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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pann1128 who wrote (9442)	11/3/1999 3:32:00 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

I cannot overemphasis the statement that Q's management is making by announcing a 4 to 1 split. When a company of this caliber does such a thing, they are saying, "We are growing so fast that the only way to keep the stock price in the $100 range over the next year is to split it 4 to 1 now." I understand that the aftermarket has run the price close to 250. Since I predicted this price by this time, something must be wrong! I never hit short term numbers! :0) I predicted a 20 point drop to 230 afterward, if there was no blowout. I consider the 4 to 1 announcement to be a "Blowout" statement. It is a way for the company to boast without getting in trouble with the SEC. I think we will get the 4 to 1 done just before the Annual Meeting in February. Possibly late January. In response to some PM's, let me say that as soon as I have the Hotel figured out, based on where the Annual Meeting will be held, I will set up our meeting in San Diego and announce it on this thread. I know we have about 8 or 9 people coming at the moment, and I am sure it will grow.

To: pann1128 who wrote (9442)	11/3/1999 3:34:00 AM
From: Seeker of Truth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Quite evidently, a lot of money could have been made by investing in SEBL a year ago, when it looked even less like a gorilla than now. The building of a great moat, the acquiring of great stickiness, the raising of switching costs, all this takes time. Anybody investing in SEBL then had to say "This is a gamble, I could lose a lot if ORCL or SAP or IBM or somebody races ahead of them. But if SEBL wins the gains will be tremendous and if I take such gambles each time I'll be ahead, on the average." I think the sense of this board is that a portfolio of gorillas will outperform a portfolio of hopefuls like SEBL was and maybe still is. SEBL is a case where gambling would have paid off but of course there are many other examples where it didn't, right?