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 : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (145624)	8/16/2002 10:59:41 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

"Anyway, sorry for the rant, not trying to pick on the brcm bears or anything, in the end you may well be right, I'm just bummed at how SI has deteriorated for LT investors who want to discuss fundamentals vs. how smart some trader is or what a fraud the naz is." Liz, I agree with you although I believe I would have said the same during the late 1990s. My current interest in developing my on-line inititiative prohibits me from really studying fundamentals like I believe they should be studied. I cannot make the time for both. It is my opinion that SI never was a very good forum for fundamental discussion. It is not specific to SI either but to almost all stock thread forums. It takes a lot of time and effort to really do a good job on fundamental analysis. Many people spend more time posting than studying. I believe the majority of stock thread posters are TA and momentum players. I am not implying they are not good at what they do but simply that is not the type of "study" for a buy and hold investor. It is also impossible for one individual to do a good job of FA in many industries. For example, it seems to me that you have a good understanding of the software business so you can look at the FA of a software firm in the context of their competition. It is not enough to look at the FA of a firm in a vacuum. One needs to try and predict the future of a firm and that requires an understanding of the competition within that industry. The fact that a firm has a lot of debt or does not have a lot of debt has more meaning when placed in context to the norm for debt in that industry. One often is really "shot down" for an FA opinion from others based more on hope and TA than real fundamentals. A healthy FA discussion requires a few people that know the industry and the competition to help each other compare one firm against another. There is not a firm of which I am aware that exists without competition. Today's leader in any industry does not mean it will be the leader tomorrow. Thorough FA research will give one far better odds at guessing the long term potential of the firm. I read your comment about WCOM. I agree with you there. The person doing FA has to be presented with accurate numbers because that is all they really have to work with. I believe it was Ebbers that stated demand for bandwidth was doubling every three months in 1998. I may have the incorrect person. It appears after the fact that the correct statement was that bandwidth capacity was doubling every three months. Thus, one is already starting incorrectly with their initial premise in the telecom industry years ago. Even working with correct SEC filings would turn out to be futile for an accurate FA analysis. Glenn

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (145624)	8/17/2002 12:47:38 AM
From: uu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

> for a company to be a worthwhile investment for me it 1)does not need to have an "e" in P/E, what I want is cash flow positive, 2) I don't care if they expense options or not, 3) insider selling may or may not be a red flag depending on amt- SOME insider selling is perfectly normal imo. I'm also completely uninterested in dividends of any kind, or any company that pays dividends. In that case BRCM is the place to be and is indeed a great investment! :) Regards,