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.

Pastimes : The Naked Truth - Big Kahuna a Myth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bill meehan who wrote (16450)	1/20/1999 2:26:00 PM
From: accountclosed	Respond to of 86076

Bill, that was MMV that you were respectfully disagreeing with. I didn't write that note. edit: I see you noticed...

To: bill meehan who wrote (16450)	1/20/1999 2:49:00 PM
From: IceShark	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86076

Bill, Yup, I would have to concur with your opinion regarding EasyAl and his views regarding equity market valuations. The thing that took me by surprise is that he maintained his prior position and disagreed with Slick regarding part of SS into equities, especially considering the relatively small shift that would occur. Guess he is more worried about Federal Gov't. corruption or exercising more direct influence over companies. Imagine what could be done to tobacco companies to twist their arms if the Feds could throw a few billion at their stock, long/short, whatever. I guess we have to remember he has seen Slick up close and personal. -g- So, let the party roll on. -ng- Regards, Ice

To: bill meehan who wrote (16450)	1/20/1999 4:25:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 86076

>>>>>The level of equity prices would appear to envision substantially greater growth of profits than has been experienced of late<<<<< Translation: These prices bear no relationship to objective reality.

To: bill meehan who wrote (16450)	1/20/1999 5:33:00 PM
From: Tom M	Respond to of 86076

Hi Bill, I'm just an ordinary average tax paying citizen, and I don't want to embarass the new paradigm or anything, but from my view, "the new paradigm" has no clothes (not unlike our president) ;-) I simply see no argument that can be made for new paradigm valuations. For example, a year and a half ago CPQ was selling at $15/share earning $1/share for a P/E of 15. Now after they've been caught lying about stuffing the channel and reporting losses for a whole year rather than their sizable estimated earnings, I'm supposed to buy it for $50/share while it's earnings and P/E are negative. The new paradigm wants me to pay 233% more than a year and a half ago, for something that is now losing money rather than making it. The stock is up 100% from its low 3mths ago. My government is right in thinking this new paradigm is too complicated for me to understand. Bill, I know you're not defending their position, just thought maybe you could perhaps present some viewpoints from time to time, from the average guy in the street. Seems to somehow hit home with an audience when Clinton does it <g>. regards, Tom