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 : Micron Only Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (23851)	11/11/1997 9:12:00 PM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 53903

Skeeter, the more I look at that article, the more interesting it becomes. Let's look at his "price objective"/"total victory" argument. His "price objective" was 55-60. He is quoted in the piece as saying: "We bought [Micron] at $20 with an objective of [reaching] $55 to $60. We got there and we got out." However, if you look back over the historical quotes, you'd find that it was impossible to have gotten out in the area of 55-60 after his 8/13/97 downgrade. If we believe the words of some of his defenders, Kurlak does not tip his hand. So therefore, if that is absolutely 100% true, the best a member of the "we" group could have done in the three sessions immediately after Kurlak's downgrade was 46 1/4, 15.90% UNDER his own stated price objective. Here's the data: date close open high low volume 8/15/97 42 5/8 44 7/8 45 1/4 42 5/8 6,831,500 8/14/97 44 7/8 42 3/4 45 41 1/4 12,651,000 8/13/97 42 5/8 46 46 1/4 41 11/16 23,762,900 8/12/97 50 1/8 54 1/4 55 3/8 49 3/4 8,406,800 8/11/97 55 1/8 55 1/2 59 7/8 52 7/8 5,256,000 8/08/97 56 3/4 57 3/4 58 1/4 55 1/2 5,889,100 8/07/97 58 3/8 58 3/8 60 1/16 57 9/16 8,822,200 8/06/97 57 3/8 56 3/16 59 1/4 55 1/4 9,173,000 In fact, if memory serves me correct, wasn't it John Lazlo at Pru who actually lowered his numbers the day before Kurlak? I would argue that "we"/Kurlak did in fact "bail" at a price short of his price objective on the assumption that Kurlak did not instruct any clients to sell until 8/13/97. In fact, Kurlak "turned" after John Lazlo and he "turned" BELOW his price objective. And if someone attempts to make the arguement that he instructed some of the "we", but not others to sell prior to his 8/13/97 note, well then, that would seem to blow a major hole in the "Kurlak doesn't tip his hand" line of thinking wouldn't it? So much for "total victory" <g> Good trading, Tom