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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (27009)	12/8/1998 2:05:00 AM
From: Duker	Respond to of 70976

Would have been a good article about eleven months ago. --Duker

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (27009)	12/8/1998 2:52:00 AM
From: Gottfried	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Jacob, thanks for the SM article and for the reliability rating. The last paragraph puzzled me. > it'll be difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff because, as one analyst points out, "These stocks all trade together. They're so highly correlated that you could just throw darts at the names and construct a portfolio out of three of those dart hits," and do just as well. With that kind of confidence level you may be better off avoiding the group altogether.< I'll overlook that the analyst is unnamed [but we're expected to believe him], but why throw darts if AMAT and NVLS are "the only reasonable stocks in the group."? Why not just invest in those two? But even that can't be right because "most spending will go to traditional goods that Intel and others will be stocking up on, such as photomask equipment. That should benefit mask-making companies like Etec Systems (ETEC) and Dupont Photomasks (DPMI)." Anyway, from the article it is clear that once again the small investor has screwed up and put his money into the wrong stocks. I'll sell them first thing in the morning. Or not. Gottfried