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 : Newbridge Networks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robert who wrote (9633)	2/13/1999 4:51:00 PM
From: Ian@SI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18016

I couldn't help thinking about NN as I read this part of a story in Barron's today... ... Was Buffett not concerned about risk? Of course he was, but not those risks that were most pertinent to the shorter-term-oriented, more rigidly constrained investors who were unwittingly making him wealthier every time they sold him another share. Those investors, quite like today's big mutual-fund complexes, were disproportionately worried about their short-term investment results and their clients' perception of same. In such a world, relative underperformance is a disaster and the longer term is measured by the frequency with which investment results are evaluated. Risk for them is not being stupid but looking stupid. Risk is not overpaying, but failing to overpay for something everyone else holds. Risk is more about standing apart from the crowd than about getting clobbered, as long as you have a lot of company. History Doesn't Quite Repeat History never repeats itself exactly. So in 1998 investors urgently seeking liquidity are selling not Washington Post but small-cap and emerging-market equities. Investors tired of underperforming don't sell Dell Computer (no one, it seems, sells Dell), which they love for what it has done for them no matter how expensive it has become. It is so much easier for them to sell whatever has recently disappointed investor expectations, no matter how inexpensive it has become. Mutual-fund managers, desperate to put cash to work, don't buy what is cheap but what is working, since what is cheap by definition hasn't been working. ... Whole story at: (for WSJ subscribers) interactive.wsj.com

To: Robert who wrote (9633)	2/13/1999 5:02:00 PM
From: Doug	Respond to of 18016

Robert: Most will agree with Mr Woo who has been very impartial. These problems would have likely first made their early showings in Dec & earlier.If you see the late Dec postings, the Company showed no hint of the problem. Instead they published a series of Press releases on an increasing no of Contracts being netted. The Company even jumped the gun on G1 and hopefully pinpointed a day. These announcements made many on this Board euphoric. Thereafter many posts on this Board about earnings and Contracts looked very authoritative. In reality the authors had absolutely no idea of the details. I often wonder what motivates people to be so authoritative especially when the facts prove them hopelessly wrong. They most likely have a very strong ego to accept such credibility risk. During last weeks crisis, I observed that NN seems to still adhere to its policy of Pre-announcements. This time it is some minor acquisitions to be made 2 weeks from now. What indeed was the purpose of the pre-announcement.?