SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Tyco International Limited (TYC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: john douglas who wrote (925)12/9/1999 4:17:00 PM
From: Mr. Tomatohead  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 3770
 
quadrupled my position today. Cost basis is now a little over 28, which is about where it finished up. I don't think that I have ever been as comfortable with a long term trade of a stock that is down. I have much larger holdings in GE (thru my wife's former employment), CSCO, and EMC; I am just about as comfortable with the prospects of a nice return within the next 6-12 months with TYC after today's purchase. I may be wrong, but that is the nature of stock picking. If I can't trust the officers of a company to not be completely lying when they have been confronted with accusations over the last month or two, then I don't belong investing in equities. In the end, all of our stock picks should be premised upon good management. At least the ones that we aren't interested in flipping in 10 minutes or 1-2 days. Good luck to those of you who shorted and made money over the last little while, but even you must admit that you don't think that the stock price will be any lower than today a year from here. Not that the situation is factually or situationally comparable, but I am reminded of how foolish some must have been called to invest in Dell back when they built crappy machines and had a retail/storefront approach. That was really a stock in the dumps with no positive catalyst in site. I think that a lot of 10 baggers are in that situation. GE was a sorryass stock at one time. At least TYC is not facing those sort of fundamental business challenges, rather one of integrity which should quickly be answered.



To: john douglas who wrote (925)12/9/1999 8:03:00 PM
From: John  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 3770
 
> Faber also mentioned that the SEC inquiry might include a review of > short selling immediately prior to the release of Tice's reports.

Yes, this was the second report to this effect. This is obviously of great interest to all concerned. It will be interesting to see where the primary focus of this nonpublic, informal inquiry is centered. It was very interesting to hear CNBC suggest that stock price manipulation by short interests may be of high concern during this inquiry.

> You can't fault CNBC for covering TYC on a day it's down 25% on 100 > million plus shares.

I wholeheartedly concur, but I was in no way faulting CNBC for covering this event. My point of contention is the lack of impartiality they offer. (e.g. The way in which they insert subtle changes to facts at hand.)

Case in point: We all know Tyco is undergoing an "nonpublic, informal inquiry" by the SEC. But, CNBC is quick to go beyond that and call it an "SEC INVESTIGATION!!!" They did this repeatedly. Instead of carefully reporting precisely what was happening to Tyco, they repeatedly substituted the ominous term "SEC INVESTIGATION" again and again instead of the more reserved and correct "nonpublic, informal inquiry."

Am I just quibbling over semantics here? You be the judge, but I venture to guess everyone here knows exactly what I'm alluding to.

If you're in a crowded theater and scream "FIRE" because someone lights a cigarette, you will generate a large scale panic. Was there a fire? Well, yes, but not the kind of fire that people envision when they hear someone scream "fire."

Forgive me for using the above analogy. I know you surely understand my contention with CNBC's reporting priorities.

BTW, we're digging out from 20 inches of new snow in the past 6 hours!

Cheers,
John in Iceland



To: john douglas who wrote (925)12/9/1999 9:18:00 PM
From: D. Chapman  Respond to of 3770
 
CNBC is at fault when they fail to cover some of the hype stocks that they talk about over and over.and then nothing when they crash into earth