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 : ZOOM : is the Best / Most Underpriced Stock on Nasdaq -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom M who wrote (1781)	12/9/1997 8:20:00 AM
From: David Lawrence	Respond to of 2493

>>Crazier things can certainly happen - remember how much some were paying for the other modem-only* company USRX?!* You seem to be forgetting their systems division, which alone exceeded Ascend's total revenue base. That's where the margins are, and that's where the mula is made. It's also the reason USRX was able to own the 56k market for six months without competition. And, it's something that Zoom doesn't have. One last comment, I find nothing more distasteful than people taking up 50% of the bandwidth on a quiet thread talking up or down a stock they have no position in. Good for you. You have the freedom to click next. I feel it's quite naive to think that one (or two) can influence the direction of their prefered stock by posting negative rhetoric about a competitor at book value. You're the one who is naive if you think anyone posts for that reason. Why would anyone try to influence a stock's price if they don't have a position in it? Get a grip, man. They say they have nothing to be afraid of so why are they afraid? I feel one should put their money where their mouth is, short or long, or keep their mouth where their money is (ie where 80% of their posts are). The people you are complaining about (obviously including me) have been the ones who understood the technology and the market dynamics. In other words, we are in touch with reality and tried to share our information and perspective with others - the key point being that we were right about this stock for the past year, and those touting your (bullish) position were dead wrong. Period. The fact that some of us put our money elsewhere is irrevelant. Personally, I would have shorted Zoom if it were optionable, which it isn't. Regards, David

To: Tom M who wrote (1781)	12/9/1997 8:43:00 AM
From: Stu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2493

Hold yer horses people. "Big volume" was only 180,000 shares. Not very big even for small stock standards. The average trade size was only around 620 shares. Estimates of ten dollars a share are a bit rich for the short term, don't you say? And what's with that comment about making a requirement that all posts be by people who own a position in the stock? In my opinion, those who didn't buy ZOOM ended up delivering the best information. Some people don't short stocks and some people own the stock of a competitor. There are more reasons than owning a position to monitor and post on this thread.