SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : 3Com Corporation (COMS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: mr.mark who wrote (43836)7/13/2000 2:23:02 PM
From: David E. Taylor  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 45548
 
Mark:

Souze is right, I was talking about PALM the stock (near term) and not PALM the company (long term).

And I also agree with you (and others here) about PALM's long term prospects. I think I've said a few times that I believe that PALM will be a "must own" tech stock, and that IMO it could easily be around $100 a year from now.

But the short term gyrations in PALM's stock price could be severe, and there are other forces at work than just the market's reasonable valuation for PALM, which right now appears to be headed for the $38 IPO price +/- $2 or so.

Remember how confident we all (or most of us) were approaching IPO day that COMS would hold at least $100 or so? And then the "1.5 factor" that had propelled COMS to (in retrospect) insane heights got broken, and COMS got taken down irrespective of what PALM did.

Now we have a slightly different scenario. With COMSV trading around a minimum (book value) valuation of $14 and COMS=1.5 PALM+COMSV about to be locked in by virtue of the ratio getting fixed, the only way to take COMS down is for PALM to be taken down. So, since I'm once again irrationally loaded up on COMS and COMS August options, you can bet that I'm going to watch PALM (and other market data) like a hawk for signs that something other than "noise" is going on.

So I have both my long term and short term hats on, at least for the next few weeks, after which I'll revert to my more normal long term sensible core holding approach with PALM.

David T.



To: mr.mark who wrote (43836)7/13/2000 3:12:38 PM
From: David E. Taylor  Respond to of 45548
 
Mark:

I was out most of yesterday afternoon, but when I looked things over last night/this morning, it sure looked like some of yesterday's run up was caused by some short covering. The PALM short position increased from 12.5 million on 4/15 to 21.7 million on 6/15. Those 9.2 million shares were shorted at prices below $33, so there was some incentive to cover yesterday.

David T.