FWIW, I read the article, and the article is typical of the bearish view of ORCL, and the market in general. ORCL's performance following earnings announcement, IMHO, is evidence that the bearish view is "getting old," and that the market is now tending to look a little bit further out. When they do, they can see that ORCL is extremely well positioned to resume its historic growth trend.
What is interesting is to consider why this article was published NOW? Why did the author wait until June 22 to make his self-proclaimed "astute" observations? Can we say "short-term" trade? Sure we can.
I hold truck loads of ORCL in my retirement account, but hold some "play" (aka trading) shares in my brokerage account that I picked up after the stock plummeted in March, and have been "playing" with ever since. Twice I've written covered calls that have expired out of the money. Yesterday, I was fortunate to write a July call premium at the high when the stock traded north of 18.
My point? ORCL has made a nice run this week, and the stock was bound to take a breather, and perhaps be subject to some profit taking by some non-day traders. I tend to believe the Business Week article was published with the same view in mind. To often, business journalists today seek to maximize the effect of their "journalism" by adhering to some view of market timing. One can only question their intent, which is to attract readership. Had this article been published Tuesday morning or afternoon, it would have drowned in a sea of optimism surrounding ORCL. Now that that optimism has begun to subside, "bam," the article goes to press. JMO. |
