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 : LSI Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (21949)	4/19/2000 3:35:00 PM
From: uu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25814

Dipy: So I am not sure what you are suggesting. On one hand you continue to be invested in stocks such as LSI and on the other hand you always seem to personify a perception that all non-Gillete, non-Coke, non-Proctor&Gamble, non-PhillipMorris stocks are things that people should avoid at all costs! If I did not know you I would have said you are a tech short (specifically with LSI)!! But since I know you are not a short (in fact I do not believe you are the type of investor who ever shorts any stock) I am confused as why all the bloom and gloom with high tech stocks regadless of them being Intel, LSI or joe's high tech company! Best Regards, - Addi

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (21949)	4/19/2000 5:36:00 PM
From: DWB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25814

Dipy, Per the numbers you gave, your premise and conclusion is terribly flawed. If 22 of the companies were acquired, merged, or went out of business, then most likely a majority of those 22 that didn't go out of business (do you know how many that is?) were given shares of the new larger companies, or paid cash for their shares. Most buyouts/mergers involve premiums for the acquired companies, so it's almost assuredly incorrect to imply that only 1 outperformed the market. If I held company A with a buy-in price of $5, and someone acquired the company for the equivalent of $200, I'm pretty sure for that timespan I walloped the market return. DWB Q2.5K/Y2K+5

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (21949)	4/20/2000 2:29:00 PM
From: Bob Martin	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 25814

Dipy, 2 problems with your reasoning: 1 - If the next 20 years were a great bull market, then it's LESS surprising that the companies didn't beat the averages. If these 34 companies were already hot in '80, when the overall market was cool, then an extended bull market obviously would help other companies more than these 34. 2 - If these 34 stocks were already hot at the beginning of '80, that's because many people were buying them BEFORE the start of 1980. So it's reasonable to assume that a long-time holder of the stock would have a lower cost-basis than that used for 1-1-80, hence a higher long term average return. The other possible problem comes from the article itself. How did he define "hottest"? Based on underlying fundamentals, or just stock price? And over what time period (1 month, 1 year, 2-3 years). If the criteria was based mostly on stock price, and over less than a 1 year period, then it's a flawed study to begin with, because it was just looking at a bunch of hot mo-mos, which, as we all know, change constantly. If it was based on companies that had demonstrated a serious ability to grow earnings and cash flow over a 2-3 year period, then I would truly be surprised. Depending on these criteria, the study is either earth-shattering, or utterly meaningless. Let us know if you find out how the companies were chosen. Bob