scott and patsy regarding "what's cooking?!"
i am on a venture to find "long-term" support for c-cube microsystem,
because i believe in its prospects even though it seems to be diminishing.
media understated c-cube's competitive business environment back
in the 1995 and this caused blind momentum buying of the stock. and,
now in the 1996 as cube make excellent progress, the media is saying
there IS competition.
MPEG decoder chips has always been in a commodity business. the
fact is that demand is rising so hugely, it is often ignored that MPEG
producers will suffer from price and supply/demand pressure.
the core technology of cube's MPEG lies in its core encoder chip. this
chip (which won the emmy award) is the "driving engine" behind what
you see today, the digital revolution. due to the high compression
and cost-effective advantage of the cube encoding technology,
consumer electronic companies are able to launch products such
as Digital Versatile (Video) Disk and Digital Broadcast System.
why are these two technologies so important in the digital video
revolution? because they provide cheaper solutions to the older
counterparts. --(all these enabled by cube's core compression)
cube's unique marketing ability of this technology -- cube formed
the MPEG (Moving Picture Expert Group) and received industry
acceptance as the undisputed leader to set MPEG standards. the
main reason why cube is able to achieve this is due to the fact cube
opened up its decoding technology to chip manufacturers. any
company can make decoder chip with cube's core technology and
MPEG standard by paying minimal liscensing fee.
this unique marketing strategy has enabled cube to achieve deep
joint venture alliances with the "key" consumer electronic OEMs. this
also prevented them from making the same Apple mistake. this
similar strategy was adapted by Microsoft and IBM.
this is my attempt to single-out cube, from the other semiconductor
equipment makers.
i do not try to manipulate mini-cap stocks by posting their excellent
prospects and advertise them to the neophytes. that would be
pointless because mini-stocks can be driven by technical manipulation.
and this is not my specialization. i follow stocks, i don't drive them.
i am merely trying to advocate the importance of understanding the
fundamentals before owning a certain company.
i would say any cube investor would agree with me. cuz, WHO would
have the stomache for all these volatility-basing patterns.
any pro can attempt to analyze the stock's past performance and predict
future movement. however, without having a sound understanding of
solid fundamentals, it is virtually pointless in predicting where the
stocks are going (believe it or not, WHERE THE STOCK IS GOING
CHANGES AS NEW BUYING OR SELLING SUPPORT IS
RECOGNIZED)
follow the trend, but don't follow it all the way. |
