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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Zulu-tek, Inc. (ZULU) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JAC who wrote (6090)	4/24/1998 4:25:00 AM
From: PartyTime	Respond to of 18444

Mike Prioette, you were right once before. Is what you heard true? I don't know. It's been stated often, in several areas, that Price Waterhouse (PW) was doing it. If it's not, it would at least beg the following questions: What does it mean? How many explanations will be required from somewhere to explain this? From who, and why? Would it be different if PW didn't do it Did PW participate in some form in the process? Did the deal for PW to audit fall through entirely? Was a PW report rejected even? If PW didn't do it, was the firm that performed the audit recommended by PW? Are there some auditing firms that are more specialized than others and tend to handle certain accounts? Other questions too that I can't, right now, think of. Someone on this thread once said it didn't matter who did the audit, that accountants were bound by their conduct and findings. Also, someone on this thread once said the prestige of a PW (Big-5) would elevate the stature of its report. We--I know I did--thought both fo these statements were true. I'll leave interpretation of the audit to the seasoned view, and make my own judgment best I can according to how it all comes down. Of course, I'll be anchored in the view, goal and realization of a Nasdaq listing for Zulu into ESVS. And, to me, that listing means trading at over more than a buck! (this might have also answered my version to the question asked by the gentleman who said he bought at $1.20-something, and wanted to buy more at a lower price to quicken his gain.) But Mike, it would be nice if you were not right this time. It would also be nice if the right questions got asked as to why you were right a second time, if you are.

To: JAC who wrote (6090)	4/24/1998 9:19:00 AM
From: Jon Tara	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18444

"I have held because it seems like the only logical thing to do since the bottom fell out after I bought," [Off-topic, not NETZ-related] Why do you feel that holding is the only logical thing to do? I think that this is the biggest mistake that novice investors make. (I know that it's one that I made when I started-out!) When you buy a stock, set a maximum loss that you will tolerate, and then stick with it. It is MUCH more important to control losses than to make profits! You can lose on most of your trades, yet still make money, if you can control your losses. Here is the fallacy of thinking that holding is the "only logical thing to do": why do you think, out of THOUSANDS of stocks, that this is the ONLY stock that can make back the money that you lost? I suspect that the logic is this: "it went DOWN that far, it can go back UP that far, too!". But, now, turn it around. Take a stock that does NOT have any significant drops - a stock that "only goes up" (more or less). Do you think that it can't rise by, say, $10 because it didn't drop by $10? Do you really think that a stock that drops $10 is more likely to rise $10 than one that didn't drop? That is, do you think, in general, that a recovery is more likely than a new high? In reality, I think you will find the opposite, and that is the reason for the old advise: "Sell your losers, and let your winners run". Sounds obvious, but how many people do it? If you have a portfolio of 5 stocks, and you want to sell one, which one do you sell? The dog, or the one you've made a bundle on? It sounds to me, with this logic, that you would sell the one you made a bundle on, thinking it can't go any further, while holding the dog, because it hasn't seen it's day yet. It's only "logical" to hold that dog until it turns around, right? This is NOT a flame, but a sincere attempt to stimulate some thought about how me make our trading decisions.

To: JAC who wrote (6090)	4/24/1998 9:27:00 AM
From: aleta	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18444

JAC, One question to ask yourself. What is my acceptable level of loss? Not that I'm saying you will have a loss for sure, but that is a question any investor should ask themselves before they invest in any stock. A suggestion I might make to you, that has prevented me from having to use that tactic more then twice, is never marry a stock. I made that mistake when I first began investing. Now, when I buy a stock, I already have set price in my mind at which I will sell should a stock start going down. I cut my losses at between 10-20%. I move on to the next stock and usually make my loss back somewhere. Marrying a stock is a mistake most new investors make, but we learn and move on. Personally I've tried the tactic you're suggesting twice. I won one and lost the other. Each was effected ultimately by the credibility of the company. The choice will have to be yours based upon how you think of this company and your acceptable level of loss. Good Luck, Aleta