<<<First, GT was at 26 about 16 months ago, and at 12 much, much more recently. Second, if GT stocks go to 14-15 in the next 18 months, that means doubling their current price, which is a terrific return in *anyone's* book (except perhaps yours <g>). In fact, doubling your money in even three years is a terrific gain.>>>
I am beginning to agree with Vickie...you truly are the black hole of stupidity. One so dense that those that surround you should be careful or they may be sucked in. There have been only two opportunities since GTIS came to market in which a buy could purchase the stock and double their money. Both those windows are rather small. Perhaps a one to two month window. The rest of the available months only provided investors with very small gains or large losses. Hey, why don't you just send them to Vegas or to their local 7-11 to play the odds?
<<<Only indirectly. The first responsibility is to do the things that earn market share and profits. Shareholders benefit indirectly. I've never been involved in a meeting where shareholders were a consideration. Never. I guarantee to you that Bill Gates gives a flip about shareholders. He's focused on making Microsoft dominate, ofitable and successful. Any talk about shareholders is lip service. (Perhaps I have personal knowledge of his feelings on this subject--but I'll never admit it. ;)>>>>
You'll have to excuse me. Actually it was this whole harangue that forces me to brand you an ignoramus. A rookie can always be spotted because they immediately try and inject Bill Gates into the topic of conversation. Unfortunately, it boomerangs on you this time. Bill Gates doesn't have to give a flip about investors because he and Paul Allen own such an overwhelming block of shares that they in turn ARE the majority shareholders. I can't believe that even you didn't consider that. Since you KNOW Mr. Gates and his feelings so well I am appalled that you just didn't call him and confirm this! Now, if you still believe protecting shareholder value is not an executive's chief concern why don't you try giving Jack Akers, ex-CEO of IBM, a ring and see what he's been up to lately. (insert silly happy face character here)
<<<Wrong again. I can't reply to everyone--I only have three messages a day.>>>>
Oh well Scott, being a tightwad does have it's disadvantages.
<<<Would you prefer for me to violate my agreement?!?! Ever heard of confidential information? Bob, I hope people are seeing through your sad attempts to make me look bad.>>>
Scott, please, if you don't believe anything else I say, I beg of you to consider this as stone cold truth. You have never needed my help to make you look bad. Please do tell me why GT would want to grant you a secret option (rolling eyes).
<<<Bob, it's a common technique to wait until a stock falls off it's high by 10% or more before buying into it. Perhaps you're unaware of this method.>>
Yes, Scott and there is many a farm hand out there who can attest to it's complete effectiveness.
<<<Sure you do, Bob. Ever heard of asset allocation accounts that buy a block of stocks every month? You need to get out of the house more often.>>>
Perhaps you should A) post my full response. B) Take off that shirt with the big fat bull's eye painted on it. I said that dollar cost averaging for stocks is only effective if you can buy large blocks of diverse issues. Most people on this thread do not have the resources to do this. But of course you knew that.
<<Errr, Bob, AOL is a company...MSN is a service by Microsoft. See the difference?! AOL is focused on one thing, being an online service. Microsoft, Bob, does many, many things, MSN being just one of the many.>>
Ewww, I love it when you pick nits. The point is that MSN is a division of Microsoft and thus can operate quite effectively regardless of what the rest of the company does. You keep banging this drum and chanting about core competencies and all such garbage as that but fail to recognize that there are a myriad of companies that completely shoot holes in your "diversification is bad" theories. I can name some whoppers right off the bat; HP, IBM, Pepsi, Siemens and the list goes on and on....
<<Poor Bob, you have been fooled, too, it appears (a fool is easily fooled, they say). Windows *is* a monopoly, whether it has been legally charged as one or not. Everyone I know in the computer industry recognizes that Windows is a monopoly, without true competition. Bob, if Windows is not a monopoly, what other operating
system is its competition on the PC?!!! (Try to name something with at least a 5% market share, please.)>>>
Just when I thought it was safe to end this thread you spout off with this ridiculousness. Scott, do you know what a monopoly truly is? Let me quote Webster's for you: "EXCLUSIVE control, as of a commodity or service by 1 group." Is Win95 an operating system? Yes. Is OS/2 still on store shelves? Yes. Are there other operating systems and platforms to choose from besides PC's and Win95? Yes. Mac OS/8, Linux, Solaris just to name a few. Does Microsoft have any way of stopping the means of production of these products? No. Using your analogous logic, I believe we should go after the manufacturers of Q-Tips as we all know that brand dominates it's market. Just because a product is chosen far and beyond the competition does not make it a monopoly. Just because the competition can only muster a 5% market share doesn't make it a monopoly. It makes it a preferred choice among comsumers. Geez Louise, how you do prattle on. |
