To: Dr. Bob who wrote (2778 ) 3/31/1998 9:25:00 AM From: Dr. Ronald Peter Hellendall Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 5482
Bob - Your observations and perspective are appreciated. But there remains this underlying premise that doesn't appear to hold for Klic. The assumption I read into your analysis is that Klic will, generally speaking, fall lock-step into the performance pattern of others in its group. If my analysis of PE holds any validity whatsoever, either a) investors perceive deeply troubled waters ahead or b) the 'market inefficiency' for this company is much higher than its competitors. The fact that Klic has a PE of 10 and the rest of the group is ~25-30 simply cannot be ignored. [Or am I abusing PE as an indicator as suggested by JZ Galt. My idea by pooling all the data, even though it is a trailing indicator, was to see where Klic fit in. It didn't fit in, it fell out. So yes, I agree, it may be a lousy predictor of the future but why, when compared to similar companies by the same measure, does this one particular company rank ~24th out of ~25]. So I'll return to my original question: since Klic's stock behavior is outside the norm, what is a reasonable interpretation? Is there a fundamental change in the industry that may be perceived by investors as passing Klic by? Or is the hand-waving explanation as best that can be provided: that this is simply a stock with a high beta that tends to over react to market cyclicity (and the hand waving reaches the level of Gospel when, upon viewing Klic's chart, proclamations of 'revisiting ~$16' are made). I've yet to come across anything suggesting this Company is other than a leader in its field, has strong management, produces conservative earnings statements, etc. They gave an earnings warning in December then surprised by +~40% in January. Disconnect. >>JZ - Thanks for the additional info<<