Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap?

From: "J. Lobatto" <jlobatto@nyc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap?
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 12:50:26 -0400
Next Article (by Author): Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap? "Winston Little"
Previous Article (by Author): RE: [CANSLIM] Cheap? "Fred Richards"
Top of Thread: Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap? Chazmoore@aol.com
Next in Thread: Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap? "Winston Little"
Articles sorted by: [Date] [Author] [Subject]
Of course they do, but humans are attracted to rising prices. It took
decades of unrelenting rising stock prices to get people interested and
finally wedded to the idea of buying equities.It is precisly the fact that a
high percentage of families now own stock that has made me uneasy. If prices
continue to fall (not a prediction) people will become skeptical (we're past
that already), fearful (we're here), next totally disgusted and enraged and
finally at the end shellshocked and repulsed. Who knows, at that point both
PE ratios and the percentage of families owning stocks could be back in
single digits.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Fanus" <fanus13@yahoo.com>
To: <canslim@lists.xmission.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 12:31 PM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap?


> Jon
>
> In your opinion then, supply and demand play no role
> in the prices of stocks?  Or Tulips for that matter.
>
> - Fanus
>
>
> --- "J. Lobatto" <jlobatto@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> > I suspect some Dutchmen made the same argument
> > several hundred years ago at
> > the height of the tulip craze.... "only 40% of the
> > population owns tulips,
> > when 85% wants to. Back in the dark ages, only 10%
> > of our fellow Dutchmen
> > owned tulips. Clearly 40 if not 85% will be the norm
> > from now on, so prices
> > have to stay high....." I know, you'll argue that
> > tulips had no real value,
> > but did anyone else read today that Dr. Koop. com
> > which was worth
> > $1,000,000,000 at the height of the dot.mania was
> > just sold to Vitacost at
> > about $150,000(?). Ouch! I doubt even tulip prices
> > fell that hard.
> >
> > Jon
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "zillagirl" <zillagirl@email.msn.com>
> > To: <canslim@lists.xmission.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 11:57 AM
> > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap?
> >
> >
> > > I have a question for minds that are smarter then
> > my own.  When we look at
> > > price to earnings, don't we have to consider the
> > number of people
> > investing
> > > in the market today over what it was in the past.
> > I've read
> > > historically -that in the past- 10 to 15% of
> > households were involved in
> > the
> > > stock market.  Now I've seen figures of 50% or
> > more.     If 35% more
> > > American households started putting money in the
> > same 10,000 or so stocks
> > > that existed before-it seems like that would drive
> > up the price, even if
> > the
> > > business was no more profitable or productive then
> > before.(supply and
> > > demand). Possible even keeping the price up if
> > these households kept
> > > investing(higher P/E ratios)      Hence maybe it
> > would be unrealistic to
> > > think that the correct P/E for this point in time
> > should be exactly in
> > line
> > > with the correct P/Es of the past.  Unless of
> > course that extra 35% of the
> > > people got out of the market again.       Kind of
> > like saying-the
> > > babyboomers are here and our mind tells us that we
> > need many more
> > retirement
> > > homes- but historically, over the past 75 years, 2
> > retirement homes per
> > city
> > > have been the norm so that is the figure we will
> > stick with.   If this
> > > theory sounds reasonable-it would certainly take
> > some of the fright out of
> > > those charts.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Hill, Ernie" <Ernie.Hill@ElPaso.com>
> > > To: <canslim@lists.xmission.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 5:30 AM
> > > Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Cheap?
> > >
> > >
> > > > Here is an interesting perspective on PE ratios
> > the S&P and what is or
> > is
> > > > not cheap.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> http://www.decisionpoint.com/ChartSpotliteFiles/020712sppe.html
> > > >
> > > > E
> > > >
> > > >  -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: inderjit [mailto:inderjit@adelphia.net]
> > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 10:36 PM
> > > > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com
> > > > Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Cheap?
> > > >
> > > > You can easily ;-) find out what a stock is
> > worth by visiting
> > > > http://www.valuepro.net/index.shtml. AOL is
> > worth zero, NVR 1800+ etc.
> > > >
> > > > Regards and have a profitable Tuesday.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com
> > > > [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com] On
> > Behalf Of zillagirl
> > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 7:51 PM
> > > > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com
> > > > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I emailed Mr. Tom Petruno at the L.A.Times today
> > and asked him if he
> > > > could clarify the differences in he's figure and
> > the figure on the 2 web
> > > > sits discussed-will let you know what I find
> > out.
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Fred Richards" <adrich@gte.net>
> > > > To: <canslim@lists.xmission.com>
> > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 3:42 PM
> > > > Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Cheap?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > the latest www.decisionpoint.com report on the
> > PE ratio for the S&P
> > > > > 500
> > > > for
> > > > > the week ending 6/12/02 stood at a still
> > whopping 39.60 times!
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com
> > > > > [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On
> > Behalf Of Fred Richards
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 7:55 PM
> > > > > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com
> > > > > Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Cheap?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > As an neophyte investor,  what you are missing
> > is an doubting mind.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is the credibility of the estimates that
> > the author is using.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does the article state what firm and/or
> > analyst made the estimates and
> > > >
> > > > > on what basis they were made and/or the time
> > frame?
> > > > >
> > > > > Based upon the most reliable information I
> > have using information
> > > > > prior to the revamping of the list effective
> > July 19, I believe, the
> > > > > S&P 500 is
> > > > still
> > > > > selling way over 19 times forward 12 month
> > earnings.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com
> > > > > [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On
> > Behalf Of zillagirl
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 7:25 PM
> > > > > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com
> > > > > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There is quite an extensive article in the
> > L.A. Times today about the
> > > > > markets.  In there it states that " the
> > average stock in the S & P 500
> > > >
> > > > > is priced at about 19 times this years
> > expected earnings per share, by
> > > >
> > > > > many wall street estimates.  That is far above
> > the historical average
> > > > > price -to -earnings ratio of about 14." I
> > think I like these numbers a
> > > >
> > > > > little better.  What's up-am I missing
> > something here?
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Tom Worley" <stkguru@bellsouth.net>
> > > > > To: <canslim@lists.xmission.com>
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 7:06 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > I make no investment decisions, or even
> > select stocks for watching,
> > > > > > on
> > > > the
> > > > > > basis of their history. The market, and
> > stock prices, moves on
> > > > > expectations.
> > > > > > Those expectations are based on projected
> > earnings, not what they
> > > > > > did
> > > > last
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
> http://autos.yahoo.com
>
> -
> -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com"
> -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or
> -"unsubscribe canslim".  Do not use quotes in your email.


- -
- -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com"
- -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or
- -"unsubscribe canslim".  Do not use quotes in your email.
Go to Jeff Salisbury LWGate Home Page.