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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Alternative Fuel Systems ATF:VSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ally who wrote (707)	4/5/1998 10:33:00 PM
From: Mark Bartlett	Respond to of 4605

Denise, <<Have you gone back and read all your postings to me?>> Yes I have ... we started out OK .. you thanked me for giving my opinion on the Sun article ... see Message 3877012 Then I sent you a few more comments and received no response ... and that's fine - I really did not expect one back. Then - when I finally did get one it was prefaced with (paraphrased) ... "the reason I did not respond to you was because I get the sensed that you like your women barefoot, pregnant and fetching beer." I was not really sure where that came from or why I deserved it. Some of my other posts (not necessarilty directed to you ...... I posted about the pitfalls of calling this stock a "baby Ballard" ... in fact I made a special point in suggesting to people not to refer to ATF in that light because it was too promotional. In another post .... I indicated that ATF is a speculative investment and it was very important that ATF deliver the goods within 6-12 months if they were to remain credible. In any event .. now I am getting posts from you about taking various coloured pills, assuming a reclining position and doing some sort of chant .... well - thanks for your medical advice and concern, butI think I will pass. To continue ....that was an excellent post to Bonnie ... not trying to get buttery .. it really was very well written. After reading it (and rereading some of the past posts) , I am not so sure that we are really that far apart in some of our thinking. I certainly agree that ATF is a speculative situation. Where I do not necessarily see eye-to-eye is in the valuation process. I appreciate that as an analyst ( you, not me) valuating company situations can be tricky. I am not sure that applying hard and fast numbers to ATF (like your Dell example) is completely appropriate. It is undoubtedly the accepted empirical industry norm, whereby one looks at past performance to gauge future potential revenue generation - but IMO that is not what ATF is about - at least not yet There is no question that people who put their money in this company are speculating that ATF will get contracts, which will enhance future revenues ... IMO you are correct - that is very much the case. Perhaps I have been around SI too long, but I would be surprised if most (on SI) did not realize this (perhaps I am wrong). The fact though, there was so much buying about 10 days ago, suggests to me that there are many others (apart from SI) who share the optimism. Whether it will be well founded or not, (as you pointed out) is another question. Perhaps what we saw (in terms of the frenetic buying) was more an indicator of the mood\status of the general market more than anything else. There is also a side of me that likes to see the underdog win. IMO the market today is too much about the Microsofts, the Dells, the IBM's etc.. The small gal hardly has a chance ... even if they have the better product - the big gal has the bucks, marketing power etc. to stomp all over the new gal on the block. So - when I see something that looks promising, (and admittedly speculative in ATF's case) I like to see it nurtured. If someone is going to tell me what is wrong with it .... I am going to respond with what is right with it - after all, that is as much an integral part of the equation (that of course is our right too). It is my own personal opinion (and this is admittedly very subjective) that more things would work out, if the positive was reinforced. I am not advocating a "stick your head in the sand approach" but rather most problems can be effectively worked out, given some thought .... that is part of what being an entrepreneur is all about (and of course the source of a lot of the risk for those that choose to be long in a speculative stock). If you go back and read some of my posts (for example my concern about calling ATF a "baby ballard") you will see that I advocate many of the same values as you so (believe it or not <g>) ..... I consider myself a prudent speculator for the most part, and I make no apology for it - it is the style that suits me. I appreciate though, not everybody is cut out for it. One of the reasons that I may be a little too quick to react to contrarian views, is the fact that I have seen good upstart companies get lambasted by quick-buck shorters that wreak havoc, cause all sorts of unwarranted panic and cause people to dump an otherwise good stock ...... once that happens, they start to the upside again. The fact that you and a few others were such recent inductees to SI, and were espousing the contrarian view,, suggested to me the pattern may be again unfolding. It is very tough to discern who is being forthright and who is not. The bottom line (IMHO, of course).. people will pay for a stock whatever they perceive its value to be .... whether it be Dell, ESSO or whatever. I am of the opinion that most stock valuations today, when viewed within an historical perspective, are nuts anyway ..... so is ATF overvalued??? - perhaps according to your measuring stick ... but overvaluation presently applies to so many other stocks, it is almost becoming a meaningless concept. Throughout our exchanges, I do not believe that I categorized you in a derogatory fashion - I would appreciate it if you would extend to me the same courtesy. It sullies and blurs otherwise interesting contributions. I am not a "bull" and I do not prefer women as barefoot, pregnant beer fetchers ... those are values I truly abhor. Finally - just want to make one small correction ... << Mark posted 80% profit margin.>> What I said was according to the people I spoke to, the mark-up on some existing CC is as much as 80% .... whether it will be better or not for ATF, I do not know - and I doubt ATF does at this point either. Have a good evening, MB