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 : Stock Attack II - A Complete Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Secret_Agent_Man who wrote (33435)	3/28/2002 8:36:42 AM
From: Jane4IceCream	Respond to of 52237

Hiya Mr. B......! Hope the yellow metal has been treating you well:-) Jane

To: Secret_Agent_Man who wrote (33435)	3/28/2002 8:55:18 AM
From: Lee Lichterman III	Respond to of 52237

Note according to briefing that the profits were also down 10% ...... From briefing but separated out for easier reading... 08:32 ET Claims rose 15K to 394K; GDP +1.7% : Jobless claims rose 15K to 394K; this was well above our 375K estimate but will not change anyone's labor market view given that any one week's claims surprise is not enough to form a trend, particularly after the recent long stretch of stability in the claims trend. Q4 GDP was revised up to 1.7% from 1.4%; this was stronger than expected but it's hard to care about Q4 data in late March. Corporate profits fell 10.6% in Q4. These reports should have little market impact. ==================== Wow , if he really said this, he may be in all the history books about this market someday!!!!!!!!!! From: Agamemnon Thursday, Mar 28, 2002 7:05 AM Respond to of 157497 Scott McNealy BW interview "What were you thinking?" Q: Sun's stock hit a high of $64. Did you think what tech stocks were doing two years ago was too good to be true? A: When I married my wife seven years ago, Sun's stock was at an equivalent of about a buck. It's about $9.50 now--$9.50 from $1 over seven years. She thinks she's a pretty good CEO wife. Q: She married well. A: No, she trained me well, and the stock made a nice move since we got married. But two years ago we were selling at 10 times revenues when we were at $64. At 10 times revenues, to give you a 10-year payback, I have to pay you 100% of revenues for 10 straight years in dividends. That assumes I can get that by my shareholders. That assumes I have zero cost of goods sold, which is very hard for a computer company. That assumes zero expenses, which is really hard with 39,000 employees. That assumes I pay no taxes, which is very hard. And that assumes you pay no taxes on your dividends, which is kind of illegal. And that assumes with zero R&D for the next 10 years, I can maintain the current revenue run rate. Now, having done that, would any of you like to buy my stock at $64? Do you realize how ridiculous those basic assumptions are? You don't need any transparency. You don't need any footnotes. What were you thinking? Q: What were you thinking? A: I was thinking it was at $64, what do I do? I'm here to represent the shareholders. Do I stand up and say, "Sell"? I'd get sued if I said that. Do I stand up and say, "Buy"? Then they say you're [Enron Chairman] Ken Lay. So you just sit there and go, "I'm going to be a bum for the next two years. I'm just going to keep my mouth shut, and I'm not going to predict anything." And that's what I did. Message 17255555