To: The Phoenix who wrote (11080 ) 12/20/1997 11:27:00 PM From: sepku Respond to of 77397
BTW -- your post here was about the same in content to the one over on the ASND thread, so my response over there is suitable for this one as well. >>>Since they do primary research you'll need to pay to get the reports I cite - sorry.<<< Well then, what good is the link? How about you posting the report to the thread, or you can email me a copy. >>>unlike the Data Com study you keep pointing people to which was funded mainly by Ascend with a test plan drafted by them as well.<<< You state this as fact -- can you substantiate your accusation? >>>Note that this is close to what Vertical reported for the "IOS ATM MAKRET<<< Irrelevent. See my post on the ASND thread. >>>Most folks would wish to find out why the discrepency before damning other research.<<< My point exactly. You have been missing the points of my comments consistently. ASND vs CSCO has to do with only the segments where they compete. Macro marketshare statistics will therefore carry many variables that render such figures useless for what I've been discussing. The world does not revolve around CSCO, after all. If you cannot stick to ASND vs CSCO, then don't debate me on the topic. >>>Oh, one last thing. The reason this all started was that you were bad mouthing CSCO when it was in the low 70's but you weren't willing to put your money where your mouth was. Hey! anyone can short a stock when it's at or near it's all time high. That show's me nothing. If you believe what you say than you'll put your money on it. You did not. You are weak.<<< OMG...You know, I really felt bad for you reading the above...that sounded like something only a neophyte would say. Investing is business. Business is money. Money is made and kept based on prudent decision-making. My business is *mostly* trading...and most of that consists of day trading with some occasional position trading.. Fundamentals are useless for day trading. Only volatility, volume, spreads, and sufficiently high tick value, matter for a trading stock. Basically it comes down to reducing risk and maximizing the chance that a stock will move in my favor. Anyone can short a stock at its all-time high, you say? Well let's see you do it. I bet you won't, because you don't understand this type of trading. But that's beyond the point. When I first dumped my CSCO shares, I recognized that CSCO was fully valued...therefore there was no remaining reason to hold long-term and allow my capital to be vulnerable at the whims of the market. Now I was interested in a short position...maybe even a straddle. Intraday range trading was another possibility. Now I had to get a feel for the stock. Long term investing is easy...you sit and you wait. Trading takes skill and experience...it involves timing, and most of you who don't understand this type of investing, don't believe timing is possible at all. "Efficient markets" the wall street gurus have taught you. Yeah sure. ;o) The point is...after watching CSCO closely and following it while it went through a couple mini-cycles, I was ready to play the game. Talk about debating what you don't understand. You sound very foolish attempting to criticize *my* trading tactics. This is why you are not a trader -- you could never in your wildest dreams, succeed at what I do. Most of you don't have what it takes -- and that's a fact. The volatility of a long-term hold makes most investors tremble. Maybe 5% can succeed trading...I doubt you could be one of them. Don't tell me you wish to debate trading with me? You'll lose. >>>How long you going to hold those puts?<<< What puts? >>>I hope until the earnings come out!<<< No trader with any sense holds through earnings. That's probably the #2 cardinal rule. Style Pts.