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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wildstar who wrote (26928)	12/5/1998 10:42:00 PM
From: Claude	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Anybody checked futures recently - NSDQ100 +2500 S&P +1120?? What is this about? Claude (rhymes with TOAD)

To: Wildstar who wrote (26928)	12/6/1998 11:46:00 AM
From: Jeffrey D	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Wildstar:<<Jeffrey, I don't understand the meaning of your last post. When I wrote that note, those stocks did hit new 52-week lows that day. Was there something factually wrong in that?>> Wild, you surprised me. I thought for sure you would say the three stocks now have overvaluation in common. No, nothing factually wrong, but the question is, what was the point of your post? Were you indicating it was a buying opportunity? Were you suggesting they would go lower? I suppose you could have plugged in any of the hundreds of stocks that day making 52 week lows with AMAT and ask what they all had in common. I guess if you just wanted to point out the obvious to us that's fine. Jeff P.S. The answer is these three stocks have nothing in common just like they didn't have anything in common two months ago.

To: Wildstar who wrote (26928)	12/6/1998 12:25:00 PM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Wild, Re: Jeffrey, I don't understand the meaning of your last post. When I wrote that note, those stocks did hit new 52-week lows that day. Was there something factually wrong in that? Factually wrong? No. But you presented the "facts" out of context. You tried to paint them as having no value with that statement when in fact the sector was in the throes of panic selling. Looking at only the price of a particular security at any point in time is meaningless if in fact people are terrified and selling at any price. In this sense you were absolutely wrong and the recent run corroborates this view. BK