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 : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (71786)	7/27/2002 8:32:42 AM
From: John F. Dowd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

OT Opera: Doesn't take italics edit marks very well. You have to put marks before and after every paragraph. JFD

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (71786)	7/27/2002 10:26:19 AM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Casual Empiricism dictates that the fact that ms is a or was a widely held mutual fund stock, would mean that it is now sold. When a mutual fund gets its redemptions, sop is that they sell the "best" stocks first. This preserves, as much as possible, the fund track record for "profitability". The would imply that they sold the MSFT a long time ago, because it has been reasonable price resilient. Since funds do not mark to market for purposes of determining profit, they can keep all the worthless stocks on the books at the original cost basis. This of course is reflected in the NAV, but not the profit. I have already postulated that citicorp funds have recently suffered massive redemptions which in their case would mean they would dump msft because they do not have an investment banking relationship with them. They therefore do not have to preserve the price to cover their own loans. BTW, I have, but cannot understand, level II.