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 : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David Howe who wrote (57036)	4/2/2001 7:26:22 PM
From: David Howe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

KeepItSimple, I'm sorry to be so rude, but you're really out there. I just read a few of your posts on the CFZ board and I must comment. << "maybe it is buying back the puts and keeping price artificially inflated till its done buying?" Bingo! Which is why Microsoft will not issue another warning, it will merely wait until the last second and miss estimates. 'Cause every day they keep the public in the dark is another day to buy back poots. >> So let me get this straight. MSFT is at this time risking it's entire reputation as the leading technology company so that it can do the following: 1. Withhold news that it might miss expectations. (even though BG was talking the stock down the other day when he stated that MSFT could be effected by the economy (rather obvious anyways). 2. Spend all of it's cash ($27 billion) to buy stock to support the price above $55 even though the market would otherwise value it at $20. (This is impossible, but why not try?) 3. Once it's done buying stock and supporting the price, they will warn, or miss expectations at their next Q report. 4. Watch the stock drop to $20 (you said it) and watch the $27 billion they just invested drop by 65% resulting in a net loss of $18 billion. And all this in order to save a couple billion $ in puts that they probably have already covered? You might want to rethink this theory. IMO, Dave