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 : IBM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Arrow Hd. who wrote (7613)	4/11/2002 7:35:48 PM
From: Captain Jack	Respond to of 8218

the reporter that went after IBM is negligent,,, very unprofessional,,, less smarts than a JR HS student! <<"NEW YORK, Apr 11, 2002 (The Canadian Press via COMTEX) -- IBM Corp. shares fell more than five per cent Thursday after a newsletter said the world's biggest computer maker is the subject of a federal Securities and Exchange Commission inquiry. But an SEC spokesman said after the close of trading Thursday that the agency had opened an inquiry and "closed it without action shortly thereafter." In after-hours trading, IBM shares regained some of the day's losses, bouncing back">> The idiot asked if an investigation was started,,,,, how about asking for results or if it closed? That guy has SSSFB for sure.

To: Arrow Hd. who wrote (7613)	4/11/2002 7:38:03 PM
From: Scott Bergquist	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8218

Substitute "Cisco" for IBM, and you make the same arguments (to my POV) that were made for Cisco when it traded around 40-60. A lot of funds are holding xx,000s shares of IBM, and will be selling into any price rises to avoid repeating the Cisco shakeout. Would you bet on IBM not saying "no visibility for the second half 2002"?? It was bad enough for some of these funds that didn't get out of IBM from 120s down to 100-105, and now they've seen another 10% drop. Better to be out in the mid-eighties, than to say you ignored the market environment, and rode it down from 120s to 72-75...or worse!!>> "cut in half! from Jan 2002" (ie 60,62). Not saying we might peek above 90, but psychologically, funds will pounce on the magic of "sold in the 90's" if they are given the opp. Definite ceiling.