*OT*OT* ultra long response to ole 49r: this message addresses issues and contains quotes from both of your two posts, which were different in places. I appreciate the thanks you expressed and am glad you found my post constructive. At the risk of being accused of being a blabber mouth, windbag or whatever, I felt that the nature of your posts required a serious response.
You state Equities either must provide long term stock appreciation, OR pay dividends. ELON has demonstrated neither to date This is simply not true, it totally depends on when you bought the stock.
If you arecynical about ELON's story, buildout, vision, etc. why do you want to own the stock?....I wish to have a potful of the stock(s) pre-tornado.
If you are looking for a short term trade and using charts to time your entry, why do you care if management ?speaks English? or not?
Considering that you wish to be a benefactor of said tornadoing yet to come, but that you are cynical re: Echelon?s story, buildout & vision, do you see a tornado forming in the control network sector that doesn't include LonWorks based solutions. I'm curious as to what your thoughts are.
If you feel so strongly about your ongoing contention that their story has NOT been told in plain English, , why not provide some links that illustrate your claims. I see lots of ranting, but no proof. I see no evidence that their PR?s are filled with technobabble and their web site & links thereon contain a wealth of easily searchable, plain English information. For those that can understand it there is a lot of technical stuff there too. Here, if it helps, is a link to a glossary of technical terms, that took no more than a few seconds to find. search.echelon.com
Their guidance, both financial and strategic, has been accurate. Management have said to keep an eye on Service Providers functioning as a catalyst for the adoption of Control Networks in Residential markets and have indicated that any upside earning surprises would be due to expansion in the Home sector. Consider the latest announcement regarding Enel. Should it be finalized, the agreement is slated to start bearing fruit in 2001, the year that management points to as being one in which there should be ?substantial growth?. You moan that you cannot get a handle on the company because management puts out PR that is difficult to comprehend....I ask you, how much clearer do you want them to be? imho your claims regarding the nature of their publicly released info are not valid.
Before continuing, let me state this, lest you should miss it in this very long message. In reading your replies to me I find that you have misrepresented many of my statements and have made these misinterpretations seem like fact. I believe that you may have some valuable insights and I'm quite willing to discuss Elon with you, but when you blatantly misrepresent what I said, I draw the line. If you are intent on distorting my words, you should be aware that I'm totally disinterested in continuing this discussion with you...if you chose to pursue that road, you will be talking to yourself as far as I?m concerned.
you say....I don't see, by your post that you made a better choice...what an incredibly presumptuous statement. You have absolutely zero insight into the reasons behind my decision making process in this regard, and are in no position to assume that my choice, given my overall portfolio situation was not the right one or the best one for me at the time.
you state....Your "regret at not selling" statement is a hindsight utterance...&... I have NO regrets, contrary to you, sir/ma'am..........Your insinuation of my ?regret? for not selling is misinformed, make-believe, and imo deceitfully designed.....do not put words in my mouth ole 49r. I did say ..perhaps I should have sold, never did...yes, lightening up was an obvious consideration at the time which I decided against, given my overall portfolio management strategy and goals. There is no expression of regret in that statement whatsoever. I hold this stock long and intend doing so for some time, provided I sense no negative change in the fundamentals, so selling it would mean having to make a future buying decision as well. This would expose me to increased, yet unnecessary, risk, and since this is a volatile issue, I would rather be holding at all times. Sure it was no fun to ride it down, but I am very comfortable with my gain and am in no hurry to judge my decision in the short term. Yes we all have our regrets, our stories to tell, but in this case your twisting of my words results in flat out bulldung.
you say... I reject your outright declaration that I was "wrong" to not trade the rush to $113 from $40. Re-read my post...I never said you were wrong not to trade it, I said that you could have made a bundle had you traded it, and that your call when elon was in the forties for it to retrace to the twenties was, wrong, since from the forties it moved to over one hundred. Granted, I should have been more specific here by saying that your call in the short term was wrong. A few weeks out, your call was good, but imo your call would have been far more profound if it had had a time frame attached, or was made when elon was trading in the eighties or nineties, rather than the forties. Never-the-less, I do respect your setting of a personal target and sticking to your guns.
another difference in our investment philosophies...or at least our investing "styles/goals/time-horizons. Funny that you think you know what my investing "styles/goals/time-horizons? are...outside of assuming that we?re both in it for money, and my prior disclosure of a long position, we?ve never discussed this in any detail whatsoever. I have neither shorted the stock nor sold my position. In fact when it comes to disclosure you say Whether or not I have purchased ELON is of no concern to anyone except myself [and the IRS,] frankly.. I?m not questioning your right to disclose whatever you chose, or to be long, short or whatever, and of course there no ownership requirement to post here, but I have found that, as long as one ?s intentions are true, that disclosure fosters honest dialog without which, these forums become a meaningless waste of time. Witness your exchange with TATrader, you ask a question in good faith, only because TATrader has disclosed his/her position. You received what seemed to be an honest answer and can evaluate it properly, since you know where that person stands.....without disclosure productive discussion becomes impossible. You seem to be hiding something.
You stated, and at other times implied that I am a tech head. This is absolute rubbish, and I have stated clearly on this, and on other threads, that I am not. When I have spoken about Echelon?s tech it has always been in terms of the broad reach of their undertaking. Any layman?s knowledge I have acquired is simply the result of performing ongoing DD and of making a reasonable attempt to understand their business, how it shapes up and how it fits into my investment universe. Your claim is laughable.
your comment...which is what us ordinary, non spiral3 mortals require to what exactly do you mean by this...I do not appreciate being patronized, especially not by the likes of you...this comment is in very poor taste, something for which you appear to be quite notorious.
which is obviously not the same caliber as the filters with which YOU and others, such as Auric, etc., view ELONbtw I'd appreciate not being mentioned in the same breath as Auric, because frankly I can?t stand the stench. imo Auric's filters are often clogged with excrement, even though he thinks he has superiority over many in this regard. I have never made, nor do I intend to ever make such claims.
wrt the residential mkt you state........That is why it has been such a puzzle to me that it was seized up by other threadmates as THE growth market of the future. ...... It was seized on as the growth market of the future because it is, with the emphasis on future. Perhaps you misinterpreted this. You continue..if MASS MARKET home was all the retail investors I was reading could grasp/conceptualize .........From what I've read on the boards Elon's current implementations in the commercial sector have always largely been seen by ?Elon?ers? as their primary business for now, although should the final agreement with Enel be signed next month, this may have to be reconsidered.
You made a 64 nodes assumption, admit you have no idea where that came from, couldn?t identify 64 nodes in your abode and based your analysis on this. I like the ?could I, would I use it? approach, but given your assumption which you never even bothered to verify, this is weak, flawed and shallow DD.
you said...I ran across a certain "survey" which I felt provided an "ah HA" experience, as I sought to understand what ramped the stock price, through an unsustainable degree of entropy move, which in MY Trader Skillset said was doomed. The assumed networth of said herd of individuals intuited by examining SI profiles as one sein, who each told at LEAST 3 golf-buddies in their foursome, was enough of an explanation for me, in a thin float stock, to explain the unsustainable spurt.
Would you care to elaborate on this, perhaps provide a link..was it a Gilder Report type thing...how do you intuit peoples net worth from their profiles on SI, might this be another incorrect assumption perhaps? .....are you saying that the run up was mostly because of purchases made by folks on SI? I haven?t calculated, or even really looked at the exact #?s but, using say an average ?spike price? of $75-$95 and daily volume of say 1.5-2.5 million shares...extrapolated over the time period of the run-up, that?s a lot of money accountable to these posters. Puleeez! .....Do you think that Friday?s trades were also due to these SI members. I think not... 204.71.198.40:443/940622804218?User=demo&Pswd=demo&DataType=DATA&Interval=0&Symbol=ELON&Interval=1&Ht=400&Wd=600&Display=0&Study=VOL&Param1=&Param2=&Param3=&FontSize=10.
wrt Institutional holdings you said I didn't see it then, I don't see it now. Actually according to stocksmartpro.com, 56 Institutions hold 11.21% of the outstanding shares as of March 31,2000. Of these, 29 established new positions while 6 liquidated their holdings. Overall, Institutions increased their holdings by 24.19% for the period.
You say that you like to see institutional investment before buying a new story stock that has no earnings New to who? this story has been public for years. You say that institutional participation benefits shareholders providing said retail shareholder gets to step infront of said institutional buying.Question: how do you get to step in front of Institutional buying, if, before you buy the stock, you want to see evidence of Institutional buying? Institutional involvement fluctuates, and they can sink a low float boat, as quickly as they lifted it. You can wait all you want, but when you go in you only know what institutions have done in the past, not what they?re going to do. Whatever it is you think you?ve stepped in front of can change on a daily basis. From what I gather many institutions may have had to adopt ?trading tactics? to show short term results in the current market. This is not be construed that I am saying that Institutional Investment is meaningless, just that it should be viewed in an appropriate context.
Sure, I would like to see more institutional participation, but whereas you are more comfortable watching the "pros get the first move" and waiting for the retracement, I like to beat the pro?s to the punch, otherwise I?d just hand it all over to them to begin with. This is a personal choice, there is no universal right or wrong, and for me entry strategies are often equity specific.
In any event, getting back to your run-up theory...what if your intuition is wrong? In your second post, by your own admission, by the end of 1999 you?d already lost almost 2 years of keeping step w/this G&K sector.. and are ..now involved in a networth catch-up mitigation, planning and execution. I apologize to no one for my choices in any regards. At least you have the courage of your convictions.
wrt your recent experience on the G&K thread, I didn?t mention this at all, but since you brought it up, here?s my take. The G&K header establishes the thread context, but I honestly don't think anyone there has any preconceived idea of what should be said. It is my experience that they do care about how those thoughts are expressed, and for good reason - it sustains a civilized level of discussion with very little "noise?. All posters are expected to respect the public nature of the forum and civility is required from all, no matter what their opinion. Imho some of your posts there contained interesting and valid content, but were put across quite disrespectfully and almost seemed intentionally penned to offend. Maybe you get a vicarious thrill out of pushing peoples buttons. I think you?re aware that style does count.....judging by the differences in your two posts, imo you work fairly diligently at deciding what to say and how to say it.
you continue....Permit me this particular invective, especially after the week I've had on the G&K threads!!! The following sentiments are what I try to overcome in order to secure information that I CAN grasp in dissimilar fields of personal endeavor:..followed immediately by..Screw the ubiquitous closed minded, executive washroom killdeers, the cigar club smoking elitists. Squirm all! SI is a terrific aggregator and I humbly suggest you try harder to overcome these feelings. Imp they cut you off from meaningful discourse with good people, it then becomes a lose lose situation for everybody.
This could have been really brief, but I decided to expose what I perceived as your manipulative agenda at work in your earlier posts to me. A misquote, a mistake, an incorrect fact, inference or assumption here or there can be forgiven, but when I see a post laced throughout with such, imo the motives behind the scripting become transparent. You state that in researching your investments you work hard to "color within the lines" I respect that, and judging by the amount of ?coloring in? you did to my post, I?ll take your word for it. Like I said, I do think you have something to offer, don?t misunderstand me on this. I?ve nothing against conjecture if it is clearly identified as such, in fact I find that it can be stimulating and enjoyable - but I find that misrepresentation, dressed up to look like fact, is not very interesting or constructive. Forgive me if I missed out on dealing with any of the other musings of your imagination, err...post. I?ve had enough of this. I have no intention of getting into a p*ssing war with you....I?m just telling it like I see it.
PS: in your third reply you say Thread: don't know why the duplicate reply. Sorry. <eom>.... To be clear, this is not a duplicate reply, there are parts of your second reply that are different from your first reply. In my dictionary, duplicate (adj) means identically copied from an original dictionary.com |
