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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Bill Wexler's Profits of DOOM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (2114)	8/25/1998 5:25:00 PM
From: Peter V	Respond to of 4634

Bill, you might get a kick out of this, a company that threatens to sue its shareholders for contacting its customers. Message 5545020 uh, don't the shareholders OWN the company?

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (2114)	8/25/1998 7:58:00 PM
From: Kevin Podsiadlik	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4634

Bill, your opinion on LHSPF, if I may? Here is my take (the short version) thus far: Like the almost-late, lamented, Cyberguard (in a way), LHSPF is benefitting from an association with Microsoft. In fact, Microsoft is supposedly invested in LHSPF, but may sell it, or invest more, depending on who you talk to. Two things stand out. First, no two sources I've come across seem to agree on whether LHSPF is making or losing money (or how much). Zacks' numbers for LHSPF look steady, but Market Guide's look nightmarish. (The financials on LHS's website are useless.) Second, their CEO is Gaston Bastiens, whose previous dealings with Microsoft, as CEO of Quarterdeck, did not turn out so well. What do you think of this as a short candidate?

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (2114)	8/26/1998 11:48:00 AM
From: Hank	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4634

Bill, Pink recommends selling and selling short TNSI. It looks pretty weak to me and is probably a good short. Do you concur with this viewpoint? Hank

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (2114)	8/28/1998 11:07:00 PM
From: j lawrence	Respond to of 4634

Perhaps, but I think the bigger problem is that they don't do enough of their own. Peter Lynch made an interesting point in one of his books: A guy who works in the oil industry (for example) will go out and buy a stock in a shoe company - a business he knows nothing about; in the meantime, he completely misses the boat on companies he is doing business with or even the very company he works for. The question that I ask a lot of people (and ask myself when I research a company) is "How do they recognize revenue?" If I cannot get a good feeling on that answer, it is not a company that I want to invest in. I miss a few opportunities because I have no clue on hoe YHOO or SPLN raise their revenues or even the what AMAT or CSCO produce but there are a lot of other opportunities out there. I noticed that the small investors who cheerlead for these scam stocks really have no clue what they are doing. They will try desperately to become "experts" in whatever gee-whiz technology their racehorse may be promoting, and will make unrealistic projections about future business prospects. I think the real issue is that a lot of small investors are trying to find the "next" MSFT or the next high-tech ten bagger. I am absolutely amazed at some of the posts on the Yahoo boards. Let a stock go down 2-3 points in a single day and someone will post, "I just bought 500 shares of XYZ. What does XYZ do and is it a good investment?" Aren't we getting the cart before the horse? In the "old" days when you had to actually call a broker and place an order, a good broker would listen to your order and might say "do you really want to do that?" Now with a mouse stroke or two, you can really get yourself over your head very quickly.