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 : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Barr who wrote (10968)	12/16/1997 9:45:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 77400

Market Madness: today's Herb Greenberg on Cisco's inventory "problem" - There ain't none: -- Market madness: An item here on Thursday mentioned that Cisco's latest 10-Q quarterly report showed a surge in its finished goods inventories. Normally, that could be a warning that sales are slowing. But Cisco Chief Financial Officer Larry Carter quickly responded that sales weren't slowing. Instead, he said last week, inventories were up because of a shift in Cisco's product mix. Do you really think a guy like Carter, at a company like Cisco, would get on the phone and purposely make misleading statements? Nah. Usually, if there's trouble at companies as straightforward as Cisco, the execs just clam up and don't return your calls. Cisco's stock tumbled from around $85 per share on Wednesday to around $76 on Friday. It continued its slide yesterday morning before recovering to close at $77.50, up 94 cents. sfgate.com Regards

To: Paul Barr who wrote (10968)	12/16/1997 3:51:00 PM
From: sepku	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

>>>Your assuming that a trader can make $35,000 a week trading. I assume that Trader's can't make any money trading and that the commissions just aggravate the situation.<<< Both your statements are at the extremes of the spectrum. Sowbug was simply using a few hypothetical figures to emphasize a point. Once again, you have managed to totally miss the big picture and comprehend the meaning behind someone's comments. Sowbug was offering an analogy, so any extreme in his comment is warranted. You, however, are displaying quite a blatant ignorance about the the various genres of investors/traders that exist. Your assumption that there are no traders that exist who make any money, is evident of your severe lack of understanding when it comes to trading. I'm not insulting you, I'm just pointing it out -- maybe you don't realize it. There have been dozens upon dozens of featured articles in just as many of the most respected publications in business, that have discussed the relatively new phenomenon of trading. I'll use day trading as an example. Only in the last few years has the technology and services been available that allows day trading to be employed with the speed and cost effectiveness that is only topped by traders on the floor. Have you heard of "upstairs traders"? They are traders who have left the floor to trade at desks above the exchange floors using much the same systems that home traders use (the only real difference being speed of execution). This is a fact in today's markets...if you choose to ignore them, then you are a simpleton. I have noticed that the ones who ignore this reality, and the idea of trading profitably within short time frames, are often completely in the dark about how it is done, the techniques, equipment, strategies, capital requirements, etc. The Motley Fool is notorious for this lack of education. There is the saying: "Don't 'ASSUME', because then you make an ASS of U and ME." Meaning, ignorant statements also make others feel like an ass for reading them. Of course, arguments of long-term strategy vs short-term strategy vs buy/holding vs trading vs long vs short vs options vs futures, etc...can go on forever. So if this argument surfaces again, I'll just give you some references to check out if you want to educate yourself on the topic. Style Pts.