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 : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (67100)	3/5/2001 1:00:26 PM
From: Scumbria	Respond to of 93625

Carl, We seem to be talking with martyrs. Scumbria

To: Bilow who wrote (67100)	3/5/2001 1:43:51 PM
From: blake_paterson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

"Hi multicollinearity....If you truly run your accounting the way you and ekid describe, you're basically idiots." Steve, you are one unhappy fellow... BP

To: Bilow who wrote (67100)	3/5/2001 2:20:46 PM
From: multicollinearity	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Bilow: <If you truly run your accounting the way you and ekid describe, you're basically idiots.> Carl, I'll try to make this explanation real simple, understandable by those with a third-grade understanding of arithmetic. (Notice that I didn't use the term mathematics, since I don't want to trigger your math phobia and have the explanation go over your head.) Since May 1997, I have made 120 transactions in RMBS shares. The profit (not proceeds) from the sales is $232,675. Currently, I am holding 4,414 shares at a cost basis of $131,908. If you subtract this amount from the $232,675 profit from previous sales, I am left with 1. a net profit of $100,767 2. 4,414 shares. If my 4,414 shares were to decline to $0, I would still have a net profit of $100,767 from my Rambus investments. This is the point that I was making in my previous post, as I believe Ekid was also trying to convey to you. We are not using the term "cost basis" in a tax accounting sense. Furthermore, nearly all my sales were in tax-deferred accounts with no present tax ramifications. As far as your questioning my credibility, I could care less, since I doubt that you have the capability to recognize the attribute even if it were staring you in the face! After all, one needs to have a little experience with it in order to recognize and appreciate it. Multico

To: Bilow who wrote (67100)	3/5/2001 2:48:39 PM
From: richard surckla	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Bilow... "You think that if you bought 2000 shares of a company for $100 per share, and then sold 1000 of them for $150 per share, you would then have lowered your cost basis on the remaining 1000 shares to $50 per share, right?..... " LMAO!!! Now I know why you invented the $2.80 trading system. You just don't know how the game is played.

To: Bilow who wrote (67100)	3/5/2001 3:38:20 PM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Carl: In analyzing one's gain or loss on a security position, one needs to take into acccount all activity, including trades, to arrive at a net cost basis. It is certainly possible to have a "net" cost basis on remaining shares of 0. Try it out, Edit: Oops, I see others answered this way better than I did. In fact, the only way I can justify holding some high flyers is that I sold half my original position for a big gain, making my remaining position "free". I know this is not true in a strict accounting sense, but it is true in a "comfort and evaluation" sense.