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: Chuzzlewit who wrote (76819)	11/6/1998 12:20:00 AM
From: Boplicity	Respond to of 176387

PC Sellers Love Europe Reuters 7:34 a.m. 4.Nov.98.PST European personal computer sales surged ahead 23.4 percent in the third quarter as consumers snapped up low-priced machines, market watcher Dataquest said on Wednesday. Consumer PC unit sales soared 48.8 percent, including a rise of 54 percent in Western Europe, but the news was not completely rosy for PC manufacturers: Revenue growth in Europe trailed well behind at 13 percent, as about one-third of all PCs sold in Europe were low-cost machines priced between US$1,000 and $1,500. "It was a record quarter in terms of consumer market growth. That's what was driving the market," said Dataquest analyst Philip Williams, who predicted the market's growth was likely to continue for a few more quarters despite the recent world economic slowdown. Williams said many manufacturers have adjusted to lower average selling prices to continue turning profit. Compaq, for example, recently handed production of German consumer PCs to a small Dresden company to lower costs. On the strength of recovering economies, European unit sales surged in the three largest markets. German PC sales climbed 22.4 percent to 1.2 million units, British sales advanced 28.3 percent to more than a million, while French sales increased 34.6 percent to just short of 800,000. Compaq (CPQ) retained the top market share spot, increasing its hold to 17.4 percent as its sales rose 33.4 percent. Dell (DELL) climbed into a second place tie with IBM. The direct marketer's sales jumped 86 percent, lifting its market share to 8.1 percent. IBM (IBM) sales grew 31 percent, although its share was unchanged at 8.1 percent. In fourth place was Siemens with a 6.3 percent share, followed by Hewlett-Packard (HWP) with 6.2 percent. Apple (AAPL) unit sales rose 25 percent, although its fast-selling iMac model only hit store shelves in September, the quarter's final month. Despite the gain, Apple remained off the list of top 10 PC vendors with a market share of 2.8 percent.

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (76819)	11/6/1998 5:31:00 AM
From: On the QT	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

Chuzz: QT, you suggested that: You have a problem with William O'Neil truthfulness. QT: Prompted by your comment: William O'Neil is fond of making outrageous claims etc., Chuzz: Not at all. I question his methodology and his conclusions. TQ: Understood. Chuzz: The problem is that the entire A/D calculation is a black box, and the output from that box can't be compared to any objectively determined end point. QT: Perhaps less of a black box than one would initially view it to be. I see no attempt at nor claim made for an objectively determined end point and I am guessing at what you mean by that term, so I don't know if I am talking to that. He does say what finite series of data he uses. "last 13 weeks to determine if the stock has been under net accumulation buying or distribution selling." The beginning point is 13 weeks ago and the ending point is the day prior to trading.When we look at this tomorrow we would take the oldest day and eliminate it and add on yesterday.So each new day is added to the data and the oldest day is eliminated from consideration. At any given time when we use the data it consist of the last 13 weeks. With regard to that ‘objectively determined' portion of your statement, I think the method is strictly mathematical and subjectively employed. I know of no statement attributed to IBD to the contrary. If this is the case, I see no objective way to measure its validity unless by employing his ratings we find them to be more useful than not and to the degree that it is, and continues to be, useful, we can subjectively deem it to be valid for our purposes. Chuzz: The critical question ought to be how does O'Neil know that he is measuring what he claims to be measuring? TQ: I am not sure he or we can say for sure that he absolutely knows that big block buying or selling is strictly institutional action. In addition, he only talks in terms of heavy buying or selling. He also uses terms like 'may indicate institutional buying or selling'. One would think that if he knew for sure he would say so. He is not saying that he does know for sure. What he seems very convinced of,is his method for determining net accumulation and distribution. If, what you are skeptical about is his method of determining net accumulation and distribution,I understand that very well. I want to see it, feel it and see for my self whether or not it has validity to me. He on the other hand says it has validity but doesn't provide us with the actual method he uses, perhaps he wants to sell his paper. Perhaps he didn't want to make it available to the Wall Street Journal or to an Internet provider of similar information. He may be simply protecting his interests. I understand that. Lets look at what we do know. Dell can show a buy for 10,000 shares at, let us say $75.00, then a number of smaller sells at, lets say, 6 sells of 1000 shares at $ 75.250, 75.250, 75.125, 75.125 , 75.0625 and 75.00. In this example, we see that 10,000 shares were bought and 6000 shares were sold. So while the stock price remains the same, the net accumulation of stock, 4000 shares are temporarily taken off the table. Now it is reasonable to conclude that large blocks of buys are more likely to be institutional buys as opposed to ordinary buys. If they are institutional buys, they more likely will remain off the table, for longer periods of time than ordinary buys. This then creates a smaller pool of available stock and most likely, if this accumulation continues,the stock price will tend to go up. His ratings are an attempt to give an edge to the investor who wants to slant the probability of the stock going up in her or his favor. I could give you the converse situation using different numbers to demonstrate the distribution/same price scenario, but the thought of Dell in further distribution, at a time that I believe should be accumulation,at a price less than 75.00 is not palatable! Chuzz: Where is the demonstration that stocks with an A rating are being bought by institutional investors? QT: I see no demonstration of the kind that you and I would be most comfortable with. However,logic tells us that by definition, stocks with an E rating (under the heaviest of distribution) have less of a probability of being bought at the same time by Fund Managers than those with an A rating(under the heaviest of accumulation). Chuzz: This is quite different from the bulk of TA because there the mathematics (such as they are) are available for investigation and criticism. But in the case of A/D ratings who knows? TQ: Understood. It is a game of probabilities vs possibilities and the tools we use and the skill we employ to determine those are very important, but sometimes they, and we are imperfect. Well, I got up an hour ago to a message from the Chuzz and now it is time to get the Asian Market Wrap and then 'sleep slow'. Look forward to Maria's chirping as we near to the market opening, the bell and the sound of music! Life is good. It is what ever it is, it is. Sincere Regards, QT