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.

Biotech / Medical : PLSIA (Premier Laser Systems) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kvogel who wrote (1417)	12/19/1997 8:13:00 PM
From: Pancho Villa	Respond to of 1773

Karl: >>I believe you have to divorce yourself from whether you bought at a higher or lower price (outside of tax implications) << Yes, this is the idea of a sunk cost. How much you paid is irrelevant except for price considerations. Only one point though, since stocks are generally headed up. I avoid selling at a loss stocks that IMO have good fundamentals. Economically probably not too sound but I justify it from the point of view of keeping trading/mistakes/expenses low. >>I thought you responded to Pluvia very nicely. He doesn't have much more info than we have so most statements by all parties are speculations. However, since he is not invested in PLSIA either long or short, he seems to have an agenda. << I don't know what his motives are. I am just a bit puzzled. I put time on stuff that may give me a buck and/or satisfaction. Perhaps some form of the latter is behind Pluvia's motive. I really don't care. Regards, Pancho

To: kvogel who wrote (1417)	12/20/1997 12:16:00 AM
From: WTMHouston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1773

Karl: Why must someone be invested in a stock to have an opinion, either positive or negative, without an ulterior motive? IMO, one has nothing to do with the other. I have seen many situations where those not invested in a stock had far more objective opinions than those that were invested. In fact, many people critisize analysts precisely because they are, on occasion, invested in stocks when they issue opinions. I frequently do DD on a stock and reach an opinion but don't invest, either long or short, for a variety of reasons. Isn't the purpose of SI to share information and opinions - for better or worse? It is truly unfortunate that those who have opinions that differ from the majority get slammed and trashed on most threads simply because their opinions are different from the majority. I remember posting very negative comments about the lack of fundamentals of a small stock, SBET, earlier this year when it was near the top of a hype run based on some press. I did a lot of work on my DD and reached the conclusion that it stunk. I did not go long, obviously, and did not short because it was low priced, around 4, which would have required 100% security, i.e., no margin, and because given its price I thought there were better uses for my money, even if it went to zero. I got slammed relentlessly by those that had bought near the high and right before I posted my remarks...According to them, I was either dead wrong or had an agenda simply because I was a lone voice of alarm. The stock now trades around 1/4 and a lot of longs lost a lot of their money. I am certain that we ALL have similar stories. My long-winded point is that whether you like or agree with Pluvia's, or any one else's, opinions and whether someone is actually invested in a stock is, IMO, no reason to impute ulterior motives to their opinions. BTW, in answer to your earlier question, I am not currently invested in PLSIA (although I did day trade it one time several months ago for a very small gain), for whatever difference it makes, but follow it, along with a lot of other stocks, for trading and investment opportunities, long and short...Depending on a lot of circumstances, I could go either long or short PLSIA...I have ruled neither catagorically out. Troy