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 : Market Gems:Stocks w/Strong Earnings and High Tech. Rank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jenna who wrote (97348)	5/12/2000 10:27:00 AM
From: Jenna	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 120523

Low-Priced breakouts in 'reversal day': CAIR, ADPT, RHAT,FNSR marketgems.com

To: Jenna who wrote (97348)	5/12/2000 10:57:00 AM
From: Lane Hall-Witt	Respond to of 120523

Jenna -- A: Don't get me wrong, I like A and have made good money trading it. It's a great company: HWP was very wise to spin it off and monetize the locked value in this asset. To its credit, Goldman did say that it expects A to beat its quarter: this was part of its analysis. But it drives me nuts to see a renowned house like Goldman Sachs say in its "research" that investors should buy a stock in part because they think it might be added to an index. That's no better than the rank speculation and manipulation we see on the investor threads over on Yahoo. And then to see Maria on CNBC blathering on about it as the market opened, as if it was just another piece of fundamental analysis that helps determine the long-term "value" of the company. It's just ludicrous. Really, I don't have a problem with trading on news, rumors, hunches, and the like. This happens all the time, and lots of people make lots of money this way. But when a firm that commands as much respect as Goldman stakes it reputation for research on rumors and hunches, I worry that the boundary between "analysis" and "guessing" -- or between "investing" and "speculating" -- is becoming a bit too blurred.