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 : Creative Labs (CREAF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CHIP HUNTER who wrote (6554)	12/5/1997 1:06:00 PM
From: Jon Tara	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13925

As long as the 200ma holds, there has been NO damage, and CREAF has simply completed the move that has been seen in the rest of the tech sector, and that we thought we'd skate by. Most techs have made strong bounces off of the 200ma, and I expect CREAF to do likewise. We are at somewhat of an advantages in that CREAF seems lagged from the rest of the sector, so we can sit back and watch how this plays out with the rest of the sector. A test of the 200ma is really the best thing that could have happened to the stock, technically. Technically, yes, a further drop below the 200ma would look very bad. However, you CANNOT look at TA in isolation from fundamentals. This is what made me make my initial call on CREAF way back when, around 14. The stock looked horrible, but the fundamentals simply did not support a decline. At 10, CREAF would be priced a 2X cash, and with a P/E around 4! BTW, I do not discount the possibility that Chip "knows something", (not necessarily CREAF-inside information, but, hey, maybe his uncle works for ML). Of course, trading on such information would be illegal. I am not accusing him of this, but since he hides behind a pseudonym and doesn't even provide an e-mail address, he leaves himself open for such speculation. Or he could just be lucky. He could also be a whiz at TA, but since he is unwilling to share his methods with us, we have no way to evaluate that.