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.

Strategies & Market Trends : MDA - Market Direction Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wayners who wrote (74533)	4/9/2001 2:12:47 PM
From: Math Junkie	Respond to of 99985

That's why he gets paid the big bucks! <G>

To: Wayners who wrote (74533)	4/9/2001 2:23:48 PM
From: zcole	Respond to of 99985

IMO, the others do have "visibility" but they don't want to talk about what they see. Zane

To: Wayners who wrote (74533)	4/9/2001 5:02:42 PM
From: t4texas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99985

they DO see the future the companies do have visibility six to nine months in advance. they just do not want to talk about what they see, because it is bad for their stock price and it is bad for the market to speak about it. as soon as i heard csco's chambers use the term (i think in january or was it december?) and the stock did not Immediately Crater, i thought there will be a lot of copycat ceo's with the same message. it has bouyed many stock prices from more of a pounding. the first time i heard a manager use "do not have visibility" in 1980, that business situation was dire and got worse. so when ceo's say they don't have visibility about future business, they are saying they are flying blind. i do not think so. they have just found an expression that keeps people from selling the stock off with enthusiasm. they don't want to tell us the backlog is going away or bookings are zero or negative, etc. it is a term from the church of what is working now. as long as investors don't sell the stock and seem to like the lack of "visiblility" message from the ceo (that is they don't fire him), lack of visibility is a term that is working. it will continue to be used until it stops working. look at dell the other day. that was such a weak message to dell shareholders that they are not even going to comment on the rest of the year due to lack of visibility. i do not own any shares of any companies that report lack of visibility. if i find that i do in the future, i will sell first and ask questions later. i am no dan niles believer. he was cheerleading intel at the end of august/september on zero info. it was hard to believe he was touting the stock based on a developers meeting that was happening. now he is just making projections which i think the ceo's are thinking, but dare not talk about outside their staffs and their management chain. now i am not saying two years is the number, but the ceo's know nothing good in chipland is coming our way until next year at the earliest. from the few specifics i heard on tv, it sounded like dan niles had a reasoned conclusion and his comments on lower negotiated prices was certainly on the money too.

To: Wayners who wrote (74533)	4/9/2001 6:13:14 PM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 99985

Wayne also remember that the same guy recommended INTC at $70 with a projection of $105 or so. They are all a bunch of thieves and swindler under the cover of a legal profession. That is all. Wonder how they will sing the Soprano's <GGGG> Haim