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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alohal who wrote (57133)	4/23/1999 1:35:00 PM
From: S. maltophilia	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Aloha- A year ago you could buy all you want @~110. Now you can buy all you want at 200+. Are you buying now?-g-

To: Alohal who wrote (57133)	4/23/1999 4:40:00 PM
From: Earlie	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 132070

Aloha. Tell you what,....why don't you just scan the papers on the week-end for anything that relates to IBM. I'm sure you might find some interesting reading. After that, then come back and I'll happily have a discussion with you. Just to whet your appetite, what do you think an intelligent investor should pay for a company that hasn't had ANY consequential growth for three years, (take a guess as to what the year-to-year growth of both revenues and operating profits are). And what if that company's execs have been vaporizing the assets of the company over that same time frame just to hold up the stock price up while they "off" their stock (take another guess as to how significantly the actual book value of the company has fallen over the last few years),....would that bother you at all? And what if that same company has used plenty of smoke and mirrors to make things look acceptable,...no worries about that? And have you ever wondered as to the remarkable coincidence of the fact that as IBM''s high margin business revenues (especially maintenance) has fallen quarter after quarter, that the service business revenues (much lower margins) have just happened to rise enough to replace the lost revenues? No concern that old Louis might be booking too much of the new contracts in year one? Should a company that is all of the above have seen its share price rise 400% over that 3 year period while it limped along? If you are long this stock, you are gambling, not investing. With the exception of plenty of snake oil, the company is in worse shape than it was three years ago, when you could have bought as much as you wanted at under $48. Now it's at $200. That rise speaks to the mania, not to the company or its progress. Best, Earlie