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.

Technology Stocks : Compaq -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rudedog who wrote (80540)	3/31/2000 9:53:00 AM
From: Andreas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 97611

Rudedog; Let me suggest that your rebuttal is not entirely accurate and somewhat flimsy. On March 22 (six trading days ago) cpq closed at 32 1/4. Yesterday, cpq closed at 26 3/4 (If you use highs and lows of the day it gets even worse). The drop from 32 1/4 to 26 3/4 amounts to 17 .05% in just six trading days. So lets get realistic. Whether its six or five days, bottom line is, I am right about the significant drop in about a week. Whether it is silly or not, cpq has lost market share. You didn't rebut the fact (like so many cheerleaders on this thread). CPQ LOST MARKET SHARE. The fact that mc has stated that market share would drop is a mitigating factor, but does not challenge the truth of the statement. You challenge the article in CNET by stating that there are other articles that state the opposite. Again, I was merely stating a fact about what the cnet article said. if you don't agree with the cnet article that is fine but I didn't write the cnet article. Again, my statement as to what the general message of the cnet article is, is accurate. I don't feel like going through the rest of the points, except to say that with most of them you did not rebut the truth, but merely tried to explain. Such as mc silence to the rumors. Again my statement is true. And reasonable minds can differ as to whether or not mc handled it properly. To insist that one view is the only correct view is self-righteous at best. You and I and many on this thread disagree as to whether or not mc should have responded. I and others believe he should have. You and others believe he should not. So be it. I respect your opinion. Instituional ownership has dropped. You did not rebut this. Instead, your response was in the nature of - so what that's been the case for a while. My statement stands. Institutional ownership has dropped. Not a good sign. And certainly not a reflection of "increased investor confidence". I stand corrected on the profit margin issue. I can not point to specific facts at this time to support that statement so I defer to your statement (at least until I find evidence to the contrary). Time to go. Let's see if we drop beyond 17% today (in just seven trading days).