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 : Bosco & Crossy's stock picks,talk area -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael john stout who wrote (4064)	9/22/2003 2:47:54 PM
From: Carl Worth	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 37387

bearon's (sic) would likely agree with your target of 800, they are consistently wrong and overly pessimistic, it's their trademark i certainly have no idea what the "fair value" of the nasdaq is at the current time, if i had to hazard a guess, i would say more along the lines of 2000, especially given the significant number of small companies which are still valued at well less than their sustained growth rate times their current earnings...take into account that i always see the glass half full, so my estimate is going to factor in that optimism, but also understand that i am a realist, i was not out there for the past three years saying "all is well," we needed to work off the excesses of 1999 and 2000, but that has clearly been done by this point, in fact it was well overdone in the fall of last year...certainly the valuations in oct of 2002 were overdone to the downside, even though your target of 800 would disagree with that...CSCO at 8 bucks, YHOO at 9 bucks, small caps with 20% growth trading at 5x earnings, etc., these are just a few examples of the absurdly low valuations we saw at the market bottom...if those situations existed at nasdaq 1100, how can the current "fair value" be 800? it just doesn't add up you say that companies that don't make money or pay dividends are worthless, yet that is clearly not the case...how much is a development stage pharma company worth if they have a product in trials that will revolutionize the treatment for some ailment where the market for a better treatment is in the billions? certainly it isn't zero..some of these companies may never bring a product to market, and may eventually go to zero, but others will be successful and will either be bought out or turn into very profitable enterprises, they aren't all going out of business ...another example, AMZN lost money for years, was it worth 300 bucks or whatever it got to in 2000? of course not, but was it worth zero? that is an equally emphatic of course not, not with the customer base and revenues they had...just because a company is not currently profitable, that doesn't mean it is worthless or has no underlying value add to this the significant number of companies which have reported losses in recent quarters due to the slower economy, but which make money the majority of the time and have cash on hand and no debt...these companies are not worthless either there are certainly many stocks out there with valuations that are hard to support fundamentally, but to rail against the "new bubble" is an exercise in futility, and is counterproductive to your investing and/or trading....just as it didn't do any good to try to argue the market back up over the past three years, it won't do any good to try to argue it down now....find an approach that works for you and take what the market will give you, you will find it a lot more profitable and a lot less frustrating JMHO carl