Hi FR1,
Maybe the thing to do is to buy leaps and protect them with short term puts?
Spoken like a true casino aficionado! Assuming you're looking at the future of AMCC in three years time (or thereabouts) by purchasing the LEAPS, at least you have the faith that this electronic chip maker has a future in a photonic world. That's a leap of faith my friend. Pun intended. If we are to believe the visionaries, the future of switching lies in technologies like MEMS, and a host of other developing techniques, none of which AMCC has a particular advantage in.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I do respect AMCC and what they've done in the marketplace. I suspect that they still have the ability to innovate, or the sense to buy up-and-comers. But the brutal fact of technology investing is that the product line that AMCC is innovating today will be obsolete in 3 years. Heck of a basis for a long term bet.
Re: FRB ~ I don't resent the FRB for taking away the punchbowl when it did. What I do wish that they had been able to see, in all their wisdom, was that the huge boost to liquidity they provided to the banking system in anticipation of a Y2K panic found a most inappropriate market to saturate, i.e. the NASDAQ. While the debt side of the telecom bubble was a private insanity, the public market side, the stock market, was, IMHO, ramped beyond reason, in part, because of the excess liquidity in the system.
Re: Cahners In-Stat ~ I just received a most remarkable email solicitation from In-Stat, a market research group. For the first time that I can remember, they've announced that they see negative IT growth for 2001, and they see slow recovery in 2002. This is a remarkable turnaround for an organization that engages in persistent boosterism. They hope to have their subscribers pay 4 big for a report on the matter. Good luck to them. I think they're going to have a slim year, just like everyone else...
Regards, Ray |
