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 : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (12643)	11/27/1998 4:38:00 PM
From: Charles Tutt	Respond to of 74651

FWIW, whenever I've seen someone claim a correlation as high as 96% the underlying analysis has usually been either obvious or bogus. Good correlations with decent sized samples of interesting real-world data tend to be more like .2 or .3, or even less. But I haven't studied your claims, so I have no idea how you've achieved a 96% correlation. And, of course, this is all JMHO.

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (12643)	11/27/1998 7:13:00 PM
From: DavidD	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Please, link me directly to the 96% correlation. Also, I always said the risk for MSFT losing equity was small, but REAL as well. I am not able to quantify the risk adjusted return for this unlikely event because I can't make a reasonable assumption of the likelihood the stock nose dives. Never by a bio-tech stock just before a FDA review - one can't reasonably quantify the response of the all important panel. It would be like trying to quantify the results of a "bad ruling" in an anti-trust case when you don't know it is going to happen yet, how severe it will be, or what form it will take.