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 (19585)	2/13/1999 8:20:00 PM
From: accountclosed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86076

Ok, here's my Weekend Squawk Review. I took notes and will try to work my way through them. First of all I give you a good job rating. Not a razor sharp, but a good. I think several of the problems I will raise have to do with the awkward format of the program. Too many commentators on at one time. It seems like you shine more when you have the adrenaline flowing and all you have to do is present your point of view. It is pretty hard to make a bold statement of where you think the market is headed when you are supposed to ask a bond guru or a food industry analyst a question. But you certainly get high marks for saying the market was too high, using the word "risk" repeatedly, telling people to raise cash. Now section by section review: 1. They had a goofy introduction. Bulls/bears, elephants. All sorts of silly things going on. 2. The bond guru, Robert Barbara, made the statement in the first segment that we didn't have a Barton Biggs type meltdown. Now you could have hit him back with a "Not yet" or "I still don't think we're past that possibility". However, you gave him more of a softball question about supply hitting the market other than treasuries. Again, it is primarily a misfeature, I think of the format. You were one of three people questioning this one guy. 3. Then they had the goofy elephant segment with Tyler. 4. Then we had Kahuna and the Brain and you with Mark. I was left with an unclear idea about your bond position. They tried to pick up on the bond segment. Haines I guess thought he was playing devil's advocate saying "What's the big problem earnings growing"...Your response was accurate that there was risk and danger. 32 times earnings. That a market melt might very severely impact the economy and in turn earnings. My point here is that to me all you have to say is "risk...32 times". But to a first year investor? Did they get it that 32 times is absurd. That it assumes no inflation for the forseeable future. No accident in the economy of any sort. No massive external shock. I was also left not knowing exactly how the thing would bust. I tell Luc on this thread not to try to, but when you are on tv, I fear that people look to you to tell them the exact mechanism. It is honest to not know the exact how. But not as hard hitting. So this section was accurate and good but not razor sharp. 5. Then you got the "internet bust" question. Very good answer that only a little air came out and much more downside. And that psychologically this could cause much more damage. 6. The moral hazard (created by the Fed) was again a good point and got in your "The Fed won't bail out speculators every time" theme. I wonder if it was a little too subtle for novice viewers, though. 7. It was interesting to have the knowledge that the show was being taped during the day. They brought up the Dell chart but had no closing price. Just a down turn. They didn't know where it was going to close, obviously. 8. The relative benchmark language became a little awkward to me. 9. Food analyst (didn't catch his name) to me was weak. Your questions about 7% growth getting a 20% multiple...was very good, but again perhaps only for experienced investors. It was sarcastic but polite. You could have hammered the point home with "the traditional model for growth stocks is that they achieve a multiple equal to their growth rate, so these are about 3 times overvalued by traditional measure". That is what you meant and I understood it but you didn't spell it out. Then again the relative valuation issue came up. Again the language could have been clearer. "It is ridiculous to buy something because it isn't as overpriced as something else if on an absolute basis it is still overpriced". 10. Then they had the totally absurd Discover Brokerage yes I drive a tow truck but I own a country commercial. Made the whole show a little surreal for me. 11. Your summary was good. But if you wanted to you could have had a little more fire "bubble", etc. Overall a weird show. Too many CNBC people. Too many segments. You said the right things and have the right market view. Thanks for involving us and asking our opinions.