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: Mike Gordon who wrote (110559)	3/22/1999 8:35:00 AM
From: Mark Peterson CPA	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 176387

Does anyone have an opinion on this matter? Perhaps the decrease in Dell's stock during the last month is more of a forward indication that profit realized in its derivative trading (selling puts on Dell, buying calls on Dell) will be less robust in the future than it has been in the past than it is a slackening of revenue growth or unit sales related to its core business activity. Just thinking about it, when a company like IBM, fantasizes about doing something with Dell that it doesn't really want to announce at this point, if it were to involve some merger of operations in whatever form, the valuations IMO would probably exclude realized derivative profits as some form of nonrecurring activity. Although I haven't run the numbers to support this theory, by my way of thinking, if one were to exclude the derivative activity, this would probably be sufficient to depress the price of Dell to where it is currently trading, thereby effectively realigning the price of the stock more closely to the market's perception of the value of Dell's core business operations, which is where you would want it to be if you were in an "aquisitive" mode. But on the other hand, the recent fall-off in IBM's price could also be suggestive of IBM's expected transfer of all of its white box business to Dell and the uncertainty of how such a move will impact IBM... So, could others fill in the blanks here? What am I missing? Mark A. Peterson

To: Mike Gordon who wrote (110559)	3/22/1999 9:35:00 AM
From: PAL	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 176387

I have read this 90% of options buyers lose several time, from Ben Antanatis's website to people talking about it. I checked with several people from CBOE who gives seminars about options. Yet the figure varies from 60% and up. Still there is no definite reference of which study shows what level of options expires worthless. If anybody knows a reference material to this matter please post. TIA Paul

To: Mike Gordon who wrote (110559)	3/22/1999 12:16:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

Mike, you said, If 90% of options buyers loose, then 90% of options seller win. I have to disagree. The reason is the huge spread in bid/ask prices. Often that spread will be 10% or more for OTM options. Options are a zero sum game only if transaction costs are eliminated. TTFN, CTC