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 : OnSale Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chirodoc who wrote (2826)	12/26/1998 10:02:00 AM
From: sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4903

This article came out early during the week -- and was obviously timed to try to slow the momentum of the stock. I have previously discussed my reasons for being less concerned with the margins for low-end computer products at this point. It's not a new phenomenon. We are at the end of a computer cycle and the low end products are the ones selling. And they are getting cheaper. That's why resellers like ONSL will be doing so well this quarter. Lots of product is leaving their doors. When the next generation of computers hits the market, people will be less inclined to buy closeout 233 mmxs and will want the newer bells and whistles. Thus, in my opinion, ONSL must stay in front of the curve. And that's precisely why it is critical for ONSL to move quickly into the broader business to business market. That's the home run! They know it. We know it. If they screw it up I'll close my position and move on. If they seem likely to succeed, I'll buy a boatload of stock. As for M31's "concern" for my "hurting myself" due to my wrongheaded understanding of options -- thanks. And I don't mean that in an insincere or sarcastic way. (Who am I kidding -- yea I do!). All I ask is that we be honest here in our posts. You claim my opinions are "bogus." Perhaps they are. But at least I'm honest in expressing them. Are you? Or are you simply trying to scare people who have invested their hard earned money in ONSL and other "tulips" into selling at a loss so (I assume) you can profit from their fear. I apologize if I misread your jabs at me. But that's the impression you are giving off. Finally, forgive me for being heavy handed here, but I would like to make one last point. This is not a stock for the faint of heart. It can return to the 20s in a flash. Or it could take off for the hundreds and never turn back. Or it can do both in the span of one week. In my opinion, continued upward movement is tied to the coming B2B site's success, general market conditions and the public's continuing embrace of internet commerce. ONSL is a serious risk. We should all understand this -- regardless of the position we decide to take (long or short). I would never advise anyone to put their lifesavings into a stock like this (or any stock for that matter). Do your homework. Call the company. Speak to as many people who you trust will give you HONEST opinions and come to your own conclusions. And have a happy holiday!

To: chirodoc who wrote (2826)	12/26/1998 11:17:00 AM
From: Jim Duffett	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4903

I am somewhat livid about the article, but have not yet joined the others who have written. Frankly the article is a suspiciously timed summary of several other articles that have appeared this quarter. There is exactly zero new information and the quotes she attributed to the two analysts have both been published before. I feel she misrepresented what they had to say for reasons known only to her. The quote about Onsale being desperate was utterly rediculous. The original article it came from talked of ALL sellers of PCs and PC related equipment and what the recent price wars have done to EVERYONE's margins. It went on to state, and she chose not to include, that Onsale has done a better job than most during this time and stood in a better position than most to capitaize from what are expected to be better margins on similar items in the coming year. I shall try to find a link to the original article(s) and post them. If anyone else remembers this and/or has this info, please share it. I am considering writing the editor and requesting a retraction. Regards, Duff