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.

Non-Tech : Knight/Trimark Group, Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sir Francis Drake who wrote (5029)	10/14/1999 12:12:00 AM
From: gbh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10027

SFD, very eloquent. However, this dissertation fails to mention the root cause of this decline. Something KP could not possibly have had any control over. Q1 and Q2 volume and volatility were unsustainable. The expectation of sequential growth coming out of Q2 was not something that could be "managed". This sequential growth never materialized, and hence, the stock price fell drastically. If KP had talked these expectations down in Q1 and Q2 perhaps the dramatic rise could have been kept to 50 or 60. But nothing could have prevented the fall to current levels. If KP is guilty of anything (which I think he is), its not communicating the Q3 view sooner. Would this have prevented the stock from reaching 24? Doubtful. By your estimation, NITE should have done something along the lines of an AMZN. What, I have no clue? Your comparison here is hopeless. AMZN has chosen to build its business (and shareholder value) on the come. Eventually they will have to show consistent earnings growth, or they too will be subject to missing "real" earnings estimates. If your opinion is that NITE should somehow have forgone real earnings over the last 2 years, this is silly. They couldn't have done this even if they wanted to in the business they are in. The comparison to MSFT is even more hopeless. If NITE ever reaches monopoly status among MMs, then we can have a pertinent discussion. Even MSFT hit some rocky roads in its first few years as a public company. The bottom line is the stock was overvalued at 80, 70, 60, 50 for its real long term growth rate. If you were fortunate to short it then (which I doubt, because at that time, the growth rate seemed sustainable), good for you. But to berate management for not "managing" and unmanageable situation is a waste of your considerable typing skills... Gary