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 : Ampex Corporation (AEXCA) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: B. A. Marlow who wrote (5129)	2/2/1999 7:24:00 AM
From: TheBusDriver	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17679

Nice post BAM. wayne

To: B. A. Marlow who wrote (5129)	2/2/1999 12:17:00 PM
From: Scott Pedigo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17679

Insightful comments, and on the mark. As an aside, although I started as a Nuclear Engineer, I long ago transformed myself into a Software Engineer. It's computer programming, but my engineering education is useful in handling hardware problems and tying the software to the real-world problem. I specialize in real-time programming, learned it first with industrial machines, and currently am working on a radar tracking and fire control system. The dominant traits that make me a good engineer do not make me a good businessman. I should be working in Silicon Valley instead of investing in it. You are absolutely correct that I have got in my own way in the matter of buying companies like Microsoft. I don't avoid blue chips altogether. I have been in and out of IBM and Compaq in the past. I bought them when they had been hammered and sold them later for a respectable profit, but nothing like what I would have had now if I'd just sat on the holdings. I have a sense of when a company's price is just too undervalued to stay there for long, but little or no sense of how far up it may go. (For the record, I say AXC is still undervalued!) Now in the specific case of Microsoft, there is a solid basis to the company in terms of everything: products, market, revenue, profit, cash, growth. One could pay too much, but it would be like paying a premium to the dealer for an in-demand, well-engineered car. Upon leaving the lot, one might find that the real market value was a bit less, and if the demand later slacked off, significantly less, but one would still have something with intrinsic value. I don't think you can be in the U.S. without having heard of Beanie Babies. My mom collects those things. Some of them are selling for up to $2000. For a $6 stuffed bean-bag animal. My mom won't pay over $40-$50, so her collection isn't 100% complete. Fortunately, she is not collecting as an investment. If the demand for these slacks off, somebody who spent many thousand bucks is going to be left with a lot of beans. In the meantime, you can buy a retired one for $100 this month and sell it next month for $200. Something somewhere inbetween: the Tokyo real-estate I mentioned. Intrinsic value. At one time, steadily climbing value. The recipe to get rich: buy high, sell higher. Worked for everybody except the last one to buy before the crash. So we have to differentiate between high-priced blue chip stocks, and high-priced speculative stocks. The former arguably still make sense in every respect except value-investing. The latter have to be carefully examined on a case-by-case basis. I'm sure that Yahoo!, Excite, AOL/Netscape, Amazon.com etc. have potential to earn great profits. That's why their prices are so high. But I don't think that the future market will be such a giant pie that all of their slices will be big enough for them to survive. And before the market shakes out, there is going to be a lot more cutthroat competition, just like we have seen in the software business. I read somewhere that the computer game market has passed up the movie biz in total revenue. That didn't keep Broderbund or many others afloat. Too many me-too games flooded the market. I'm kind of jumping back and forth between two different themes here which only obliquely touch on the real question: should we be trying to sell everyone on AXC? I don't think we have any disagreement that AXC has great potential and is therefore a worthy investment, if one can stomach the risk. One way for AXC to pay off is if it realizes its potential and its price goes up several fold to a normal P/E as its revenues start growing instead of sinking. Another way is if the market perception changes positively even if nothing has changed materially for AXC. In either case, the word has to be gotten out for something to happen. I don't have a problem with the former. I would have a problem encouraging not only my friends but even people I don't know to buy a stock whose price rise would benefit me if the only reason for that stock's price increase would be their buying of it. Explain to me how this differs from a pyramid scheme. I couldn't even sell Amway products as a college student after I figured out that the company's sole emphasis on each salesperson recruiting ever more salespeople was a barely legal pyramid scheme. I have too much of a conscience to ever make a good salesman. I don't believe this is the case with Ampex. The company IS going somewhere. I don't have any problem with informing other people who are looking for such an investment. Most of my relatives and friends don't have the nerves for it - they need to stick to the blue chips. What gives me pause is your explicitly stated goal of trying to get the price up merely by getting a bunch of new buyers. Well, perhaps you are right if one puts it in context. If you can convince a hard-nosed experienced investor that AXC is a good risk, and they put their money in after researching it and agreeing with you, then this is because it really is a good investment. If you convince a clueless newcomer to the market to invest blindly in AXC and they lose their shirt, then it is their fault anyway for not being more careful and they learn the hard way. Let's make some money. By the way, I remember your name from somewhere. Were you posting on this thread way back when, or did I more likely encounter it on a different one?