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 : George Gilder - Forbes ASAP -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan B. who wrote (4872)	9/11/2000 4:14:34 PM
From: Roger Hess	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5853

A couple of things, given my peabrain expertise in investing in stocks and knowledge of technology: 1) My guess is that rather than predicting the demise of Cisco, GG is predicting that some of its product lines will become technologically obsolete. I'm sure AT&T was a growth company at one time, but reached maturity, what, 50 years ago? Not out of business, but also not on the cutting edge with fiber. I would think Cisco will acquire the technology as they go along to keep up with the upstarts, but no longer an upstart themselves. Cisco is near the top market cap, and it's going to be hard to sustain the growth of the past 10 years over the next 10 years. I'm looking for smaller companies with bigger growth potentials. Broadcom has been real nice to me the past 20 months. What's it going to be like in 10 years? 2) Can someone enlighten me on the fascination over WAVX? I see a company that has had sales jump from $17k to $77k and their losses jump 64% to $17.4 million. We're talking sales of $77,000, not $77,000,000. Or $77 billion. What gives? FWIW - I bought 10 shares of Intel way back in 1987, right before the crash. $1k investment. But, alas, I had to make ends meet with the family and sold it. Had I been able to keep it, I'd have 480 shares today worth around $32k. I was in on Microsoft, too. My $1k would be worth around $48k, but sold it, also.

To: Dan B. who wrote (4872)	9/11/2000 6:24:22 PM
From: saukriver	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5853

Dan B, I think if one publishes an article about a company under the headline "A Death Foretold" that one is predicting the company's demise. The article--an abridged version of Gilder's newsletter piece "Shootout in Cisco City"--was published by Gilder in Forbes ASAP under that headline. You are certainly entitled to your opinion that publishing such an article with that "A Death Foretold" headline is not the same as predicting the company's demise. Makes little sense to me, but you are certainly entitled to that view. saukriver

To: Dan B. who wrote (4872)	9/11/2000 10:03:02 PM
From: Will Lyons	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5853

A professor once told his students not to take too seriously any investment advice from someone who is still working! Why would anyone who has made so much money waste his time selling his picks? I can understand and applaud the intellectual activity of contemplating the future and publishing learned books on the notion that the future lies ahead. I am also puzzled to see so many investors [?] not bothering to do their own thinking! There are lots of companies creating the future in hi-tech electronics, bio, etc and many opportunities to be uncovered! To name a few: MEMS LEDs OLEDs Smart cards CMOS to replace CCD Reduction in the size of devices to the molecular, aoomic, electron or subatomic particle level etc. etc,. etc. The time you spend in trying to figure out whether to rely on a tip, assuming you can figure out exactly what the tip means, could better be spent in learning the physics or biology or whatever and/or doing your own DD. It seems to this observer that both the tippers and the tippees are wasting their time. Perhaps someone can come up with a good rationalization I I eagerly await response both positive and negative!