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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bill meehan who wrote (75220)	2/4/2000 4:45:00 PM
From: sammaster	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

what do u make of this? Date: Wed Feb 02 2000 10:03 D.A. ( gold ) ID#7579: Our good friends over at Goldman have been in the market buying calls on the heavy yellow metal, with strikes in the 310 320 range for April and June. Quantity estimated at about 1 million oz. notice the date....wednesday!!!! so GS was buying calls on wednesday...amybe they knew they were blowing up and knew they would have to buy back gold so they they bot a bunch of calls to cover themselves.... so GS saved themselves and others got screwed big time... samir

To: bill meehan who wrote (75220)	2/4/2000 5:14:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

>> it was clear that networked computers and wireless communications would unlock great potential for corporations and individuals on a global basis<< bill, i would argue that customers benefit the most - by far. * free net access * free long distance * merchandise so cheap delivered to your door that you used to get arrested for it in the past * earn $$$ surfing the net * get paid to view advertisements * near instantaneous price comparisons etc...

To: bill meehan who wrote (75220)	2/4/2000 5:44:00 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

I would disagree -- I think Wayne is right. After a point one can get dulled or desensitized to what is really going on in the markets -- there has been an unprecedented increase in volatility in the markets since late November -- it's not healthy or an adjustment to some long-term economic shift, IMO. It's indicative of one thing: growing instability. How it plays out I don't know, but the risks for the market are currently being discounted to an extreme degree by the participants (in a way they haven't been up until the last couple of months).

To: bill meehan who wrote (75220)	2/5/2000 12:14:00 PM
From: Freedom Fighter	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 132070

Bill, I'm in the minority about the information age (probably wrong). I think there is a tendency for very bright people like yourself and others that frequent A.M.B. to assume that more information is better. That may not be the case sometimes. In fact, I think more information can actually be worse. There are very few things like mathematics where 1+1=2. In business, most of the information is subjective, interpretive, contains some error, is full of biases, etc... I think in some cases the more of it you have the more of a mish mosh you are likely to make out of reality. I have two examples from my own experience. For the first 10 years of my investment experience all I did was scan the Value Line looking for companies with clean balance sheets, high ROE, a long history of steady growth, and either a brand or business position that I thought had an edge that I could understand. I used standard Graham type analysis to determine if it was cheap. I usually did most of my buying during general market dips. I did great. Consistently outperformed the market. I would say that my current knowledge level about accounting, economics, business in general, valuation methods used on Wall St. combined with the information I have at hand is some enormous multiple of what it used to be. 1999 was my worst year ever and I would say I am less comfortable than I used to be. Understanding all the issues better and having more information has not improved my results. In fact it has clouded my thought process. I had the same experience at the track except that I'm further along as a handicapper than I am as an analyst. I have 25 years of experience at the track and have been fortunate enough to spend a lot of time with some of the best handicappers in the country. I also did an enormous amount of personal research (while I should have been in school) (g). Over the first 20 years I kept trying to refine my speed and pace figures and put other aspects of the game into neat formulas. (especially the relationship between pace and final time, bias/pace and final time, trip etc..) I also had very detailed data on class. No doubt I kept getting better and I certainly had enormous amounts of information in my database to study. But I didn't really break through and start making money consistently until I met a guy I had no respect for as a handicapper. He was using simpleton speed figures, had no real idea how many of the cross over classifications matched up (claimers vs allowance, statebreds vs open, 3yos vs older, other tracks vs NY etc..), and no other special insights into trips or anything else. He claimed he was winning consistently. I would have thought he was either a nut or a liar except that he was very bright and was winning right in front of my eyes. He taught me that the complexity and amount of information I was using was actually decreasing my accuracy instead if increasing it. Instead I started focusing on the contenders and their prices instead of trying to have more and better information. You need a certain amount of information that you understand well, but too much or overly complex is the wrong way to go. He was right! Wayne