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: Ibexx who wrote (4155)	11/26/1997 10:57:00 AM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

They're all going back up to their previous highs at least. Remember,I can't predict the future. Don't believe the charlatans of theoretical physics who espouse that there exist closed time-like curves in this universe. In fact, Hawking has a very good proof penned two months why not. None of the companies you mentioned are fundamentally weak, AMAT is large and hardware oriented so they are more vulnerable to boom-bust. CPQ is more retail oriented and so is vulnerable in margins. INTC always looks like they are going to take over the world. Grove is the most dynamic CEO the world has ever seen. He gets it done. Period. But INTC faces an unusual problem that no one talks about. The problem: we can't get ever more added value from higher processor speed. e.g. I never have a speed problem with my pentium 166 even with my lousy programming.Sounds like heresy, but eventually this will slow INTC's growth. Right now though it's up, up, and away. Hope you're not trading options. If I'm right about a significant move, you'll just get chopped up in options. You'll have to buy deep in the money to avoid fat premiums and then you'll have to hold when the market backs up often giving much of what you've gained even while the stock advances, the premium shrinks to parity. Then there is the psychological and physical negative side effects. You're guts are roiling and you want to sell for two cents. You do and the option doubles next two days. You end up in a fist fight with someone you don't even know. Buying CPQ or INTC won't give you much leverage, but you got a going concern. These two are delivering. Oct 28 proved that they can get hit like any other. INTC may be worth 1000 in ten years. Technical analysis is a lot of nonsense. I use the terminology because others seem to understand it. In TA only thing that you want to know is demand and supply, but those variables are always significantly changing. You can only know with reasonable accuracy the instantaneous state of those variables. The states which are apparently connected by time are completely independent. The academics call this "no time-price correlation". The path integral is stochastic. There is no latent causality from state to state. You can look at the global state (past history) and reach a valid conclusion about the disposition of fear/greed. When prices are high people are greedy and vice versa. Has no predictive power about what price will do tomorrow, just tells you what happened in the past. Share price action assymptotically approaches the value of the company. If the value of the company is rising, the price on balance will rise. So it boils down to whether the company is growing. You have to predict that. Is it do-able? To some extent. In the final analysis it is just guessing. There are better places to guess like at Vegas there are games with better player odds. Investment has a positive expected return. Trading has a negative one. That means, if you trade, eventually you'll lose. So the only rational way to proceed is to study, buy, and hold.

To: Ibexx who wrote (4155)	12/14/1997 6:14:00 PM
From: markanth	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Who really won? MSFT I think. 0 to 35% market share for their browser software. How would they have accomplished this more effectively- quicker while keeping costs contained (they would have had to pay OEM's to install-like an AOL). MSFT argues that the consent decree is ambiguous allowing for Internet Explorer; thus they require Internet Explorer with Windows. Now they can't do it. So what. Genie is out of the bottle. Now 70- 75% of all OEM's would want Windows with IE, not without it. MSFT won. They are quickly accomplishing what they set out to do. I know MSFT has a contingency plan for Windows 98. For those few who choose not to load Windows 98 with IE-installation by the user Of Windows 98 with IE will be a click away.