Jules - I sure do remember. I had owned about 450 shares I
bought in 1983 at an effective price of around $3. When
pushed it down to $49 I decided to buy some more. By the
time I decided, it had moved to 57. I was posting at that
time that the price at that level was nuts and that Intel
was certainly a $100 stock. Was I ever wrong.
The stock in trade of analysts is supposed to be their ability
to get under the clutter of today's news and foresee the
real business prospects out 1,2,3 years (sometimes further).
Many analysts didn't do that due to
1. laziness
2. inablility
3. weakness of intellect
4. flat our poor judgement
5. bias
6. being overwhelmed with details
I remember being shaken a little this past summer when Jimmy
Rogers on CNBC talked about what a great short Intel was!! I
posted on this thread to get my head back on straight. Here's
a guy who apparently makes a living on shrewd insights into
the markets. Is it possible that he too is guilty of a couple
of the items above? I don't know if he is STILL shorting INTC.
I don't know what his tolerance for pain is, but he appears to
have an ego bigger than national parks.
I agree with you that this thread had all the info anyone
needed to make an informed decision to buy (roughly 11-12
months ago). There have always been bulls and bears,
cheerleaders and analysts, facts and rumors represented
on the thread. I have listened very carefully to you, Paul
Engel, John Hull, Fred Fahmy and others. I don't know quite
what to make of Trader Jack, except that he seems to know what
he is doing and has the unique personality required of a day
trader. Me, I'll keep the day job for a while and stick to
long term investing.
Final thought. I am guessing that the NC is not going to
make any serious inroads. Could be wrong and I'll watch
closely, but my strong bias is agin it. Ditto the set-top
web-browser.
Best regards,
Burt |
