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 : Oracle Corporation (ORCL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (12119)	9/25/1999 9:06:00 AM
From: MeDroogies	Respond to of 19079

I'm not so impressed with what he wrote. For somebody who's livelihood IS the net, he may have missed the boat entirely. Is it overhyped? Perhaps. But my job is dependent on the net, and I'm beginning to discern exactly why it's "overhyped". I'm not prepared to share that right now, because I want to be sure that things are "really different this time". They might not be....but I'm beginning to think they might be. For Cramer to bash his primary distributorship is silly. Much like Ballmer using his position to make silly public statements.

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (12119)	9/26/1999 8:08:00 PM
From: lml	Respond to of 19079

Duke: Before beginning to lecture on the do's & don'ts of investing, which I kindly don't need, thank you, I suggest you get off your own high horse & practice up a bit on your elementary reading skills. If you would take a few moments & review the series of posts preceding my post to which you responded, you might learn that the focus of the discussion was not the substance of Balmer's comments, but rather his role as the messenger. Substance As far as the substance of Balmer's comments, to which you take issue, you will find meritorious arguments on both side of the table. I for one, have never invested in any "dot-com" as I view them as too risky. For the record, & I have expressed the same here previously, I believe that the manner at which the market prices these newly public companies without any earnings or earnings history borders on the absurd. I just don't understand these pricing models that presumes that each one of these companies are going to succeed to achieve a significant to major market share in the space that seek to compete. Not every dot-com is going to achieve 30% market share. For some reason, you seem to place great emphasis on what the great poobah himself, Mr. Cramer, has to say on this issue. I appreciate & thank you for the link to the interesting article, but the fact of the matter is what Cramer has to say on the matter has little relevance, as has already been pointed out on this thread a week or two ago. Go ahead & read up. It'll make good practice. The Messenger Now, what is important to the discussion that was taking place here is why did Balmer say what he did, & was he in a position to do so. You seemed to have utterly missed this point. My sympathies. Before you can "handle the truth," Duke, you first gotta find it. If you follow the media & discussion that has followed Balmer's comments, the sentiments expressed here by myself & others are not alone. My first reaction on this issue was that Balmer, as president of a public company, had violated one of the principal duties he owed to his shareholders, that is, to maximize shareholder value. See beta.siliconinvestor.com. More importantly, the discussion here also focused on the motivations or reasonings for making such a statement. It is one thing for Greenspan, Byron Wien, Abby Joseph-Cohen, or Joe Battipaglia of Gruntal & Co. to comment on the proper price valuation of high tech stock, but it is another for the chief officer of high-tech company to comment on the market valuation of his company's stock & those of his competitors & future competitors. Such conduct deserves scrutiny & criticism. This is the truth of the matter, regardless of whether you can find it or not.