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: Mike 2.0 who wrote (21686)	3/29/2000 9:50:00 AM
From: Uncle Frank	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

QCOM Swisstrader posted today's Cramer essay on the Q thread. Too bad JC wasn't watching fundamentals instead of stochastics the last few times he dumped Qualcomm, but I sense he's beginning to figure out that Dr. J & Co. is pretty credible. Getting Back in the Saddle By James J. Cramer 3/29/00 8:19 AM ET Sometimes the church of what's happening now puts you in the wrong pew. We got spooked out of Qualcomm (QCOM:Nasdaq -news - boards) on that downbeat last quarter, and we were wrong. This actually very nonpromotional company vs. its accomplishments told the straight-out story, and we panicked. Now we have to go back in as the conclusion of this Motorola (MOT:NYSE - news - boards) dispute spotlights still one more giant revenue stream for Qualcomm's intellectual property. One of the things that I have had to make peace with is how wrong we can be short term in order to avoid what can be a serious loss. In the real-life hedge fund world -- as opposed to the sanitized, storybook, no-mistakes version you see every day on TV -- we bolt from things too soon quite often. Most of the time, it doesn't bite us back. With Qualcomm, it has bitten us several times. We have a momentary pang of regret coupled with a pout after we hit up the chart and see the uptrend done without us, and then it's right back on the horse. We're getting back on the Qualcomm horse. And we aren't looking back.

To: Mike 2.0 who wrote (21686)	3/29/2000 10:48:00 AM
From: Mathemagician	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

people are using "L2i" as if it is some sort of Gartner Group-like term that is recognized by the market as a genre of software. Dataquest (a division of Gartner) on March 9, 2000 said, "Interface Systems provides Legacy-to-Internet (L2i) technology that enables any Internet application to access and make full use of data stored in legacy system formats. . . Dataquest believes that Interface Systems is well-positioned to pursue opportunities created from the L2i transformation." Also, while archive software is not proprietary, archive formats are. Consider any database or NTAP's WAFL, for instance. These are open and proprietary. I will, of course, compare them with other archive vendors. You should note that I simply nominated MOBI. I did not declare MOBI a gorilla. M