Steve,
"With all due respect", why don't you give it a rest. Re-read your statement:
"The difference between you and I[me] is that I operate on facts...you like to make stuff up to support your case, whatever that is."
If you are a seasoned investor (which I presume you are to some degree), you would know that being a successful investor is essentially analogous to being a detective of sorts.
As you know, a detective 'speculates' based on available facts-at-hand, various clues, and logical analysis. This is what Hawaii60 does. This is what Blankmind, Bink, Warren Jervey, Arrow Hd, rsklar, et al. do. This is what I do as well.
This is what you should be doing...
Unless of course, you prefer ONLY investing on facts. That means buying ONLY after earnings releases are out. That means buying ONLY after a merger is complete and signed-sealed-and-delivered by Janet Reno and her unconstituitonal antitrust zealots.
That means ONLY selling when bad news is formally announced rather than selling on sector weakness. That means... Well, I could go on and on.
But your declaration that you "only operate on facts" paints you as a pure momentum investor (can you say 'herd instinct'?) who buys only when the facts are out and the crowd is screaming out: "C'mon in, the water's fine!."
C'mon Steve, admit it: You are not that uncreative, are you? I know you have more CPU power under your hat to enable you to do some intelligent speculation on your own. Don't tell me you're merely a non-speculative, momentum investor! If that were the case, you'd only be associated with such names as MSFT, DELL, KO, GE, etc.
You know very well that IDTC's recent history has been chocked full of key clues to be used by astute investors. If you disagree with any speculative logic posted here, why not counter with equally logical discourse supporting your thesis as to why the current speculation is incorrect.
In the case of Liberty Media buying a stake in IDTC, that is a clear case of associative logic where one can easily deduce if "A" [IDTC] suddenly does a deal with "B" [Liberty] and "B" is more or less owned by "C" [AT&T], then the potential for "A" to do business with "C" has suddenly become significantly higher.
And now we have the Tyco countersuit today...
Speculative logic would dictate that this means Tyco IS taking IDTC's lawsuit seriously. Liberty was no doubt informed of IDTC pending suit against Tyco [public knowledge] and would have requested to see IDTC's supporting evidence before buying their 10% stake in IDTC and it met Liberty's approval.
The plot thickens. |
