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.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: slacker711 who wrote (123129)	8/13/2002 11:37:30 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

I scanned through the last month worths of posts and it is amazing how many had to do with options don't worry--all things must pass. scan the posts from December 1999 and you'll see a lot of posts about people buying BMWs and about the share price (i think even you posted how happy you were about the price [as i recall you woke up late the day Piecyk's call goosed the stock]...i know i did). don't see many such posts these days. that's because of the Metaphysical Metamucil: "all things must pass". the aftermath of the shareprice rise was the shareprice fall. the aftermath of the options discussion (which mainly consists of me and a few others battling all the denial of the permabulls) will, imo, be the implementation of options expensing at all major US cos. even QCOM. as i've said before, this is very significant. significant for the market as a whole more than for individual cos, as it could result in a wholesale repricing of equities even without a further correction toward trendline multiples. it is one of the fruits of all the financial "scandals" of the past year. we will get earnings that are more honest. we will also get earnings that are lower. and this means valuations will appear higher. what are the implications for prices? you decide. bonds have been on a tear lately as a flight to quality. bulls operating under the misunderstanding that low bond yields mean stocks must go higher (and there are quite a few such investors) are probably happy, even though their stock-heavy portfolios are not happy. meanwhile, bond-heavy portfolios are happy due to capital gains. how can we have a world where all the winners and all the losers are both happy? something smells fishy (and i don't mean that article in the center column of today's WSJ). perhaps the resolution here is that bondholders are happy about the immediate past and equityholders are happy about the (hoped-for) immediate future. time to switch camps, or maybe at least move one corner of the tent from the bond camp to the equity camp? i am actually happy to see the equity weakness as it has allowed me to up my equity allocation a bit (an allocation that most financial planners would still find insanely defensive, but if i'd listened to those idiots i would've been 70% stocks [a historical high consensus allocation, which i have previously pointed out as a contrary indicator {along with other contrary indicators i pointed out, such as the overweighting of tech stocks in mutual funds, a fact that contradicts the desire among tech longs to believe that tech has been "deserted" by equity investors, and which i spelled out in some detail a few months back in a post to Cooters who was making such a complaint}, and which predictably occurs before the market falls]). so i am actually rather happy about all the unhappy developments in the equity markets. these are in fact very good developments, and make me more bullish on america. i would be more bullish still if tech cos (who stand to take the biggest haircut under S&P's core earnings) would admit the reality that everyone else is now fessing up to. but i think it is only a matter of time. as for tech stocks as investments, i suppose there are some not-so-terrible ones out there even now, but i expect it will get a lot better (meaning prices will get a lot lower) in the future. such is the inexorable delivery of Darfot's slow motion crash to the line at par with intrinsic value. not once has he failed to overcorrect, but i suppose there's always a first time! so, there are some rather meandering non-options thoughtlets for you (which, alas, i did not have time to edit into more paletable form), couched in an options post.