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 : BAY Ntwks (under House) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Beachbumm who wrote (4773)	3/17/1998 7:40:00 PM
From: RFF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6980

Here's the right number, sorry about the last: 800-633-8284 4027131

To: Beachbumm who wrote (4773)	3/17/1998 8:23:00 PM
From: rupert1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6980

Hi Beachbumm: Just raised from my bed in Europe to be informed about the little local crisis at BAY. I think the stock action in the next few days and weeks trading at these much lower levels will give everyone the opportunity to make more positive trading points more quickly than they would by waiting around for it to go from, say 29-35. Those locked in to core positions will recover all the value they had two weeks ago in a matter of a month or three, at worst. The blame game might be therapuetic for some, but for me it is wasted energy. For Eric (posting #4175) I must own up to the "silly" comment. It was me, not Lerxst, who said that the general proposition (not Eric's proposition) that those who were selling during the last two weeks must have been given hard negative news before the analysts and the rest of us. I still think that idea is silly. Consider the consequences for BAY if that were true! Those who sold early did so because their own sources of information were sufficient to cause them to take drastic precautionary action in the face of the uncertainties for this quarter, which uncertainties were well-known. Those who say that BAY had leaked to the analysts must explain why the analysts were recommending BAY as a buy two weeks ago after meetings with BAY. The fact is that, in a back-ended quarter, which traditionally has lower revenues than the preceeding quarter, BAY failed to break the historical pattern. BAY's main error, therefore, is the optimism it unleashed, despite its concomitant cautions, when it said two months ago that it hoped to reverse the historical pattern. I for one, was affected by this optimism and believed in the information they released. I am sure that when House states that he is disappointed he could not break the pattern, that that is true. I also have faith that the next and subsequent quarters will be good. In comparing BAY's warning to the warning of other companies, the most noteworthy aspect for me is the very definite positive prognosis offered for the next quarter. At what point will the street start pricing in next quarter results? Since I have been summoned to respond - I pass on the challenge to Cruiser and other BAY employees. Victor