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 : JDS Uniphase (JDSU) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (21193)	8/11/2001 1:00:22 PM
From: Tunica Albuginea	Respond to of 24042

Cary, I want to be serious here for a minute with you, and stop joking. It is OK to joke from time to time, but for a change, let's be serious here for a moment. You are now quoting Merrill. Let me remind you, this is the same MER that hired Blodgett to give a buy to Amazon at $300. The same MER that paid a pediatrician $500,000 which he lost when MER had a buy on INSP at ~$60 and forgot to tell the pediaitrician that they had launched INSP and so they where committed to support it's price at the pediatrician's expense. MER in fact is a cousin? of Goldie ( Goldman ) which has just told it's analysts that if they recommend a stock they now have to disc;ose if they have any ownership interests in it. Finally, it appears that many companies now take the SEC rules seriously and don't tell anybody any news ahead of time. They just announce them in toto to the public. NT has all kinds of lawsuits in Canada because they didn't do that. And perhaps that's part of why Roth resigned. That's how we get all these nasty surprises every day now and we see all these brkers and talk heads smiling sheepishly working hard at backtracking what they 'd predicted. So Cary, why don't we just call it for what it is: these guys are clueless. They did not predict the collapse, and based on that brief ( but very violent history ), do you mind if some of us are a little bit skeptical here about where they get all their numbers. And when you tell me that " well they put a number on their computer and they get this and that figure extrapolated out " then I'll tell you the same things I tell my kids: The computer, "garbage in = garbage out ", or garba'a'a'a'a'ge as the French like to pronounce it, TA

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (21193)	8/11/2001 6:59:06 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24042

There is obvious attraction in a market leader down over 90%. This attraction must be tempered by our knowledge that the top was mania prices and the current situation has the inertia of 1.32 Billion shares. I agree. I can do no better than quote one of the greatest long-term investors, Ralph Wanger : " Newspapers, magazines and television keep telling us that "instantwealth.com" is down 96% from its high. This sets up the delicious idea that a stock down 96% from its high must be cheap now. This is nothing more than the trap of "anchoring." The proper solution to this problem is to understand that these magical high prices never really happened. That high-tick trade took place between two day traders looking at numbers on their computer terminals, who were trading a ticker symbol. They understood the stock as much as the island people of Tammu understood how to build a B-29. That high price? Forget about it. It's like the golf round you had a few years ago when you shot 38 on the first nine. It hasn't recurred, it's not going to happen again, and, if you think it might, you are doomed to a life of disappointment and lost bets. I believe you should look at stocks in terms of earnings, cash flow, and realistic growth prospects and ignore the day-trader fantasies of last year."