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 : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (67358)	3/13/2005 5:49:40 PM
From: GVTucker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Lizzie, RE: For example, if you took microsoft in the 80s (lets leave off the 90s for now), it was always, always a very expensive stock, that continued to outperform. No, it wasn't always, always an expensive stock. There were instances when you could buy Microsoft at a PE in the teens, and it was a fine buy then. There were times when you could buy Intel with a PE in single digits. Great buy then. And when the FDiv thing happened, Intel was also a cheap stock, and an excellent buy. Same with most "gorillas" as they used to be called. If you invested in value within a growth sector you significantly* underperformed. But this is only within growth.* Do you have any evidence to support that contention? You know why they don't call them "gorillas" anymore? Because they were horrible investments when the PE got high.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (67358)	3/13/2005 7:41:09 PM
From: Dave	Respond to of 77400

Lizzie, you invested in value within a growth sector you significantly* underperformed.* If I may interject, I believe that the truly best "value" investors around look for growth. Value Investing is similar to Chocolate Ice Cream in that there are many varieties of both. Some Value Investors look for "hard assets", others look for "fallen angels". In fact, the "best" investor of our time, Warren Buffett, says there is absolutely no difference between Value and Growth Investing since he believes that the value of any asset is "worth" its stream of future cash flows discounted back by the investor's required rate of return. Regards, Dave

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (67358)	3/15/2005 11:52:49 AM
From: Elroy	Respond to of 77400

For example, if you took microsoft in the 80s (lets leave off the 90s for now), it was always, always a very expensive stock, that continued to outperform. Of course, if you always pick the winner and only the winner. For example, with networking in 1992/3, it was a battle between 4 high PE companies, Cisco, 3Com, Cabletron and Bay Networks. If you bought a market cap weighted portfolio of all four, you probably would have done poorly because even though your CSCO kicked ass, your three other picks would have declined by 50%-90%.