To: joe who wrote (23308 ) 10/28/1998 7:29:00 AM From: chenys Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 45548
Joe: I agree that coms is a 50-60 stock and it used to be the shorts' nightmare, no less than AOL, or the like of IOM or SHVA. I wonder where coms' strength went. You looked at yesterday, when the market was showing life in the morning, coms went up reluctantly and then yielded to its doggy persona. It is hard to catch the very top, but when we see sign of reluctance in going across certain prices, especially when the TA favors such a scenario, then we should not fight it. It has been a painful lesson in the past year or so if you choose to buy and hold. There is no need to be a hero. See, a weak hand in a long's eyes can be a strong hand for a short-we don't know the very nature of the sellers or the buyers. Case in point, is it panic buying or short covering? Is it panic selling or heavy shorting? How can we tell without further information? In the long run, it is true that after so many upgrades and with cable modem and Palms getting attention, more contracts being signed on the network products..., there is hope that revenue will continue to grow and stock price will follow. But it is not up to us to decide when it is going to happen. We may command a lot of sympathy from those big sellers while we choose to ride out the downturn. Peter Lynch once argued that, in the bull market buy-and-hold scenario, if you consistently bought in at market bottoms, you will only outperform those who always bought at tops by a fraction of a percent per year over the long haul. But if you miss out a rally while failing to correctly time the market, you will do much worse. This is an old guest for the holy grails, as we know it.