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 : MRV Communications (MRVC) opinions? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robert G. Harrell who wrote (40410)	11/11/2002 10:16:12 AM
From: Greg h2o	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42804

why? some of the best advice (well, really i should say "instructions") i've recieved in my life came from a girl named Tiffany! <G>

To: Robert G. Harrell who wrote (40410)	11/11/2002 11:47:01 AM
From: Mr. Sunshine	Respond to of 42804

<<Taking a look at stock performances since 1962, for stocks (broadly speaking) that declined by more than 60 percent, survival rates during the following two years are less than 70 percent according to research from Sanford Bernstein.>> I do not buy this analysis. First, there is a difference between stocks 60% down in a bear market vs. down 60% in a bull market. The Nasdaq has been down over 75%! Better short the QQQ, there is a 70% chance it will not survive! I will guesstimate that over 80% of Nasdaq companies are down over 60%; 70 percent of that would imply that over half of the companies in the Nasdaq will not survive. Not likely. Second, they give examples that rely on companies with large debt. They do mention that debt plays a part, but it is more of an afterthought. It does not take a market genius to relize that it is NET CASH that matters, not cash before debts. This is poor journalism, taking data out of context, and using macro economic data to arrive at micro conclusions. Just goes to show that statistics can be used to prove anything.