James,
You wrote: "Dan, If you don't like the information posted on this BB, then you need to dig up your own facts IMO. ... (snip some stuff) ... Your blanket attack is both unwarranted and unfair".
I was really sorry to see you say this. I've been most appreciative of the information you've posted because I feel you make a sincere effort to be objective. I tried to make this clear a recent post to you (# 7562) where I thanked you for your efforts, said I'd probably been lax in my DD, and asked you not to make it "too easy for the rest of us".
Frankly, however, I think I do try to "dig up my own facts" and I don't think I made a "blanket attack".
My "attack", if that's how you choose to characterize it, was targeted specifically towards people who are not on DCI's payroll but who nevertheless act as "spokespeople" for the company. It was also not against them personally or against them making personal observations, remarks, or speculations (most of which I enjoy/appreciate) but against them posting information to be taken as "company policy" which (sometimes) later turned out to be inaccurate. It was also intended to question whether much of this information should have been made available ("leaked") outside the company in the first place.
Frankly, I think some people on this thread equate "due dilligence" with how many times they've called the CEO or talked to other people in the company. (One time someone even equated DD to how much money one was willing to spend on phone calls to the company). Should doing DD on IBM or Apple consist of calling Louis Gerstner or Steve Jobs and the IR offices of the companies? OR, should it consist of understanding the balance sheets, the historical performance, the products and product synergies, discriminators the companies might have to offer, the strategic directions and visions of the companies, etc. Should it consist of taking what the company has to say "on faith" OR should it consist of investigating independent sources such as SEC filings, analysts reports, Value Line Reports, etc. to the extent possible?
I think it's probably obvious from the above what I think the "correct" answers are.
You're able to do some types independent evaluation I'm not currently -- and probably never will be -- capable of doing. You're very adept at digging up SEC filings, knowing which ones to be looking for, knowing how to read them once you've found them, etc. You understand investment alternatives: high-yield bonds vs. PCs vs. whatever. Frankly, until 2-3 weeks ago, I equated a "floorless convertible" with a T-bird with a rusted-out floor (as I think Timbo said when we first started talking about them). You -- and lots of others who follow this stock -- are adept at reading trading logs. Frankly, my eyes start to glaze over after I've looked at them for more than a few minutes.
I don't lay claim to understanding a lot of that stuff and that's why it's nice to be able to rely on people like you who do. One of the principal reasons I was originally attracted to DCI in the first place was because this thread existed -- it had a wealth of different types of people with different types of expertise to bring to the table.
My background -- on the other hand -- is in mathematics and (software) engineering. I also think I understand just enough about corporate finance to be able to recognize a healthy balance sheet when I trip over one.
But I also think I have a fairly good understanding of telecommunications. I think I know what a switch is because I've helped design them and I've written software to control them. I think I could evaluate a worldwide or European telecommunications plan based on switch capacities, numbers of lines, peak loading, call rates, average holding times, etc.. I think I could evaluate CyberFax technology if (and only if) about one more level of technical detail were made available to me.
I've tried to find out more information along lines like these as witnessed by questions I've raised on the thread, addressed to DCI IR, addressed to CyberFax, my contribution to the list of questions sent to Dan Murphy three weeks ago now, etc.
I'm not saying my DD is better or more important than your (or anybody else's) DD but I also don't appreciate being accused of not doing any.
Finally, I think losing Jewel's tenacity and her willingness/capability to challenge the "party line" without offending **too** many people is going to be a genuine loss to the thread. I, for one, hope she reconsiders and decides to hang around.
Dan |
