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 : Market Gems:Stocks w/Strong Earnings and High Tech. Rank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jenna who wrote (75060)	12/11/1999 8:38:00 PM
From: DanWebzster	Respond to of 120523

Jenna, I am strongly considering purchasing your newsletter. Before I do, there is one thing I would like to know about your earnings lists. How far in advance of their earnings date do stocks appear on your list?

To: Jenna who wrote (75060)	12/12/1999 2:43:00 AM
From: Scrumpy	Respond to of 120523

Margining is a mental block for many, but it's an excellent tool for "encouraging" profit-taking. It adds turbo to the momentum trade, and like anything else in life, if it's understood and used tactfully it can serve as yet another money-making tool. It is an effective way to compound ones trading power very quickly. It is simply a very low interest loan...and that's all. It bothers me to think Wall Street will try to legislate the rate at which one can trade and/or make/lose money, all in the name of "helping/curtailing the little guy", especially given the extraordinary performance of the markets. Such "proposals" are subterfuge, based in fear, and smack of boys-club greed. Scrumpy

To: Jenna who wrote (75060)	12/12/1999 2:26:00 PM
From: Ellen	Respond to of 120523

>> And while we're on the topic, let me talk once again about analysts who dare to take $75 to $150 on a 10 page stock analysis while we can get those for free on many websites. << Oh boy, Jenna, do I ever agree with the sentiment you expressed here. I'd want to add that the analysis is sometimes so flawed, showing a severe lack of research and/or understanding on the part of the analyst, that it's almost ludicrous. Somewhat along those lines, I saw this and almost couldn't believe my eyes. Note the bolded part. ----- biz.yahoo.com Saturday December 11, 12:12 am Eastern Time FCC memo opposes MCI-Sprint merger - newspaper WASHINGTON, Dec 10 (Reuters) - An internal U.S. Federal Communications Commission memorandum described the proposed $115 billion merger of MCI WorldCom Inc. (NasdaqNM:WCOM - news) and Sprint Corp. (NYSE:FON - news) as an "intolerable" blow to competition, The Washington Post reported Saturday. The two telecommunications carriers last month began their uphill struggle to convince the FCC to approve the merger, saying it would allow the companies to offer new services and save billions of dollars by eliminating redundancies. The companies filed their application with the agency on Nov. 17, and it can take as much time as it needs to complete its review. Antitrust and regulatory experts say the companies face a tough battle at the communications commission and the Department of Justice, since the deal would leave the long-distance market with two huge players -- WorldCom and AT&T Corp. (NYSE:T - news) -- controlling over 80 percent of the market. Agency Chairman William Kennard has said that the proposed merger appears to represent a "surrender" from the beneficial competition in long distance that has driven down rates. The Oct. 21 memo was written by Tom Krattenmaker, the research director of the agency's office of plans and policy, the Post reported. Krattenmaker has led the assessment of a host of enormous mergers and formerly worked in the antitrust division of the Justice Department. The memo was written weeks before the merger application was filed by the two companies and begins with a disclaimer in which Krattenmaker says he knows very little about the merger. But Krattenmaker highlighted as potential problems the ownership by both companies of substantial backbones, or Internet networks that carry computer data, as well as the fact that they are the nation's second- and third-largest long-distance providers. "This will raise the most troublesome issue," Krattenmaker said in his memo to Kennard. "Any further consolidation among the major (long-distance) providers would be intolerable, especially in its impact on residential subscribers." A spokeswoman for the Federal Communications Commission was not immediately available for comment on the Post report. The paper quoted agency Chief of Staff Kathryn Brown as saying that Krattenmaker's memo represented "a very preliminary assessment by one of our staff members" and did not amount to a decision by the commission. ----- Now Mr. Krattenmaker may be quite capable of providing a useful and accurate assessment of this proposed merger (and may be quite right in his initial, general opinion), but to write a 'memo' - or anything else - concerning it prior to looking into the details of the merger first, is irresponsible, to me. Please note I am not commenting on the actual aspects of the possible merger myself - because quite frankly I don't know enough details about it to do so - but for 'an expert' to do so without knowledge of the details (yet) is beyond me.

To: Jenna who wrote (75060)	12/12/1999 2:28:00 PM
From: kendall harmon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 120523

HOW MANY DAYTRADERS? Jenna said: <<AS for the daytrading..The media should know there are close to 37,000 daytraders and the numbers are growing. There is a definite new wave of 'education' which will actually undo the damage of firms like Ameritrade, E-trade, DLJ or whatever company makes everyone think its so easy to daytrade.. Then when the daytraders get into 'trouble' they get attacked.>> I would be interested in the source for the 37000 number, jenna. I see all sorts of numbers bandied about in terms of how many and how many of that first many lose money, etc., but they do not seem to be based on any hard and fast definitions or analysis. I would think that at least this number of perhaps as many as 40k or more would be more accurate--it would certainly be more accurate if the definition of an active trader in the proposed margin rules is adopted.