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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (30560)	8/4/1998 8:18:00 PM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Cobalt, 1. That is simply one of many disparaging names I have for a TA tout named Ralph Acampura from Prudential. 2. I have long stocks and long puts, so I always hope my long stocks go up and the stocks on which I own puts go down. But, in general, since I expect to make my first billion in this BK, down is a better direction for me, all things being equal. I think there still might be one or two really dumb guys who have yet to buy stock, so them putting their money in will make the eventual crash all the nastier, and my puts all the more profitable. 3. A cyclical decline, in companies, not stocks, is differentiated from a secular decline by both its frequency and the rifle vs. shotgun impact. Most mature industries have a business cycle that ebbs and flows. Everyone knows that we are in a cyclical decline for information technology, oil, gold, etc. So far, those business cycles have not caused a decline in less obviously cyclical areas like banks, drugs, retail. However, a secular decline comes about when the industry moves along its time line. For example, semiconductors are in a cyclical decline. IMHO, they are also in a secular decline in that they have matured from an embryo, cyclical growth industry, into a fairly mature, industry that grows more in line with the general world economy. The market always recognizes the cyclical changes after it is too late, but nearly always misses the secular changes in the industry. And the chippies are still being priced like there will be another cycle that allows them to print money like the manic bubble of the mid-1990s did. Ain't gonna happen. And most didn't even print money in the manic bubble of the 1990s because they had no free cash flow. 4. Geezers better beware. Yes, we have seen markets dip like this many times. And, if you bought the dip in 1968, you had lost 70% of your purchasing power by 1982. Those guys reading Valueless Line couldn't handle that 14 years of losing the majority of their wealth, Guaran-freakin'-teed. They will buy the dip and later on tell everyone how the crooks in the stock market ripped them off. I've seen it many times. And been called the crook so many times. <G> MB