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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (67460)	9/10/1999 3:30:00 AM
From: GuinnessGuy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Mike, Another article about Ancor and Sun; this time from the Urinal: Message 11208198 What's you take? It seems to me that they are de-emphasizing the cash flow angle a bit much although it is mentioned. All in all, do you think that Ancor would have been better off without the warrant deal(assuming that there wasn't some sort of trade-off in ASP's for their switches). Thanks. Craig

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (67460)	9/10/1999 7:01:00 AM
From: Giordano Bruno	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 132070

Mike, some lovely property listings in this mornings WSJ. Housing gains of 40% over 5 years. Not to be misconstrued as inflationary...we know better than that. -g- interactive.wsj.com

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (67460)	9/10/1999 9:38:00 AM
From: Freedom Fighter	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 132070

Mike, I understand some of the focus on the less volatile elements of the inflation measurements. But aren't the core and non-core numbers interrelated to some degree. In other words, if food and energy prices double, doesn't everyone in aggregate have less money to spend on the remaining items and thus cause them fall in price or rise less than they would otherwise rise? If so, the only number that should really matter is the overall inflation number in a sort of moving average that levels off the volatility effects. Wayne