You post what the Street should think if it were rational.
Gottfried, don't take this personally, but nothing could be further from the truth. Go to the 'Biotech Valuation' thread and read my post from Friday. The 'treatise' describes my view that valuation analysis is an art not a science since psychological factors are the predominant element in determining share price.
In any event, you portray my outlook as rose colored to the Nth degree. Hardly. One need only be invested in the SEM sector for one cycle to lose THOSE glasses. I've been in for 2 1/2. Just except the fact that I believe this cycle is FAR FROM OVER, that Klic will rebound sharply, and that the proper time to get the hell out of here will be sometime in mid- to late 2002. I couldn't give a rat's ass what all the evidence to the contrary is right now. And I'll defend my position as much as someone who thinks insider selling is the sine qua non of investing. If that 'lets us project the best possible outcome' well, those are your words...but don't include me in the 'us'. It's my outlook and one I'll defend; however I'm not asking anyone to characterize it.
Frankly, I could care less what the street should think. I know what my stance is and I'm willing to accept criticism and corrections for factual errors. When I come across rigid viewpoints (insider selling means its the end of the cycle. PERIOD), no matter if they're perceived as useful or tunnel visioned, I often choose to dispute them (and you are well aware I'm not alone on this with regard to Dragon). Again, I'll present and defend my position and I would hope for the sort of Socratic exchange that makes SI so useful. With RD, rather than finding an opportunity for synthesis, I found a brick wall.
Your characterization of RD's approach is completely inconsistent with the way I see his mind set. That's fine and we'll leave it at that. |
