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 : Piffer OT - And Other Assorted Nuts -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Edwarda who wrote (21838)	3/7/2000 2:16:00 PM
From: Patrick Slevin	Respond to of 63513

Gee one would think I would learn not to post here, I forgot about the dangers of arousing the ire of a hard-core analyst. Why does force majeure come to mind? < A good fundamental analyst is constantly on the prowl for indications of potential future change-> Absolutely, no question in my mind. The basis of predictions is using the past to establish what the company can do, how it is equpped to respond, what the market could/should be and on and on. An example might be RMBS. For some time now the stock has had the potential to become a blockbuster due to opportunity but failed due to inability to produce. The Fundamental issue was sound to an extent and the logical follow through would be that the future should see earnings on such and such a plane based on estimated future sales and so forth. Trouble was the company could not meet demand. I am shooting from the hip on a lot of this, I don't follow every nuance in the history of RMBS. I'm just searching for an example. My drive, however, is that without a basis in history it is difficult if not downright foolhardy to walk forward in time. How's that go, something about ignorance of history condemns one to repeat it? Unlike you, a person who truly has a grip on the intricacies of pure fundie analysis, I cannot compete technically with the solid Technical Analysts of Wall Street. So my remarks are rather simplistic in scope. As a minor league trader I tend to think of personal fundamental analysis as pretty much what I said. I take the remarks of you and other people in the business and throw them up in the air and whatever stays in the air I study. If I was interested in FA then as a junior player I would read you and all the rest of the people who followed the sector, market, stock and get a grip on it's potential through the eyes of the people who truly do this. In other words, with no intended affront to OJ nor whoever it was that he was engaged in friendly debate with, my observation was through the clouded eyes of an outsider. One who respects the work but ain't about to do it all himself. I'm not Peter Lynch waltzing around with an expense account. So for me, and I probably can speak for OJ and the vast majority of SI membership, Fundamental Analysis consists of reading what you people write. A relative issue, to say the least. Using my own background as a cross, as wrong as Welles Wilder or George Lane may be in their application of Delta or Stocastics I would be remiss if I did not try to learn what they are trying to bring forth. These are people with vast resources to bring to bear on the issue of Pattern or Technical Analysis. I'll disagree with what they may be saying but that's my interpretation. However I could not presume to be as well-versed as they in the field. I could not possibly be in the same manner that I could not possibly do fundie analysis as thoroughly as a Street Analyst. I do not recall inferring that RS was Fundamental in tone. Perhaps I did; for this I apologize for the inference. It was not intentional.