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 : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: On the QT who wrote (103228)	2/19/1999 11:53:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

QT, an excellent post. It is much appreciated. The point of my comments regarding stock buybacks was not so much future performance as it was to point out that buybacks are really dividends in drag. TTFN, CTC

To: On the QT who wrote (103228)	2/20/1999 9:59:00 AM
From: Greg Jung	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

QT, your assumption is wrong about MDB: You seem to know sooner than most when to get on and get off. Wonder how much learned in one game influenced the other? Burke is a PC bear permanently, not a timer. About stock buybacks: Depending on the buyback price. At $22/share dell gets a good deal when it buys back stock. There are several stocks out there, retailers for instance, where the earnings alone without growth can be used for stock buyback and increase of underlying asset value/share. In fact the whole market has been bear with great value outside of the stocks with unfathomable valuations. Greg

To: On the QT who wrote (103228)	2/20/1999 4:07:00 PM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

QT, I agree about academic studies in general. I participated in a few in grad school and had to study many others, and, for the most part, I found them pretty useless critters. A lot of your results depend upon the dates you pick to measure. For example, one study, commissioned by Drexel Burnham, "proved" that investors in junk bonds make more money all the time than those who buy investment grade bonds. I look at this sort of thing like I do a Quaker Oats study that oat bran cures heart disease, cancer, impotence and a gimpy CD player. <g> The Drexel study proved a trap for those who bought junks right before Mike Milkin was arrested. So, to say I question the academic studies of stock buybacks is, as a Valley Girl would say, for sure, for sure. I agree about meaningful exchanges. Yes, we all have positions from which we are arguing. Otherwise, what's the point? But there are reasons why we took those positions. If we can lay out our facts, then overlay them with our projections based upon those facts, we get a lot of useful info. Especially if we disagree about an issue. Unfortunately, forums like SI should be perfect for that sort of thing, but they are not. Too many folks are emotionally attached to issues and some, sadly, just ain't too bright. On both sides of the issue. You know the argument, "I bought it and it went up so I am smart." <g> Heck, I made 1600% on a Ciena put last year because I miscounted the number of contracts I had left when I unwound a profitable position (but, sadly, not 1600% profitable <G>). Was I smart because I made that money? Nope. In fact, I made it because I was dumb. How much money you made on a stock or option or commodity does not mean that you are brilliant. Luck, good and bad, can play a huge roll. On horseracing, I recommend a book by a buddy of mine who often posts on SI, David Feldman. The book is called "How To Win At Just About Everything." Two chapters discuss the relationship of stock investing to horse betting and compares and contrasts the various schools of thought in both endeavors. It is funny but also right on the money. I came to horse racing long after I started stock investing. But I think a contrarian approach is the best way to win in both. I do win on the ponies over the course of a year, but since I am betting long and medium shots in exotics, I don't win often. I would rather win $800 on a $16 bet every 20 races than $25 on a $16 bet every other race. <g> To me, the key to both markets is that the public overbets the favorites. And why not? They are the ones that have done well recently. But the price they pay does not equal the probability of winning. However, where they diverge is that I have made a great living investing whereas I would never even think about trying to make a living horse racing. The losing streaks for a contrarian can last longer than I could handle. And the amounts I would have to bet would be more than I am willing to put down on a dumb animal and a, hopefully, honest jockey and trainer. Good Luck, MB