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 : PSFT - Fiscal 1998 - Discussion for the next year -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rick who wrote (371)	3/31/1998 5:52:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Respond to of 4509

Rick, accretive is always used in the context of earnings per share. The opposite of accretive is dilutive. And it is an important distinction, because the stock market is driven in large part by earnings per share. Some recent examples: in the merger of MCAF with NETG to form NETA the prospectus claimed that the merger would be accretive. On the other hand, in the abortive merger/acquisition between CA and CSC, CA's management stated that the deal would not be accretive for some time. You comment about marketing driving book sales could very well be on target -- I don't know. But I've often though that you could become a millionaire by writing a self-help book that combined power something with sex, weight-loss, and investing. Something like "Alexander the Great's Principals for Power Sex Through Investing in Weight Watchers Franchises". As to investment approaches, I find that Lynch's and Buffet's ideas more consistent with my own than Graham's, because Graham was a "value" investor. Unfortunately, there is no good way to "value" a growth company. Buffet, on the other hand, is a buy and hold investor -- an idea I find much more to my liking. This is how I believe you can make really big money -- particularly in growth stocks. Someone pointed out the other day that TLAB had officially become a 100 bagger since coming public in the early 80's. Now if you want to talk about really flaky ideas, there's always TA, and astrology. But that's just my opinion. No doubt I will shortly hear from Melissa <VBG> Regards, Paul

To: Rick who wrote (371)	3/31/1998 6:57:00 PM
From: Don S.Boller	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4509

Rick: NONE OF US (Paul says he scanned) HAVE READ THE "GORILLA" BOOK..............................I however have informally used this approach for years!!! (You can see my response to Paul). Now maybe as analytical folk - we sub- consciously are drawn to strong groups and the one or two strongest companies in the group...or. maybe not. Our own investment experiences no doubt dictate. Vive la difference. As an aside - this method seems best suited to approaching a brand new technology, with few initial players that appear relatively equal. Those new techs are present today IMHO...but the big winners are NOT YET determined. Appreciate chatting with you and Paul. Carry on. Best, Don