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 : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (72665)	10/16/1998 4:37:00 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 176387

A new update from Prudential's Acampora... He just stated on CNBC that he is now adjusting his short term target on the DOW to 8700 or 8800 short term, then some pause before going higher. The Fed cut caused the change in his viewpoint. Hmmmm....."the experts" are starting to get bullish again!!! I'll just continue to go LONG on DELL for the LONG RUN. -Scott

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (72665)	10/16/1998 4:43:00 PM
From: freeus	Respond to of 176387

re worth what people will pay I dont understand why others dont understand this. We bought a house for $135,000. As building virtually ceased in the area the price went up for $160,000. (That is: that is what someone paid for similar houses.) We moved and kept it as a rental. Recession hit the area, people moved out, rents dropped as vacancies abounded, rent dropped so that we had a huge loss each month. We put it up for sale: someone nearby who had bought a similar house as a VA with nothing down (hate that) left the house and the VA sold it for $125,000. Guess what. I took it off the market because although the house was worth L$150,000 or so to ME, it was only worth $125000 to the people looking at it because of the last sale. Now population has caught up with building and the rents have gone back up and the houses there are selling up wards of L$150,000. But its the same "value" but the buyers (prospective) are the ones who decide the price. So it is with stock, no different, if the seller wont let it go for x dollars it doesnt go, if the seller wants to "get rid of it" (as I did at 12:58 on Aug 31st when DELL hit my stop point) it goes cheap and the "value'" is down. But if there are buyers galore at that "cheap" price it doesnt last and the price goes back up. When buyers will pay whatever the price is, as many do on those up 8 and 9 days, DELL is worth 8 or 9 more no matter what the fundamentals. Thats why market timing is difficult: if the price really followed some clear valuation or even clear T.A. even I would be right more often. But we do not know what the investor about to buy is willing to pay, until it happens. Best wishes and good luck to everyone. Wish I could see you all this weekend, you are all so great! Freeus

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (72665)	10/20/1998 1:47:00 PM
From: Paul Merriwether	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

<< Nope! That's exactly how it's done. A company is worth exactly what a willing buyer and a willing seller agree it's worth. Just like a house or a used car. The problems with calculating "intrinsic value" are monumental. >> No disrespect intended but this is ridiculous. The problem with this "relativistic/trendy" way of establishing worth is that the answer is not deterministic. Why do we think that the "Tulip mania" a few hundred years ago was mass hysteria? People weren't enamored by the beauty of tulips but rather thought that it was lucrative/profitable to keep buy tulips at any price. Big crash! Now the examples you gave of (hopelessness of) evaluating the intrinsic value of art is a nonsequitur. A for-profit company's stock certificates is not art. You don't derive any pleasure out of looking at a certificate(unlike looking at a statuette or a picasso). In addition renoir, da-vinci, monet are all dead, and michael dell is very much alive and issues 4 times as many certificates every year! Different people may assign different price to works of art based on the level of appreciation/hopes that others may assign a higher price in future based on uniqueness and aesthetics. Is it rational to evaluate a publicly traded company the same way? Similar rebuttal applies to your real-estate example. You can derive utility out of living in a upscale neighbourhood -- better schools, services, classy address etc. On the other hand, owning stock certificates is a direct relationship between you and a broker. There is no utility in owning the certificates EXCEPT what you expect the underlying security to yield in terms of earnings(although some additional utility may be obtained by their "bragging rights to owning dell"/selling a million naked calls on dell etc. ;-) ). I was not benchmarking the stock against "historic sales". Rather, I was projecting a 50% growth rate for the next 7 years(quite generous imo unless you disagree) and comparing the earnings against average returns in a moneyy market @5.5% for 7 years. If you take that as a measure, Dell is not such a great investment at least over a 7 year horizon.