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.

Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: advocatedevil who wrote (46514)	5/9/2001 11:37:13 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

ST trading: Sounds like a reasonable plan. Yes, if I do go long, I'm going to use very tight stop-losses. It's a balancing act, and a little nudge could turn today's blind greed to tomorrow's blind fear. It's scary to go long on stocks with so much air in them. I feel like the bubble has been about 40% re-inflated. Sure, the short-term trend if for the bubble to get even more inflated, but I'm probably not smart enough to know when it's going to deflate. I'd just have to trust that my stop-losses are smarter than I am.

To: advocatedevil who wrote (46514)	5/10/2001 9:47:13 AM
From: mitch-c	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Looks like a firewall glitch/upgrade blocks me from SI at work, so I'll hit a quick one from home. 1) Geez ... this is beginning to sound like a college bar. Everyone has the answers while in an armchair. 2) ST trading update - I snagged some May 55 puts @ 3.75 a week or so ago ... larger position than usual. Expecting mid-40's before May options expire. This is the "early May" when I figured the sentiment would wax negative. I see it in the news, not in the price. Yet. 3) I think this is my last trip to the downside well ... assuming mid-40's (and a healthy ST profit), I think that will be the time to go yo-yo, and pick up some '04 Leaps. - Mitch PS- One of the fallacies in the "free trade" debate is that economics is zero-sum - i.e. for each gain somewhere, someone else loses out. Ain't so - new wealth is constantly created. If you count the RATE of that creation as winner/loser, I don't think that works ... everyone "knows" that it's easier for small companies (or economies) to grow radically than for big ones. Redistribution and collectivism are derived from the zero-sum fallacy.