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: Amy J who wrote (123633)	12/22/2000 2:27:18 PM
From: Gary Ng	Respond to of 186894

Amy, Re: Maybe Barrett should not take his bonus No matter what price INTC is, he should not given the performance of Intel operational wise. gary

To: Amy J who wrote (123633)	12/22/2000 2:44:20 PM
From: ratan lal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Survival of the fittest to the extreme says these people should be allowed to be financially wiped out and you can say, they deserved it. What they did here was to try and use their inside info at INTC to GAMBLE and multiply their savings. They probably sold tons of put options never considering, and thereby not having enough funds, that the price may go down and they may actually be put those shares. Thats Gambling pure and simple. If they had sold put options only to the extent of their savings to buy INTC, then the worst case would be that they hold onto INTC shares at a higher price. But I bet you they would still come out ahead considering the average price of all shares inlcuding options.

To: Amy J who wrote (123633)	12/22/2000 2:45:35 PM
From: GVTucker	Respond to of 186894

Amy, RE: The latest story (casualty) is an Intel employee who almost lost their house because he (and a lot of Intel employees)felt that demand was strong, so this particular person had written puts and betted that INTC would go up. He recently almost lost his house. He lucked out, instead, he lost all of his INTC stock options. I guess that I don't see this situation as any different than some guy who almost lost his house playing the roulette table in Vegas. I feel bad that both endured a large loss. Yet in both cases, the loss was because of their own actions. Both people decided to gamble a lot of money, and both just happened to lose their gambles. I knew a ton of people that went bust in the fall of '87. a lot of them went broke selling OEX puts on the market. I know two guys in particular who lost their houses and family. It is indeed unfortunate, but again, it is hard to feel too sorry for someone who gambles and loses when there are very clear signs that they chose to ignore before they took the gamble.

To: Amy J who wrote (123633)	12/22/2000 3:04:56 PM
From: John Koligman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Amy, this is nothing new, has occurred over and over during manias, and will continue to occur. You don't hear too much about it now, but when IBM was going through it's massive downsizing, (employee count went from a high around 400k in 1985 to a low of around 215k in 1993, almost 200k folks gone in one form or another), I knew many 'oldtimers' from the days of 'IBM is a lifetime job' that had all their retirement cash in IBM stock. Well guess what, they were asked to leave their jobs at the same time IBM stock hit a split adjusted $10/share in 1993. Double whammy, some panicked and sold at the bottom. Sorry, but anyone that 'bets their house' with options gets no sympathy from me. Regards, John PS - If you think the Intel fall is bad, what about Lucent? Did you read the 'Heard on the Street' article in yesterday's WSJ where a Lucent exec is suing because she tried to have the CEO cut revenue projections and he apparently turned her down? That stock has moved from 84 to 13 5/8, and I bet there are some folks taking worse hits with LU in 401k accounts...