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 : Source Media SRCM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MW who wrote (1980)	12/20/1998 5:21:00 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3015

MW, this might surprise you, but I think we're all in agreement&#151Steve, Auric, you and me, too. The company isn't a complete sham and I don't think Steve has ever stated that. Perhaps you're reading too much into his posts, as you've done with mine? Heck, SRCM and I even have a common customer, so I don't think they're a sham. However, the business model doesn't lend itself to a "high revenue-low expense-high profit" situation. It's not a major money maker. I think that's all the shorts are suggesting. Thus, whilst the stock is not a "Less-Than-Zero" sham situation, it will find a warm, cozy home in SingleDigitLand&#153 when the hype smoke clears. You disagree, and that's fine. One should note, however, that Steve and Auric research thoroughly enough to earn their high batting averages. People get hosed on the other side of the bet. I'm leaving to freeze my ass in Colorado for what some might call a vacation. You guys have fun, and try not to kick out each others' teeth whilst I'm gone. Hope there's still a thread when I get back. Later, -MrB

To: MW who wrote (1980)	12/20/1998 11:18:00 AM
From: Nevada	Respond to of 3015

MW nice call on srcm so far. I cut my short position based on <a href="https://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=6818072> </a> and that has worked out well for me. (I use some technicals to value exit points and to enter positions). Main purpose of message is to note that the current techs are short term negative on srcm. Sure wish this and related threads were less vitriolic and "worshippy" and really more about dd and making money. Such hatred and mean spirited posts cost me time to read and do not add to my wallet. I can now say that I have been on both sides of srcm and made money both ways. I thought that what is was all about. (I will take a new short position tomorrow am, but will have my fingers ready to exit- as one trader said- there seem to be two types of short term traders- the quick and the dead). Srcm seems a most viable candidate for short term traders.

To: MW who wrote (1980)	12/20/1998 11:52:00 AM
From: Kevin Podsiadlik	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3015

it could go either way. I agree. The thing is, that could mean a lot of things. For starters, what do we define as "success"? For now, it looks like a major milestone would be making it through the next twelve months without defaulting on the interest payments on their debt. (Certainly without that debt, I would not have put any money into the bearish case.) Even that, though, would seem to be far short of most measures of "success", for example, establishing itself with some sort of loyal customer base. "Could go either way" also seems a bit vague to me. Ostensibly it means "50-50", but in a literal sense it could mean any chance right down to "scoring a nine-digit Powerball jackpot" and "the sun not rising tomorrow morning". I agree with the others, SRCM is not a sham in the sense of it not ever intending to make money. Intentions, though, just pave roads that go where you don't want to. God bless the engineers that work for them, but unfortunately they look to me as if they're just too far behind the technology curve to hope to compete. MW, please don't call yourself a winner until you've got the cash in your account. Call me a sadist, but I get a kick out of reading the most incredible rah-rah long posts on stocks literally days or even hours before they take a major dive. There are a hundred of those for every such post on the short side. Which still falls under the aegis of "going either way", but we've already been over that ground.