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: Gottfried who wrote (57660)	12/17/2001 7:10:44 PM
From: Sam Citron	Respond to of 70976

G, Regardless of reasonability, the $70 figure makes a very nice perceptual anchor for longs. Since all value is ultimately in the eyes of the beholder, if enough people are anchored to it, it could quite well come true. Just repeat after me: "70, 70, 70..." <VBG>

To: Gottfried who wrote (57660)	12/17/2001 7:52:46 PM
From: mitch-c	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

That description smacks strongly of a cardinal investing sin ... using past performance EXCLUSIVELY to predict future results. I was a bit boggled by the choice of 152 trading days, until I surmised that the number represented a half-year, weekends and holidays excluded. (365 - ~(2*52) weekend days - ~10 holidays ~= 251 trading days per year, +/- a few ... nope! that doesn't work, either.) Okay, I wonder why the magic number is 152? Highest correlation to past performance? Quibbles aside, I agree with the conclusion. But, I'd prefer it to be a bit more solid than linear regression and a weak confidence interval. As it is, it's less reliable than a weather forecast for a year from today ... weird, unpredictable stuff happens. Tweaking the assumptions just produces wishful GIGO, as far as I can tell. - Mitch