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 : Gateway (GTW) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kory who wrote (6963)	1/3/1999 12:30:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8002

kory, granted, my view was not right on gtw's growth rate (i would have checked it but i don't know how to get data back that far). that is precisely why i put in question form. you answered the question and i learned something - as did others. i never try and misinform people. i'm not gtw management ;-) doesn't mean i'm infallible by any stretch of the imagination. as for 150% appreciation, i stick to it as being totally reasonable. if i used the low for 1996, i would have said 400%. the low was $10, kory. is the chart wrong? here is the chart... quote.yahoo.com again, i'm not manipulating data. i took the avg for 1996 and the avg for 1998. i didn't take the low for 1996 and the high for 1998 b/c then i would have said 500%. 150% and 500% are two vastly different numbers. looking at the chart, your $33 value was higher than gtw ever closed at in 1996. maybe the graph is wrong. however, i think it is reasonable to compare q4 to q4 so i'm not accusing you of manipulating data. the extra $3 or $4 per the chart doesn't make too much difference in reducing the growth rate. so, you know that $20 was about the avg price for the 1996. $50 was about the avg price for 1998. that is a 150% increase, right? it is reasonable to use avg price for a year's period as the earnings are earned over the 12 month period right? 150% stands as a reasonable calculation. i didn't use 400% nor 500%. maybe i didn't use the calculation you would use, but what i did was totally reasonable, nonetheless. nothing sinister here, kory. good luck...