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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (26723)	3/16/1998 12:58:00 PM
From: Mike M2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Earlie, here is an interesting link from alex on the Gold Monitor thread afr.com.au Mike

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (26723)	3/16/1998 10:35:00 PM
From: Earlie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

MB: Well tonight, we got a bit of revenge. You, SB, myself, and a bunch of the other "forever bears" all thought MU's cost of production exceeded its ASP by approximately $1.00 We were told how wrong we were. heh, heh, heh. To this point in time, this "pre-announcement" period has been a disaster in the tech sector. It will get worse. For well over a year, the supply/demand curves have BOTH been going the wrong way, which of course is why we've been bears.....normally markets discount coming problems. It took me far too long to recognize that we were into a full-fledged tulip mania that wouldn't discount a problem if bitten by it.. Nadine, you are correct. I have been a bear during a period when the markets have continued to disregard what was obvious to those doing homework. Problem is, most diddle with charts rather than doing some old-fashioned research. Time will tell if you or most of the rest of those who chose to leave their money in close proximity to this vacuum cleaner will have much left when it lets go. I'll bet not. Punch up IDC or Dataquest on your search engine and have a look at their comments for the last two years. Also note how they no longer talk about revenue growth, but now talk primarily about unit growth (and IT is heading south). It's worth recalling that the WORST revenue growth number that we saw in the past was PLUS 10%. When it got that "low", they totally trashed computer stocks......but of course that was when discounting still occurred. This year, it will be a negative number for a certainty. Perhaps that won't matter to this market for a little while yet, but it can't continue to ignore a continuous slide for forever. Best, Earlie

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (26723)	3/18/1998 4:10:00 PM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

To All, The Bearded Ladies from Ohio-Unsolicited Commentary. It warmed my heart to see the Beardstown Ladies exposed for scamsters the past few weeks. Not that I have anything against grandmas or investment clubs or small Ohio cities. It was just that from day one I found their story hard to believe. Yes, investment clubs can occasionally beat the pros. When I was in the Army, I was in one that did. And, yes, you do not have to be a rocket scientist to beat the pros. But their story of how they invested and the stocks they bought just didn't jive with the reality of beating the pros. What problems did I see: 1. They bought the big nifty fifty stocks, usually at or near tops. These were the same stocks owned by the pros, who have economy of scale working in their favor. True, they were intermediate tops, but buying from tops and holding does not beat the averages or the pros. 2. Their research method was scatterbrained. Weird methods work sometimes for a while, as long as five or six years, but they don't work for 14 years. Not on this planet. 3. When they were interviewed, they didn't seem to know shoe polish from excrement. O.K., most Wall Street analysts are just as ignorant, but they NEVER beat the averages. -g- 4. Their book was a joke. A best-selling joke. And, yes, this comes from a sourpuss who was told that if he wanted to sell his own book, it had to read more like the Ladies' fiction. -g- So, instead of a 23 pct. a year return since 1984 that beat the pros and the indices and confounded skeptics such as yours truly, they really made 9.2 pct. a year, which underperformed buying and holding Treasury Bonds from 1984 to 1997. By a lot. So, my question now is, since this was a scam, intentional or not, what happens to all the money they stole from unsuspecting sucker book buyers who wanted to believe in Santa Claus? Does their scam violate securities laws? Is CNBC and Wall Street Week and everyone else culpable for reporting their returns without doing any checking whatsoever? Don't hold your breath on answers to any of these questions. In a market bubble, scamsters make money while the honest just scratch their heads (and often make money, also). I just think the whole sordid story of The Bearded Ladies shows how gullible the public and financial press really is. Back to the circus, hirsute ones. -g- Good Luck, MB