week. If it doesn't, stops need to be kept tight. Barring any terrorist activity over the next several days, the sectors that have been beaten down the most of late, may provide a playable bounce for those wishing to provide a little fight. The market can't take your money if you're unwilling to play. Therefore, like a slot machine, the market has to let you win once in a while, to keep you coming back, if you're nimble enough to play and not be greedy. dabum