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.

Biotech / Medical : CLZR:a potential 10 bagger? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bob Davis who wrote (107)	3/17/1999 10:00:00 PM
From: raefon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 315

Unfortunately, IMO Mr. Davis skews his research depending on his position. While I certainly cannot prove this, I could offer anecdotal evidence. Secondly, how could anyone who follows this company have "sold their position" recognizing the company has publicly stated that each quarter of FY 1999 will have higher revenues and earnings? Lastly, how could anyone who has done a research report on the company not be aware that one very sophisticated holder had accumulated over 24% of the stock for his customers? I was a buyer up to $9 1/2 over the last couple trading days. I am looking for $12 in the next 45 days. With that said, Bob Davis is good at what he does. But I do frequently find his logic perplexing. Why did you sell CLZR Bob? The fundamentals continue to accelerate....Finding 'em is only half the battle, having the courage of your convictions makes you rich...

To: Bob Davis who wrote (107)	5/16/1999 10:21:00 PM
From: moat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 315

> One of the criticisms that I have received over the years, > from both professional journalists and individual investors, > is that my ownership of the stocks that are followed in > The Napeague Letter represents a conflict of interest, even > though I have always clearly stated my holdings. As a result, > I plan at some point in the near future to no longer own > stocks that The Napeague Letter follows, and to convert TNL > into a purely "journalistic product". > > This is not a reflection on any of the stocks followed > by TNL, but instead represents one aspect of my strategy > to develop TNL as an Internet investment E-zine. Respectfully, I don't agree. I believe your readers will be better served if you did own the stocks you write about. We feel a lot better if you had real money on the line. Can you imagine if Buffett and Munger just talked about Coke and did not own the stock? That would be silly. Thanks for your great web site!