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 : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kashish King who wrote (20195)	9/23/1999 9:43:00 PM
From: JC Jaros	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

Plus, if they were in a position of having to buy their way into something (like a new computing paradigm) and looking to make a serious acquisition(s) that balked at taking MSFT stock as currency, it would make their cash go farther (making the target(s) cheaper). -JCJ

To: Kashish King who wrote (20195)	9/23/1999 9:49:00 PM
From: cfimx	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 64865

>>Microsoft was the end beneficiary of those comments. They can take the hit, they want to throw cold water on the competition, and it worked<< grow up. you lost a couple bucks on sun.com. sun.com will rise or fall on how it performs as a business, not because of what steve ballmer has to say about his stock and the market. You are a naive investor that doesn't understand that a stock can go down too. Fancy that.

To: Kashish King who wrote (20195)	9/23/1999 10:17:00 PM
From: QwikSand	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

Microsoft was the end beneficiary of those comments. They can take the hit, they want to throw cold water on the competition, and it worked. I agree that Ballmer's remarks make him look like an idiot given his position. And recall this is not the first time he's come out with a notable quotable. Remember the immortal "I say to heck with Janet Reno"? Where did that one get him? The guy has a big mouth without a matching filter. However, I can't attribute any real manipulative motive to this dumb remark unless some kind of lasting result is produced, and I don't think it will be. IMHO, and in the opinion of a lot of others, a correction was due, had already started, and was bound to be felt hardest by the issues that benefitted most from the mania in any case. This was just another factor that helped glitch it down a little. If high valuations for techs are going to end, they would certainly have ended with or without Ballmer's help. If they are a quasi-permanent fact of market life for a while (which they probably are), then techs will recover, eventually, without leaving M$FT with some kind of lasting relative advantage. My tendency is (and always has been) not to give Ballmer too much credit. Regards, --QwikSand