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 : e.Digital Corporation(EDIG) - Embedded Digital Technology -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kerry Sakolsky who wrote (2352)	2/11/1999 1:13:00 PM
From: Walter Morton	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18366

<I believe we will see a net profit> WOW! Renwick isn't even predicting a net profit. I hope you are right. <Embedded digital technology is leading edge.> Embedded digital technology sounds impressive, but is vague at best. I think, EDIG had benefited more from that phase than from it's new name. It sounds so cutting edge, but what does it mean. I'm sure the average new investor, like Joe and all of his friends that are no where to be found, does not know what embedded digital technology means. I think some people invested in this stock because of that phrase.

To: Kerry Sakolsky who wrote (2352)	2/11/1999 1:28:00 PM
From: chris431	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18366

"Your claims lack substance." What claims? I have made no other claims except that Lucent and Intel are far from guaranteed and that Lanier is are only real revenue stream. Those claims lack substance? If anything lacks substance, it is the underlying notion that Intel and Lucent are going to develop into huge deals for EDIG. We simply do not know. And, as I previously posted, Intel invests hundreds of millions of dollars in small companies through venture type work....to suggest that all these companies are now "hot" companies or have the probability of becoming large companies is false. Rather, the probability is low (how many Intel's has Intel made? Hmmmm, none through direct investment or capital work....Dell, etc. do not fall under this category). That is a numerical fact! I did not say Lucent was going to avoid the internet music market nor that Intel would avoid the embedded digital markets. All I said is that there is a chance Lucent will avoid or not suceed in the market we are interested in and that Intel may very well not have EDIG as part of it's future plans. While others here would rather proclaim how great EDIG is b/c of this potential, I would rather look at the probable reality (explained above). "is if there are other companies competing for the same relationships with Intel and Lucent." Which much of my comments have been geared toward. EDIG is not a guaranteed in with either company. Others here would rather turn their cheek on this fact b/c they bought in at these higher valuations. Kerry....have you bought any shares at these levels? If not, why? "EDIG like other companies will be trading on its potential. Of course adverse market conditions could change things." Bingo! I applaud you for your very straight forward statements (I tend to be wordy). If you look at my comments and reread them, you will see that I completely agree. Just for some reason, people don't like it when you call this type of trading "speculation" or "hype" when that is really what it is. I find it interesting that no one has yet to come forth with a complete argument that refutes much of the claims I made in my lenghty posts questioning digital online distributions immediate future (please note, immediate). Rather, pot shots were posted or bland, general comments that actually were not even applicable or directly related to what I said. I make this statement only b/c I think it shows that no one has yet been able to demonstrate that "online digital distribution" as far as being a money maker isn't "hype" or "speculation." It is, pure and simple. Nor have I ever said EDIG can't trade on speculation. I simply insisted it be called what it is, speculation. If it's not speculation (which it appears you are conceding) then I'd like to know what it is. As such, I would prefer to look at the volume/price trend and wait a few days/weeks to buy more shares. Several members of this thread have privately posted to me that they are in agreement to this analysis. If my critics are so damn certain about their position, then why are they not posting anything more concrete or explanatory than short little "oh, look at it go....it's going to be $100 next week, etc." Simple....they're not b/c they know any position right now is held speculatively. As such, I will again reinstate the use of probability....probability dictates that EDIG will probably not live up to the current speculation. Simple enough. My actions also speak loudly. While I have not added to my holdings, I certainly haven't sold my holdings. This says that while I realize this is short term speculation that is likely to slow w/out further positive news, I am not willing to take the risk of selling my current holdings in fear that I will miss out on upside movement (which we have recently seen in the form of 600% upside(if you take into acct. the $.50 sell....which may have been a printing error). I understand the power of speculation....but I also understand that speculation without support results in lower prices. And EDIG is not the AMZN, YHOO, etc. that will have alot of volume no matter the speculation. This is EDIG, OTC:BB, that use to trade maybe 100,000/day. My posts have either been theoretical posts (short term legitimacy of online digital distribution or long term impact of digital distribution) or posts merely stating what WE DO KNOW. Lastly, I have never stated I know of a correct method for valuating speculation....too bad b/c the nobel prize would be calling. Rather, I have suggested we look at what we DO KNOW and compare it with previous historical prices. Furthermore, in this post, I suggest we look at the historical occurrence of momentum in relation to price and volume. Rather than stating my "claims lack substance" (of which claims you do not point out....at least give me the opportunity of knowing which claims you are discussing) there are alternative arguments that are equally persuasive as the ones I have made that do not require refuting my claims (of which you did give). For instance, it could be argued that the lows many of us have been holding through were the result of non-market forces forcing the price below true-market value (warrant conversion sells). That is possible (although this argument violates the technical meaning of market....but alas, no need to digress). Kerry, you're argument that speculation can affect the price of a stock. This is without question. In fact, it can be argued that the market value of the stock includes all matters of speculation (and as such speculation is part of the market value....2 forms of speculation, I might add). The last argument I will suggest is that when uncalcuable factors become the most important aspect of the valuation, there is no method to calculate except through the expectations of the buyers and sellers (which is done through the price). As such, most here are now holding that the scant Intel and Lucent (uncalcuable factor at this time) deals are more important than any Lanier deal. It appears, Kerry, you are holding to arguments 2 and 3. Unfortunately, we have seen many recent posts here that want to rely on #3 and thus post nothing but info on stock price and where the stock is going. Unfortunately, this doesn't help the holder know when to sell or when to purchase more. Chris