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 : Range Bound & Undervalued Quality Stocks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Patricia Meaney who wrote (4281)	4/23/2001 12:06:39 PM
From: Larry S.	Respond to of 5499

i'm familiar with such studies. like the guy said, these stocks are cheap for a reason. i am intriqued by a few though, XOXO and EXDS in particular. larry

To: Patricia Meaney who wrote (4281)	4/23/2001 12:09:38 PM
From: BWAC	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5499

Patricia, Nice article. Amazingly inappropriate usage of a statistic though. Which makes the whole thing basically hogwash. Gross generalization garbage in, garbage data and conclusions out. This stood out to me: <He looked at 1,900 tech stocks going back to 1987 that had dropped below 10. He found only 3.4% made it back to 15 the following year.> Lets lump the 10 or 20 "real" companies, with real businesses, and real earnings into that sea of 1880 obscure stocks and make a gross generalization?!? I'll take ERICY at $5.50, I'll tkae TKLC agian at $7 if they will ever give it to me, I'll tkae atml at $8.50, I'll take GX at $9, I'll take ET a $6, I'll tkae AFCI again if they will sell it ot me at $7 again someday, I'll take some RFMD under 10, some MCLD, some ADCT, some LPX, etc. All have or did find their way into my portfolio in past years at under $10, when nobody ever would touch them because of "bassackwards" thinking like portrayed in that article. Its not the below 10 that decides the long term fate, its the business itself. Or should be anyway! I would certainly bet the "3.4%" which recovered were these type companies. And I won't sneeze at below 10 to 15 in a year. Its at least 50% return. Just pick the right 3.4%.