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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: f.simons who wrote (107912)	8/21/2000 5:43:35 PM
From: Eric K.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Frank-- Re: Your two "rules" Isn't it most accurate to judge a company based primarily on what it has accomplished in its most recent years? For example, a weighted function that generated a score for a company's merit and worthiness based primarily on the latest execution information, with decreasing emphasis on the past? Perhaps a simple formula where, for example, 1/2 the score came from the last two years of execution, 1/4 from the two years prior, 1/8 from the two years prior, etc? Why is it inappropriate to judge AMD primarily based on Athlon and flash, and Intel primarily on Merced, P3 binsplits, and Rambo? There are a whole lot of people in 1998 who thought they were really smart for buying Dell. It only goes up; great supply chain model; market share to the moon; no r & d "waste," etc. Things change. And, when your stock is loved, "must own," and functioning in the context of a stock market that is obsessed with the notion of buy and hold forever as the sole path to wealth, selling a stock due to the underlying company stumbling becomes almost incomprehensible. Sometimes the market doesn't discount reality; sometimes it discounts for a future reality that simply won't exist. The argument that your company must be doing well because the stock is up is very weak. -Eric