raylopez99 wrote:
- quote -

I agree that Intel has more monopolistic power and thus more earning
power than Motorola. However, this is probably fully reflected in its
price. When you look at Intel's and Motorola valuation ratios, Motorola
looks cheaper in my opinion. Given Intel's current P/E of 24.53, Intel
needs an average earnings growth rate above 11 percent to justify its
current price, while Motorola just needs a 1 percent growth (remember:
over the long term, the historical average growth rate of EPS was 6.2
percent).


======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Posters to this thread should relate comments to financial planning.

"raylopez99" <raylopez99[at]yahoo.com> writes:

- quote -

This is an excellent insight on what's contributed to MOT being ho hum
for so long--it remains a heavily engineering dominated company in a
market space that requires a lot more right brain folks than it has on
the payroll (or would be willing to listen to anyway).

But MOT does a lot more than subscriber handsets though, so a full
analysis shouldn't ignore that.


--
Todd H.
http://toddh.net/

I like Intel myself, as a tech pick. The margins are incredible on uP
(microprocessors), and I don't see AMD doing much damage (being
one-sixth the size) once the corporate market starts spending. Also
EMC (hard drives) is good. My reasoning: computer systems go obsolete
every 5-10 years (basically the hard drive fails, and then most people
are too lazy to change harddrives; they rather upgrade). So we are due
to replace all those dotcom PCs in the next few years.

MOT is riskier IMO since they are one of many players in the cell phone
business, which is FASHION DRIVEN. The RAZR was a step backwards
technically, but it had a "cool" look. Bad investment idea
that--trading on cool. Think GAP.

RL

Jose Bailen wrote:
- quote -


======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Posters to this thread should relate comments to financial planning.

- quote -

Motorola seems a good investment not just because its price fell 30
percent but because its fundamentals look good. Its valuation looks
pretty attractive -P/E of 11.56, less than 1/2 the average P/E of its
industry; P/B of 2.54, again substantially lower than the industry's
average-, which combined with an above-average 5-year earnings growth
rate, looks like it is trading below its intrinsic value (see the
ratios here:
http://stocks.us.reuters.com/stocks/...tNav-16-Ratios)

To justify the current price, you just need an average earnings growth
rate of 1 percent during the next 10-yr period (you may check this
here:
http://www.zroundtable.com/ZRT_files...k_earnings.htm)

That's well below the historical average of 6.2 percent for the stock
market as a whole, and of course much lower than MOT's 5-yr EPS growth
rate of 27.71 percent.

In conclusion, this does not look the case of many tech industries
which were trading above its intrinsic value even after the huge price
declines in the early 2000s (Lucent and Nortel, for instance).

John A. Weeks III wrote:
- quote -

John makes an excellent point below. Tech stocks are *volatile*. You
can have a company that looks like it is a great company, winning
business model, great products. And its name happens to be Dell, and
it has been a dog the last 3 years.

For gambling I would rather gamble on an index (eg Nasdaq). Or buy a
long-term buy and hold type company (ef Pfizer, although they have had
some very disappointing news of late).
- quote -

Excellent point.

Let me tell you about me and Nortel. It had dropped from $120 to $25,
so I thought (growth industry, right?), that it was 'cheap'.

Adjusted for a 1 for 10 recapitalisation, it is now about $2. Fastest
$5000 I ever threw away. As I keep telling my portfolio manager, I
keep it in the account to remind me every time I am tempted to gamble.

(if it was in a taxable account, then one can sell the shares, and turn
the loss into an asset. A good discipline at the end of each tax year,
I find).

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 19:04:19 -0600, John A. Weeks III <john[at]johnweeks.com> wrote:
- quote -

That, as such, does not scare me too much if it is going to make good
money in the long run.

i

In article <hqCdnfMBevG6tzDYnZ2dnUVZ_r-onZ2d[at]giganews.com> ,
Ignoramus16071 <ignoramus16071[at]NOSPAM.16071.invalid> wrote:

- quote -

The problem with a company that just shed 30% of its value is that
it is just as likely (if not more likely) to drop another 30% than
it is to crawl back out of that hole.

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john[at]johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:21:31 -0600, woessner[at]gmail.com <woessner[at]gmail.com> wrote:
- quote -

Bill, I hope that if we are not allowed to discuss individual stocks,
we'd be corrected by our esteemed moderators, but I want to thank you
for your suggestion. It seems to be a low leverage and not too
expensively priced stock. I will definitely research more into it.

Thank you.

i

daniel.yaocheng.lee[at]gmail.com wrote:
- quote -

I'm going to assume this is what Kramer calls "mad money". That's
money that's left over after you've paid all your bills and set aside
money for retirement. If not, I highly suggest you put this money to
use elsewhere. That being said...

I've been eyeing Motorola (MOT) lately. They've just gone through a 3
month slide down 30%. Whether they've hit rock bottom is anybody's
guess. But I think that Motorola is a solid company and firmly believe
that they'll recover from this. This could be a good opportunity to
buy some Motorola stock on the cheap.

I don't think this would be a stock to "play around" with, though. I
would look at this more as a buy-and-hold stock. Motorola isn't going
to double your money overnight. Chances are very slim it will double
your money this year. But I think it's a good buy for the long haul.

Speaking of Kramer, I think he just badmouthed Motorola. Even more
reason to buy it. :-)

--Bill

<daniel.yaocheng.lee[at]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168956724.698667.141970[at]v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

Put it in a low cost "index fund" of your choice and ...
....
....
....

Forget about it for the next 40 years.


The folks who " play around " tend to be a lot worse off after a
few decades than the folks who buy, hold, and forget about it.

daniel.yaocheng.lee[at]gmail.com wrote:
- quote -


You've said both "invest" and "trading", and the two are not the same
thing at all.

If you really mean investing, buy DIA or SPY or QQQQ and leave it alone.
Or do lots of research and pick just one stock that you like and buy
it and leave it alone. Buying an exchange traded index fund (DIA, SPY,
QQQQ, etc) gives you diversification. Buying just one stock gives you
volatility, which can be good or bad depending on which way it goes for you.

If you want to trade (gamble), pick a highly volatile stock that goes up
and down several percent per day for no apparent reason (like maybe
China Life Insurance, NYSE:LFC) and try to predict (guess) the ups and
downs. IMO, if you are not overly compulsive there is nothing wrong
with gambling, just be honest with yourself about what you are doing,
stay away from buying on margin, and try to learn some lessons along the
way. Even if you guess right, you will find that $7 per transaction
eats up a lot of your winnings on a $1000 stake, but that's not a bad
lesson to learn. Good luck!

Best regards,
Bob

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:52:54 -0600, daniel.yaocheng.lee[at]gmail.com <daniel.yaocheng.lee[at]gmail.com> wrote:
- quote -

It is relatively expensive to actively trade with $1,000. Assuming
that commissions are 9.99 per trade, just buying and selling a stock
costs 2% of the amount. I would buy only one stock or one mutual fund
and would not try to "diversify" that $1,000. When you save another
$1,000, you can buy something else.

i

Have opened an account with Scottrade. Already have a Target
Retirement 2045 Roth with Vanguard. Looking to play around with $1K.
New to stock trading. Any suggestions for the upcoming year?