First Solar (FSLR), one of the solar power stocks, has had an incredible run over the last year. It is currently trading at a skyhigh P/E of 195 times earnings. In 2004 and 2005 the company traded with a negative ROE. In 2006, it was a paltry 0.9.

Can anyone say “gambling” when talking about this stock?

Some posters on the Yahoo Message Boards are beginning to liken the solar stocks to the dot-coms of the late 1990s:

Boy this message board sounds like an internet stock in 2000

How many solar companies are out there doubling? 40

First Solar competitor SolarFun Power Holdings (SOLF) is up another 6.50% after signing a $230 million contract with a Korean company to sell them wafers. It is trading with a P/E of 113.

There are hundreds of posts on the Yahoo Message Boards a day about these stocks.

Compare the solar stocks with a stock like Apache, one of the energy plays. Apache hit new all-time highs today and its shares were up 63% last year. It is still trading at 16 times earnings. They are an exploration company so their revenue will go up if crude prices stay high. The last post about Apache on the Yahoo Message Boards was December 30, 2007- or 4 days ago.

Irrational exuberance in the solar power stocks?

You be the judge.

Starbucks shareholders are feeling the pain in the last year. After riding the stock higher since 2001, the stock finished 2007 down 42.17%. The new year hasn’t started any better. The stock is down nearly 10% in two sessions and has hit a low last seen in 2004.

Is it a “buy” at these levels? Many on the chatrooms, such as this poster, seem to think so and are looking at the global growth story:

But let’s just assume, for argument’s sake, that the company will suffer from far slower growth in the US, not to mention all the other crap about milk prices, and competition from places where I personally would NEVER go to get a coffee (I might get my glazed donut from dunkin donuts etc, but the coffee? No way.) OK, so assuming you’re all right about the US plummeting…how about China, and Europe and everywhere else ??

Growth prospects are unbelievable when you consider that Starbucks only accounts for 1% of coffee consumption in the rest of the world (source:Morningstar). And, again from Morningstar, they only have 7% of the domestic market, so SBUX certainly has room for more gorwth in the US. But, we’re talking about the global side of the equation, so lets leave the US out of it.

Others aren’t so sure we’ve hit the bottom. Many posters still think the stock is overvalued based on current growth projections:

Brand loyalty can’t compensate for poor management, a strapped consumer, and emminent recession taking the consumer out of the mix, imo.

I’ve been riding this stock down from upper 30’s and haven’t covered yet. When the stock price gets to single digits, I’ll cover.

Starbucks is now trading with a current P/E around 21 and a forward P/E of only 15. In the last 10 years, Starbucks has never traded with a P/E under 30. Granted, their growth has slowed in recent years. But they are still projecting around a 20% year over year growth rate.

Starbucks stock is simply out of favor and investors are fleeing in droves for no reason. Paging Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway: Value, value, value!

MasterCard recently hit another new all-time high. The stock has been on fire since its IPO. Its 52 week low is $90. It is trading at $217 and hit as high as $227 a share.

On the Yahoo Message Board the posters are gushing about what a great stock it is. But this comment, from gpeasejem, caught my eye:

I can’t believe we hit 227 today and closed at another all time high. As KBW said in their upgrade today. MA is recession proof because of it’s 50 percent exposure to Europe.

Can a company really be “recession proof”? MasterCard processes credit card transactions. If you have a slowdown in America, that doesn’t mean you will have a slowdown in other countries. Or does it?

Or is MasterCard the perfect business- meaning that their profits can never slow as long as everyone in the world is using plastic?

Something to ponder. In a world with no cash, who is getting rich?

Apparently investors on Yahoo’s Message Board don’t take kindly to Jim Cramer saying that oil exploration company Apache (APA) is a buy. Many believe his endorsement equals the “kiss of death” and that means the stock will drop at least another $10 to $85 in the next two weeks.

Is it “cramerizing”? (as one poster put it?)

One poster got upset because Cramer keeps telling his viewers to buy certain stocks. He says:

He tells us to buy all these stocks. Like today, we should buy McDonalds. But it’s not like I have all this cash sitting around. If I had unlimited funds, I would not need the stock market. I don’t have my own TV show and hedge fund like he does. What gives?

There is no doubt that Cramer has influence on how a stock moves- at least initially- in the few days following the show. But there has been no known long-term effect on stock prices.