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.

Pastimes : I AM A MINDLESS ZOMBIE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lance Bredvold who wrote (6)	8/14/2002 2:11:16 AM
From: Jon Koplik	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 258

Lance -- how 'bout that huge international conspiracy that is keeping the price of gold low ? Jon.

To: Lance Bredvold who wrote (6)	8/14/2002 3:01:03 AM
From: EL KABONG!!!	Respond to of 258

Hi Lance, The Yahoo LWIN thread has had any number of posters calling on Harvey White to get on the news and tell the world how wrong the price is. Let's see now... A 55 cent stock... Hmmm... The short interest is more than a third of the outstanding float... Umm, not good... Long term debt almost $1.8B and market capitalization only $24M... Ouch!!! And these Yahoo! posters think that Harvey's to blame for maintaining silence and not donning a jester's outfit? Well, now you know why I don't post over at Yahoo!... Since when does my decision to accept Johnson and Johnson stock at a PE of 30 cause the CEO to have a responsibility to maintain the price at 30PE or more from then on out. Even if it did, would then he also be obligated to defend the price of 31 times earnings bid by the next buyer and so on for as long as we chose to bid the price up? By the reckoning of many Yahoo! posters, the answer is most definitely yes... <g> The CEO, Greenspan, Bush, and the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders have nothing to do with the sudden fact that my shares will only sell at 40% of what I paid for them. Obviously you're not "in" on things, are you? The cheerleaders thing is merely a ruse for more ulterior motives. It's not coincidental that the President, Enron, the cheerleaders and chili without beans all hail from Texas. Note that the Oilers left Houston before the fertilizer hit the fan, so to speak. It's all clear to you now, isn't it? <wink> Tried it on the Yahoo JNJ thread and all I got was that I was too simple using PE and that one has to take into account GRRRowth. JNJ is actually a good company. The general atmosphere in this market sucks, but JNJ is a good company. Likely they'll get slaughtered to some extent like every other company, but it's nicer to lose your money in a good company rather than one that spews compost all the time. And that P/E argument was argued to death during the bubble years, so it's nice to see that the bulls have kept pace with the changing times and now use it to argue that it's meaningless without some other bit of data to compare it to. Hallelujah!!! They're actually correct this time. P/E, in and of itself is a meaningless statistic. But when used to determine historical value (relative P/E) or in a measurement of growth (PEG or GPE, takes your choice), then P/E suddenly has relevance again! <rant> KJC

To: Lance Bredvold who wrote (6)	8/15/2002 6:27:48 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 258

Lance, while the CEO can't control the share price, they can make a good job of explaining the company and ensuring that the shares are valued highly, which is in the interests of the shareholders. Globalstar for example, refused to keep people informed about how many subscribers they had and operated like a secret society, treating shareholders with some contempt. That doesn't give shareholders confidence to hold the stocks and reduces the share value. Mqurice