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 : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawk who wrote (39995)	5/2/1998 11:42:00 AM
From: dennis michael patterson	Respond to of 176387

Hawk: Go back and check the price of Dell when Bill Fleckenstein was last featured (about 10 weeks ago). Compare the price of Dell then, and the price of Dell now. Then I think it was about 68, now 83. The Barrons article is same old/same old. Fleckenstein is a smart guy. But he's blinded by his religious views of valuation to the reality of Dell. I've asked Fleckenstein about this a number of times, and although he would not put it this way, he is would rather be "right" than rich. He already is rich. You may recall that Fleckenstein made a huge bet against the Japanese stock market in the late 80s and made a fortune on puts he bought on the Amsterdam exchange. After he made a bundle, he flew to Tokyo to celebrate. He was right once, and I hope he is not right now.

To: Hawk who wrote (39995)	5/2/1998 11:55:00 AM
From: Mohan Marette	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 176387

Say Hawk would you laugh at me if I say probably none?? But if NASDAQ and the market goes down Monday due to whatever reasons Dell could retreat with the rest of the tech stocks but most likely it won't just because of Barron's article. In any case I hope you bought the stock with the intention of keeping for more than couple of days.<gg>

To: Hawk who wrote (39995)	5/2/1998 1:43:00 PM
From: Geoff Nunn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 176387

Hawk, The Barron's article will have little if any effect, IMO. When Barron's reports something new and meaningful, it moves markets. Unfortunately this article lacks substance. As Greg said it is merely "noise." It warms over the opinions of analyst Poyner: Poyner has had a "hold" rating on Dell for more than a year, and so he missed out on much of the stock's increase. But he still believes the move to lower-cost computers and an increasing emphasis on service will start to hurt Dell's bottom line. TRANSLATION: In 1998 year to date, Dell rose 100%. In 1997 Dell was the number-one-performing stock in the S&P 500. During most of that time Poyner was a bear. Yet the Barron's reporter thinks we should nevertheless listen to Poyner, who has been consistently and disastrously wrong? Good show, Barron's. Even more dubious is Barron's use of a 200 day moving average to suggest Dell is overpriced. There is no scientific evidence whatever to support this method of forecasting stock prices. The folks who espouse this and other forms of "technical analysis" are a thoroughly discredited minority on Wall Street. Most of them make their money not by professional money management but by selling their opinions to gullible investors. They pretend that what they do is science. As Paul Levy has pointed out, they often use the language and trappings of statistics, but they don't use the methodology which is hypothesis testing. There are many good books on the failings of TA. Most of the professional literature has concluded that TA falls in the same category as alchemy. Many studies have concluded that stocks prices follow a random walk (or, to be more precise, a random walk with upward drift). If this conclusion is correct, it would not be possible to forecast stock prices using a moving average of past prices, or for that matter any other function of past prices. In other words the past history of stock prices can't be used to predict the future in any meaningful way. It's too bad the Barron's reporter seemed blissfully unaware that any such body of knowledge even exists.