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 : Altaba Inc. (formerly Yahoo) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dave Mansfield who wrote (19392)	1/29/1999 12:11:00 AM
From: oldcrow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27307

YHOO CEO was on the Cavuto Business report again tonight.... ...looks like tomorrow will be another miserable day for the shorts (if there are any left, at the moment)...

To: Dave Mansfield who wrote (19392)	1/29/1999 12:55:00 AM
From: HG	Respond to of 27307

Dave, Under normal circumstances, my response to a post like this would be significantly less arguementative...the desire to prove my point has left me,I let my actions do the talking. And all that I have to say, has been said by me before, I feel like a proverbial parrot when I repeat this, so I often do not participate now a days....But the respect I have for you necessitates a meaningful response...so here I am. <<< Someday, a $200-$300 correction might occur and it would be better to invest after the event rather than before it.>>>> I can't believe you're saying this. We just had a massive correction. And you're still saying its not the right price. What *is Dave ? I remember your comment on YHOO. You had mentioned a target price of $30. Don't you think that is an extremist view ? <<<<Will Yahoo earn $15-$20 per by the year 2002? I think not. And if they begin heading in that direction, might the likes of Microsoft, GE/NBC (Snap), Disney/ABC (Go Network), AOL/Netscape and others with much more capital put it to Yahoo? >>>> What if it did earn $15 ? What then ? Can you travel thru time to invest in YHOO at its inception ? I watched MSFT make millionaires, AOL make millionaires, AMZN make millionaires while I sat in my little office and talked about importance of valuation models and operating margins. This time,I'll be damned if I let myself be confined to the narrow limitations of my mind. We are in a new world. And MSFT has tried to make inroads. ANd how does it matter if YHOO does not emerge as #1 ? Is investing in #2 or #3 so bad ? And I'm a bit confused about your statements. Sometimes you seem to be talking about the "internets being overvalued" and yet, at other times you single out YHOO. If AOL takes the lead, well, the overvaluation is relative, isn't it ? YHOO is not any more or less overvalued than AOL - or is it ? At the risk of repeating this arguement, I'll remind you - I was a UNIX guru in 85. Nothing was better than Unix. Nothing could beat Unix. The Unix/Digital combination seemed deadly. In 1990, when I headed the IT division of an international airport, I had the opportunity to phase out the legacy systems and introduce a new architectural framework to take them to the 21st century. I looked at NT, it had just been launched, and I laughed, just like you are laughing right now. In hindsight, I wish I hadn't been as arrogant, as closed and as sure of the present as I was. The network survived, it still runs. But NT would have been so much easier, cheaper, standard in the long run..........Fortunately, I had had the foresight to provide a PC backbone for office automation products which evolved into the defacto LAN. I shudder to think of the waste if I had stuck to my Unix concept , I had briefly toyed with the idea of introducing Wordperfect on Unix....many organisations did just that, only to throw out the investment at a later date..... Point I'm trying to make is - we need to keep an open mind re: the future. I am reproducing relevant portions from my post# 28563 on "Lets talk about our feelings". That might help explain our limitations in visualising the growth. But before I leave you with the pearls of wisdom <grin> I would like to say that we can cite the numbers, give you numeric proof of our belief, and many of us have tried that, the numbers have been cited before by people who are much more numerally literate than I am. But will that help at all ? Has that helped in the past ? If it will help now, please let me know and we can take this discussion off site. Meanwhile, for what it is worth - here is what I feel about our ability to see the future : ---------------------------------------------------------------- I once read somewhere that up until now human beings were neurologically unable to conceive about the future, the inhibition being genetically imposed. The larval nervous system creates earth bound realities. For the caterpillar to think about flying would be survivally risky. It involves short periods and narrow perspectives. Farmer looks to the next harvest, parents look to their children. Larval civilizations operate on the basis of calculated ignorance about the future. The four brained person doesn't want to know about the future as it threatens the stability of the reality imprint. Thus four brained societies do not want to know because prospection would lessen the motivation to work blindly towards organized uncertainity. Does that explain Nostradamus's, Prophets and Gods of the world ? Neurological mutations ? Who knows. -----------------------------------------------------------------