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 : Waiting for the big Kahuna -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bonnie Bear who wrote (23332)	8/5/1998 4:34:00 PM
From: Tom M	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 94695

Whatever happened to downgrades anyway?? If we need the equity from the bloated stocks that don't want to go down (MSFT & CPQ down 5/16 today if I remember), why don't analysts just upgrade some value stocks while downgrading some of the bloat due to "overvaluation". I remember they did it to INTC two years or so ago when it was just taking off way too fast. That started the exit once people saw the price dropping & no new money wanting to chase a downgrade. Seems this correction is continuing to abuse the abused & reward the targets. Kurlak hasn't had any effect any more & I think it'll take a rash of analyst downgrades aimed directly at the targets to protect the innocent. was responding to your comment: >>it's like the nasdaq has sucked the life out of its children to keep its index alive<< regards, Tom

To: Bonnie Bear who wrote (23332)	8/5/1998 4:58:00 PM
From: P.Prazeres	Respond to of 94695

Bonnie, Care to give us a few examples? paulo

To: Bonnie Bear who wrote (23332)	8/5/1998 7:28:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 94695

Hi Bonnie Bear, Interesting post. It sort of reinforces my hypothesis, that the indices have this circular, feedback-loop, reifying motion, the index goes up because the index goes up because the index goes up, as it were. For companies not on the index, too bad, wish you were here, don't you. I do keep reading about new methods of fundamental analysis for high tech growth companies. Guess that explains why even though Microsoft trades at about 15 times gross revenue, it's not overvalued. Quod vide rcmfinancial.com Dell trades at 4.3 times gross revenue, it's not overvalued, but Compaq trades at 1.7 times gross revenue and it is overvalued. But maybe that's because you can't use the same unit of measurement for Dell and Compaq. Or something. Not sure why. . . I have been buying fundamentally sound stocks with good growth rates at reasonable prices. I have a long time horizon, I can afford to gamble foolishly with my money. If such ridiculous ideas never come back into fashion, I'll think of it as (a mitzva)(storing up gold stars for my crown in heaven)(insert your own phrase here). (I know, I know, this doesn't belong on the Big Kahuna board. Sorry, just wanted to respond to Bonnie Bear's interesting post.) See you, CobaltBlue