SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (72118)10/16/2006 10:59:34 AM
From: ild  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 110194
 
"Morgan Stanley's Mary Meeker, the 'Queen of the Net,' values (Google) at $500. She estimates cash flow for the next 10 years and how much the company will be worth at the end of that period and then figures what all that money is worth per-share in current dollars. The trouble with such discounted cash-flow models is that small tweaks of the assumptions -- the discount rate used to calculate current dollars, value at year 10, future growth rate and operating margins -- have a big impact on the outcome ... Bill Miller, money manager of Legg Mason Value Trust, applies more than a dozen methods to value Google. Relative analysis compares Google to the young Microsoft and other early-stage growth companies. Technical analysis examines where Google and other Internet stocks have traded in the past. He also looks to see what Google would be worth if its growth slows to the market's rate over various time periods. Using all that, Mr. Miller comes up with a price of $450 ... Mr. Miller calculates that Google's business options add roughly $45 to the price, which would make it worth a total of $495. This 'real-options' method has a similar drawback to others. Despite their precision, the assumptions upon which they're based are little more than hunches."
--(The Wall Street Journal - "Valuing Google Is a Shot in the Dark" - 10/14/06)
Schaeffer's addendum: Please allow me what might be a couple of very dumb questions. Let's assume Google (GOOG: sentiment, chart, options) is truly "worth" $500 (and the writer of this piece certainly demonstrates that these valuation methodologies can be terribly flawed). Why would anyone want to own it at its current price of about $425 for the $75 upside when downside risk is clearly huge? Wouldn't you want to believe this stock is at least 25 percent (or preferably 50 percent) undervalued before assuming this downside risk?

My concern about downside risk is based far less on the stock's "high price" and its huge appreciation since its IPO in 2004 than it is on the stunning degree to which Google's case has been embraced by the investment community. According to Zacks.com, 95 percent of Wall Street analysts who follow the stock rate it a "buy." Mutual funds such as the one run by Mr. Miller are up to their eyeballs in Google shares. And the shorts have all but completely capitulated, with short interest less than 1-1/2 times daily trading volume.

This lack of skepticism is fine as long as GOOG avoids any speed bumps on its way toward ruling the civilized world. But should the stock stumble (and one of many such opportunities is afforded this Thursday when they report earnings), to whom are those who want out going to sell? Worse yet, there will be little or no support for the shares from short covering, as that game has already been played out.

-Bernie Schaeffer



To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (72118)10/16/2006 12:18:53 PM
From: re3  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 110194
 
<<<i was a little dismayed that he didn't mention Canadian Oil Sands in his flurry of Canadian oil sands stock reco's, but that's par for the course: COS gets left out a lot because it doesn't have a US listing

what about cost increases in the sector ?