BMW,I'll probably regret jumping in here, but I think the point sean1arch was making was that you were as emphatic about your analysis of CSCO back in 2000 as you are today about your BMW Method never picking a loser. Rather than suggest CSCO was overpriced back then, as you say now, it certainly seems to suggest you were saying it was incredibly undervalued. How else should one interpret your comment that a 16% to 21% 10-year CAGR was reasonable, which would lead to a $2-$3 trillion valuation and a stock price of anywhere from $250 to $400 per share?Nor would one get the impression you thought it was overvalued and had sold your shares in the company weeks before writing the post, when you asked them to consider a $4 trillion valuation too. And it certainly sounds to me like the only reason you are asking people to "do the math" was to validate your valuation and the probability (certainty?) that it would attain those levels.Rather than taking issue with your Method, of which I really have none, I think the exception most people register is your claim to infallibility. That you think you've discovered a superior way of finding undervalued stocks is one thing and I don't think is in dispute, to claim you can never be wrong is quite another.I'm still interested in following your discussion of your Method--on this board or another--because it does intrigue me, but I will remain skeptical about your claim to omniscience.Rich
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra