Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : WAVX Anyone? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: genejockey who wrote (7679)	7/3/1999 12:34:00 PM
From: Jesse Livermore	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11417

So we know that Anthony probably had the dope on this Barron's stroy, probably his "bad news" coming. Well, I think not. The pros are already short and counting on the little guys to run scared and sell so they can cash out. Maybe it will work. However, all it takes is some good news that the OEMs and content providers are indeed buying in to send the shorts running for cover. I think I will hold and buy any dips.

To: genejockey who wrote (7679)	7/3/1999 1:32:00 PM
From: SDR-SI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11417

Re: The Barrons Article The best rebuttal to the article is that the "failed" priors had software solutions and that such solutions were put forth at the wrong time. It would appear that such is a reasonable comment on the priors noted in the article. At this point, however, the Wave market is being expanded by one content producer after another endorsing the incremental purchase concept; by one networker after another endorsing the need for and adopting the basis of client-purchased, mass content distribution with control for content purchase being placed in the user; and by one OEM after another endorsing both the general trusted client concept and the specific Wave implementation. I believe that the issues that the Barron's article points out are, in effect, an illustration of specifically why Wave may now be successful where others have previously not been. Although it will, no doubt, probably have a (hopefully short-lived) temporary downward pressure on the stock price, the article itself seems to ultimately contain the questions that, when really fully considered, ultimately point toward Wave's success. As Jesse has pointed out so well, the professional shorters have taken their positions long before either this Barrons article or last week's Anthony@Pacific commentary. And to be fair to the non-bashing shorts, many of them have proven themselves to be correct in being able to have established a profit-making short position. No matter what happens to Wave's stock price in the future, such short positions have had the opportunity to have been profitably closed out by their initiators. Whether the ultimate low of single digits will be reached is open for debate. I, personally, do not agree with it. But the ability of those who shorted in the mid 20's to have ridden the price down to successful closeouts in the teens is established fact. Even those who based a short on Anthony's recommendation and shorted at 19 or high 18's, then to have easily covered within 24 or 48 hours in the low 17's, have been able to make a very creditable one or two day trading profit. Certainly statistical or technical analysis of Wave's trading patterns makes it quite reasonable to assume that, even without the Barron's article, there would be sufficient volatility in Wave's price so that a nimble short who trades on either a technical basis or his own personal disbelief in Wave's concept or possibility of success, would have numerous opportunities to bring off successful short trades in the future. When the bucks end up in the bank, you can't argue that they are totally wrong. As most who follow the Wave threads know, I am significantly and chronologically long this stock and have a conviction that the company will ultimately be successful. I also firmly believe that the price will, long term be moving upward with good possibilities for major fast upward spurts and am sufficiently knowledgeable about what is going on to never, even if I wanted to, attempt shorting the stock. The best thing is, I suppose, that ultimately both the advocates of long and careful short positions can each make money. Again, I believe that the momentary downward pressure of the Barrons article will ultimately be overcome by Wave's answer to many of the issues which it, itself, raises. Long or short, have a great Fourth and don't forget to appreciate what it means in our being able to even have a debate such as this and in our being able to follow our own specific beliefs toward financial success. Steve