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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Nuvo Research Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: shakedown who wrote (11821)	1/5/2003 3:11:11 PM
From: DaveAu	Respond to of 14101

Warren, very nice. From that article: <<"All I basically do is look for inexpensive stocks relative to their growth potential with competent management," he says." >> Seems like Tom Stanley has a different view of management than the SH bashers. <<In mid-December, he had only 15 stocks in his portfolio,>> Not like some mutual funds that take a shotgun approach and buy the whole sector. Tom obviously studies each of his holdings in detail. He has probably had extensive talks with RK and knows more than all of us. Dave

To: shakedown who wrote (11821)	1/5/2003 5:52:31 PM
From: Montana Wildhack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14101

Warren, I understand that's on the front page of their business section. This should also dispel some of the doubts I've heard talked about that it wasn't Tom Stanley directly involved. What I found most interesting was: This fits into another strategy Stanley employs: favouring companies "where management eats its own cooking." There is zero doubt that Tom Stanely knew about the shares controversy. This issue has two polarized camps and I agree the owner of record was changed and this properly triggered the visibility of insider ownership. It's difficult to refute that Mr Stanley is satisfied about this situation which is a core criteria for him. This is much better in my opinion than analyst coverage. And far more interesting than people digging up old postings looking for self worth. That issue is this. Pointing out that someone was wrong in the past furthers no argument and can only be about ego. If every message was deemed to be 100% accurate instead of a discussion - they would be called announcements and not postings. Everyone has been wrong and will be again whether they have won on this or that stock or not. It's a false trap since most people reading are aware of where the writers themselves have been wrong. The writers don't see this because that's not their motivation. There's a lot of this out there and thankfully almost none on this board where posters seem primarily interested in determining whether DMX will make them money or aren't thinking about DMX at all. Man I hope that final issue with the FDA gets resolved soon. In the meantime I'd like to know more about what fuel we're using right now. Good luck to all. Wolf