SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Graham and Doddsville -- Value Investing In The New Era -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: porcupine --''''> who wrote (1542)4/11/1999 8:04:00 PM
From: Freedom Fighter  Respond to of 1722
 
Porc,

>>Consequently, he has been recommending that people *not* buy AOL for the past 3 or 4 years.<<

Don't feel bad Porc. There are companies I have hated for longer than that that keep going up. In my mind it is mostly a matter of the investment environment. There is a large contingent of investors that believe in stock momentum and growth prospects without any regard to price or value. Time will test their philosophy. I think our own is on more sturdy ground.

Wayne



To: porcupine --''''> who wrote (1542)4/12/1999 11:53:00 AM
From: Freedom Fighter  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1722
 
Porc,

>>Of course, it is impossible to have an economy in which some industries do not of
necessity have long lag times between purchasing inputs and selling outputs. For
example, agriculture. I can see no real world scenario in which low-margin
mature industries with long intervals between buying inputs and selling outputs
would not be ruined by persistent deflation.<<

That's part of the reason why they invented derivatives. For many businesses you can now hedge that sort of stuff. Of course this is the business and "net positive" side of derivatives.

Unfortunately, they are now mostly used by cowboy speculators to generate trading profits for themselves while putting the financial system at risk and often forcing backdoor bailouts that the public doesn't understand and holds no one accountable for. I agree with your point though. Wayne



To: porcupine --''''> who wrote (1542)4/12/1999 1:43:00 PM
From: porcupine --''''>  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1722
 
Speaking of DELL ...

[In posting #1542, the words in the fourth paragraph, "does necessarily mean", should have read "does not necessarily mean". Also, the attempt to italicize the phrase "sine qua non" failed, but succeeded in, unintentionally, italicizing the entirety of the remainder of the posting.]

My concern with hi-tech companies, consistent with Graham,
Buffett, and Lynch, is the disconnect between revenue growth and
profit growth, in industries where commoditization inevitably
leads to falling prices, and hence, falling margins. This is a
great boon to consumers and the economy in general -- but not
necessarily a boon to shareholders of hi-tech companies.

As long as the products in question keep evolving to ever-higher
levels of complexity (and therefore greater margins), companies
on the cutting edge of their technology have a *chance* of
continuing to turn out high margin products, and therefore
eventually justifying on economic grounds a high p/e at the time
of purchase. It's no guarantee, but at least it's a case that's
defensible on economic grounds.

5 years ago, I looked long and hard at both Dell and Gateway. I
couldn't really decide between the two, so I didn't recommend
either. I knew about Dell's competitive advantage in terms of
its made-to-order system, which keeps inventory at a minimum, and
therefore losses on falling inventory values to a minimum. But,
IBM, Compaq, and Gateway, among others, knew the same thing --
and there's no way to patent a made-to-order system.

As it has turned out, Michael Dell, like Steve Case of AOL, has
defied all historical experience (so far), and managed to
continue growing profits at the same time that larger
competitors, who have much deeper pockets and are free to copy
what they are doing, still lose money doing essentially the same
thing.

Recently, the WSJ reported that a company called Microworkz is
selling a full featured PC (300 MHz Cyrix cpu, 32 MB RAM, 3.2 GB
HD, a "suite" of Corel software, plus 14" color monitor) for *$399* --
supposedly with a 13% profit margin. To top it off, a one-year
subscription to the ISP Earthlink is thrown in. Looked at
another way, if you want the latest version of Word Perfect and
Corel Draw, plus a year of Earthlink, they will pay you a few
dollars to accept the 300 MHz PC.

How does Microworkz do it? Well, as the article hints, suppliers
throughout the PC food chain, from Cyrix to Earthlink, as well as
the unbranded components in the middle that are being assembled
in the back room of noodle shops throughout East Asia, are
dumping product into the developed world's only economy that
isn't either stalled or in a downward spiral.

No Capitalist can fail to greatly admire Michael Dell's starting
in a college dorm room, competing against 100's of Mom and Pop PC
clone makers, and building the same $2000 mouse trap so cheaply
and marketing it so efficiently that, aged 34, he runs a company
with a market cap that exceeds Hewlett Packard and Boeing --
combined. However, now that mouse traps that catch about as many
mice as most people need or want to catch are selling for $400,
with a year's supply of gourmet cheese thrown in, I would rather
not pay 84 times trailing earnings to be his business partner.




To: porcupine --''''> who wrote (1542)4/14/1999 9:22:00 PM
From: Eggolas Moria  Respond to of 1722
 
Porc -

I've always had some problems with the accounting standards regarding Goodwill amortization. Why, for instance, is our method of enforcing economic reality truer than the accounting standards in another country that permit the goodwill to be written off the balance sheet without impacting the income statement?

Moreover, isn't it possible that the rules that were designed for a manufacturing economy may not hold true in the present economy where earnings are often substantially the result of not tangible assets, but intangible assets such as brands and patents?

For instance, assume that someone merges with Coke and secures the Coca-Cola brand in a purchase accounting manner. Does the company milk the brand, producing income and letting the brand value decline? Of course not. More likely, the company invests in broader distribution, growing the business and improving the long-term value of the brand and its ability to generate profits. Where is the economic reality in forcing the acquiring company to write off the goodwill that is, in effect, the value of the brand?

No system of accounting rules is perfect and I can think of other situations in which the rules would be appropriate, but that in itself says a great deal about how much importance one should attach to the standard, IMO. Case by case only.