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: Lucretius who wrote (37111)	4/28/1999 10:37:00 PM
From: Greg Jung	Respond to of 86076

Luc, the definitions in the statement "the market is ___valued" (fairly, under, over) are so mushy you and AJC are right. If you market-cap weight the assessment, you find GE, MSFT, KO, etc. - highly valued companies which fit most "over" definitions - dominate the sum and any balancing values are washed out. The unweighted average PE seems to be the measure AJC uses, that of the S&P. The range of PE values is similar, low tens to 30 or 40, and her argument (I think) is that the outlook is better for more companies that thus deserve a higher multiple because of underlying US economic stability. Again she never mentions specific stocks with crazy multiples such as PG, AOL, etc. which is the best complaint you can make - that the beneficiaries of the Bullsh*t market have been a few priviliged names and these have been driven to extreme valuations. And sectors have come under intense buying pressure creating pockets of wierd valuations (e.g. technology, internets). But if you look beyond the media speculatives then many stocks have a fair value. As for all the bad stuff that can happen, well, thats basically not happening and while it can we just have to take the risk and make money while the sun shines. Somehow the economy seems to work. Greg