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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (2114)	5/22/1999 1:04:00 AM
From: chaz	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 54805

To All-- We've surely noticed that the W&W list has done far better (thus far) than the G&K list. Not terribly long ago, many of the W&W's would have been mere "shiny pebbles", while at the same moment, those we have on the G&K list would have probably already arrived there....MSFT, CSCO, INTC, SAP. So I'd like to apologize to Mike P. for being abrupt about WSW...he may have a shiny pebble...I suspect not...but that's me. However, do any others feel, as I do, that searching for shiny pebbles, and sharing our findings, those ought to be part of our activity here? By their very natures, it seems to me that there will be more rotation in the W&W list than in the G&K list...so replacements need to be identified. New subject: I haven't pulled a trigger on UNPH, partly because it strikes me as having the characteristics of a roman candle...and then performing much like AMAT. This introduces a timing question as to buys and sells...and I've repeatedly demonstrated to myself that this is not part of my skill set. Have I missed something, or do others agree. To Lindy and Mike B: I have a lot of trouble accepting comparison of PEGs. If the numerical comparisons...sector, market, industry...are in any way valid, then a low PEG for a subject company says that a lot of observers (other investors) have looked at it before me, and concluded that an unfavorable comparison is warranted. OR, it could mean a large number of investors have not looked at it and it is way undervalued. OR, as Mike B observes, the comparison is invalid on it's face. These three alternatives just don't compute...I think you have to examine the company's business plan, come to some informed judgement about that, and make your decision. Years ago, I nixed Polaroid early on. My father was not so persuaded. No PEG would have helped me then. Vision, even 20/100, might have. Re SFE: It's that vision thing. Here, you must have absolute confidence in the ability of SFE to pick and choose viable proposals. And like the Navy's fly boys, they're only as good as their last landing. CMGI seems to have a track record...SFE needs to demonstrate the same. Sorry about the length of this. I know we're all looking at the right companies, it's just that some are going to be more "right" than others, and still others are going to be more right than those we have now. Jill N: You busted Lindy right in the chops. I nearly died laughing. What a show.

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (2114)	5/22/1999 7:00:00 AM
From: Another John	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

Mike & Kelly, I think your pro forma earnings run rate fo the Q is pre split. I am LONG, VERY LONG, the mighty Q compliments of GG and the very good postings on the Q thread. A figure I have seen of 70 million wireless subs in the US is approx 25% penetration which I think, will over the next 5 years, go to 65%+. With CDMA's data capabilities it will , I hope, become the dominant G3 standard and create the numerous wireless products yet to come (With due respect to Maurice's taughts). I have lurked here for some time and would advise some DD on EMC and APOL which I have been buying recently. Holding MSFT,INTC, EMC and Q on own and clients behalf. Buy and hold.........When do you sell? Best wishes all, John

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (2114)	5/23/1999 3:15:00 PM
From: Tlac	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Mike, Run rate's definition as I understand it is four times the most recent quarterly earnings. Using the pro forma earnings of $1.20, that would make the run rate $4.80. Not trying to be nit picky, but want to make sure we're on the same page... Sorry! I was thinking per quarter, pre split when I wrote the post (but did use the correct value in my calculation). Re... "and even assuming an abruptly attenuated revenue growth rate to 35%/yr... and assuming a PEG ratio expansion from the current .77 to only one of 1.91 (in five years), one concludes that the share price is likely to reach at least $2.15 within two years." ...the table below better conveys those assumptions and results: Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Rev Gr 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% Rev run m $3.73 $5.03 $6.80 $9.18 $12.39 $16.72 EPS Gr 55% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% PEG 0.77 0.99 1.22 1.45 1.68 1.91 EPS run $2.40 $3.72 $5.02 $6.78 $9.15 $12.36 Net Mar 9.3% 10.7% 10.7% 10.7% 10.7% 10.7% P/E 42 35 43 51 59 67 Pr/Shr $101 $129 $215 $345 $539 $826 Pr/Sls 3.9 3.7 4.6 5.4 6.3 7.1 Shrs m 145 145 145 145 145 145 Cap m 14.61 18.72 31.09 49.83 77.88 119.45 I'm sure you don't think the share price will be $2.15 Right again!! My hope is that the actual numbers will look more like this... Yr 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Rev Gr 45% 45% 35% 35% 35% 35% Rev run m $3.73M $5.41 $7.84 $10.59 $14.29 $19.29 EPS GR 55% 50% 45% 40% 40% 40% PEG 0.77 1.01 1.26 1.51 1.75 2.00 EPS run $2.40 $3.72 $5.58 $8.09 $11.33 $15.86 Net Mar 9.3% 9.9% 10.3% 11.1% 11.5% 11.9% P/E 42 51 57 60 70 80 Pr/Sr $101 $188 $316 $487 $794 $1,269 Pr/Sls 3.9 5.0 5.8 6.7 8.0 9.5 Shrs m 145 145 145 145 145 145 Cap m 14.61 27.22 45.72 70.49 114.87 183.47 I was experimenting with NZ sherry when working up this spreadsheet, so more scrutiny is welcome.;) Kelly