List Table Action

Table On-Topic Summary - 15-Sep-2002

A compilation of this board's financial/economic posts From 41992 to 42010
Post 41992 by Warstud Reply

Don't Get me wrong.. What I said in the post below still applies! Just wanted to make that clear. http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=TABLE&read=41597
Post 41993 by artsuh_taraz Reply

Pricegriz: . . I would be remiss not to acknowledge . . . . . . the back and forth going on. But before that . . . You flatter me (I think!?!). White dwarfs, secret powers, one ring to rule them all . . . you have set me to daydreaming. Do you see how easily AT becomes distracted!!! But seriously, I can only go so far as to assume that you were alluding to the discord here at Table (I assume that it's "recent" but perhaps its been festering for a long time – I simply don't follow the posts here anymore). Since, here we all are, allow me to lead into something . . . before my post the other day, I glanced over a few weeks worth of posts and read the heated debate regarding expensing stock options. I really had no intention on getting into that. But again, here we are. So, I fall squarely on the side that stock options should be expensed. But, you see, here is a problem. I could recount the arguments, but I have no desire to take an intellectual battering on the issue. So what would I do? Backed into a corner, this white dwarf would fight. That would take time and energy and effort that I do not possess in excess. AND, this is not a "money making" issue for me. Sure, I may call my congressman about it, but it would end at that. For what would I have expended all this time? From whence comes a burning need to convince others? So, I either put in a lot of time, or I get a lashing. I am cringing already. Or, perhaps I'd be spared the lashing, and only be given a stern dosage of tutelage. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with tutelage. I am all for the advancement of knowledge. But, you know Griz (can I call you Griz?), white dwarf that I may be, there are some things that by accident or design I've come to know something about. And what then? What about those topics? The same. I'd still be subject to the tutelage. (Oh, the disquiet of that thought!) Unyielding, unbridled, and unbecoming tutelage. You may recall (I assume you were around then) that a few days before taking leave of Table, I wrote a post saying that some people seem to believe they know more than everyone else. The whole "beauty" (used loosely) of Table (in years gone by), was that there was something of an implicit recognition that not one person had all the answers, and that together, with a myriad of minds at work, we could collectively outperform. Now, I do NOT pretend to hold any special claims to Table. I WAS MERELY A CONTRIBUTOR. I gave my advice freely and honestly, with the (naļve?) hope and trust that others with money making ideas would be acting in the same spirit. When that environment ceased to exist (and it did indeed cease to exist), concordance dictated that I take leave . . . or to use the words of Mitya Karamazov (Dostoyevsky), that I "bow out." I am not given to ill-will. I wish the best for all of those who have interacted with me in the same spirit as I did with them (the majority). The September 11th anniversary gave me an urge to come back with greetings, as I was an active participant a year ago and we shared our grief together on this Table. Well, AT may be many things . . . simple as all get-go, a white dwarf, low-tech, balding, sentimental, a lover of classic literature, taste-less when it comes to wine, heavy on academics, and even heavier on becoming a better person (In the end, we will be judged on how well we have loved!!!) . . . but Griz (you're okay with Griz, right?), there's one thing that AT ain't . . . he ain't no lackey for no body. So, you see, despite its appearances, pretenses, and a colorful (emphasis) peacockishness (emphasis), Table is no place for the likes of me. (Hear a few sighs of "Amen" in the background?) Enough said. But one thing of particular interest did come out of the recent events. That is that Culmus is up 10% year-to-date!!! (I have no reason to doubt him; he has always struck me as both honest and a shrewd operator in the market.) Man-oh-man, if I had a big chunk of money and was looking for someone to run it I would be cutting him a check today, as I understand he is in that line of work. I'm not kidding about that. (And, I don't say that lightly. I have a buddy from college who is the Portfolio Manager for a 2 Billion dollar mutual fund. A great guy, but I wouldn't give him a dime of my money. I used to help him with his economics homework for crying out loud.) You see, it's happened. This post is already much longer than I intended. I might as well go on . . . I don't want to be a "talk only" kind of dwarf, so I will relate my entire market position: % Invested: 8% Stocks Long: ELBO (none others) % Cash: 92% Stocks Short: None, but that is because shorting takes more time than I am able to devote these days. I did well enough calling the late July and August bounce, but have stayed very light on long positions the past few weeks. It’s a risky environment. I might increase my ELBO position on a pull-back though, depending on the price action. I might also sell, again depending on the price action. At current prices, firm conviction is unlikely to yield many gains, IMO. Other "Money Making" Ideas: Short the Hong Kong market. (it is in an economically dire situation that is only going to get worse, IMO.) Well, I guess that wasn't so hard – bare as a white dwarf's butt. Thank you for inviting me to stick around, but later next week my respite will end and my capacity to remain among old acquaintances will be likewise diminish. Perhaps once every six months I could try to pop in for a weekend; but really it would be mainly to say Hi. BTW, ever read Proust? Somewhere in his 3,000 page book there is a quote along the lines of: we search and search for someone to bow down to, and failing to find him, we are, in effect, forced to remain free. (That’s off the top of my head, definitely NOT verbatim – that's the gist though; I'd have to dig some books out of storage to get the exact quote.) I don't mean that quote to be directed toward you (double-dwarf-honest). It's just meant as a compliment to my previous one from Basho (in case you have forgotten: "Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Seek what they sought"). Best regards, AT
Post 41994 by artsuh_taraz Reply

Maldinero: very kind and . . . classy, yes, classy, to send me your greetings after I inadvertently forgot to mention you specifically in mine. Best regards, AT
Post 41995 by artsuh_taraz Reply

Clo . . . a few words . . . I've missed you too. AT
Post 41996 by maniati OT: A.T.: A quick question...
Post 41997 by artsuh_taraz Reply

Dear Maniati: All kidding and sarcasm aside . . . I did not mean that "list" to be either comprehensive (as is clear given my correspondence with Maldinero and by the use of "etc.") or to be a list of "friends" (not the word I used). I certainly have no ill will toward you or anyone here. Maniati, it is my supposition that you are above me in years. And, Sir, I do not pretend to know you or your goals in life. And before I go any further, I must express regret that words from me might meet with muted reception. Though I can't recall a single disagreement we've ever had, you would probably agree that our rapport was rather neutral. Nor am I suggesting that anyone is to blame for this (or, even if so, that more of the blame would not rest upon my shoulders; indeed, it probably would). In any case, if we might take a large breath and wipe clean any slate before us (as this is perhaps our final correspondence), there is one thing I would like to say: Sir, if I may be so bold . . . from our limited interaction I respect you highly and fully believe that you are capable of accomplishing great things. To the degree that you are doing so and working toward doing so (in your own judgement, which I respect), I commend you and say bravo from the bottom of my heart. To the degree that you are not doing so (again, in your own judgement), I would simply suggest that better paths await you. In the words of Meister Eckhart, "The very best and utmost of attainment in this life is to remain still and let God act and speak in thee." This I have tried to do with all sincerity, and regret where my congenital inadequacies have led me astray. Humbly and respectfully yours, AT
Post 41998 by kduff OT: A bit of weekend humor. AT, Welcome back, it'
Post 41999 by pmcw Reply

AT, No need for long wind or an argument, just a simple formula. Showing your work, exactly how do you propose to expense a stock option on an income statement? Regards, pmcw
Post 42000 by Arkural Reply

OT-A.T.-Hunches prove themselves out in certain cases,,,,,, herein lies the credence to one, that is of your noted reapperance here! Arigato/Obrigado... Best along your pathway. Ark :-)
Post 42001 by pacemakernj OT: PMCW, well done! In one regard I guess I am a
Post 42002 by Culmus Reply

If you remember I have admitted you doing a great job with regard to these penny stock spammers, everybody appreciated you doing this and you had a very good batting average on those. I can't remember saying otherwise. Before getting to your other points I want to make one thing absolutely clear: You are a retired manager and very actively engaged in discussions on this forum, you are in fact the host and you have much more time available for this than I do. Maybe you spend that much time here because you try to gain something from it? I am not as actively engaged on this board, I have a business to run and I told you personally last year that the time I could commit to the board would decrease dramatically towards year end, it did. I have not read each and everyone of your posts since about a year (while you continue to assume that I do). I also have not posted each and everyone of my investment decisions on the board. Sometimes I wouldn't have the time. Also, why should I (more on that later)? Contrary to you I have no agenda on this board, I'm not the host and I have nothing to gain from it. It didn't pay to post an opinion that went contrary to yours, that only earned me lengthy discussions in your pursuit to win an argument or it earned me outright attacks as in the case of LU, which is down about 80% since. It takes a gain of 400% to make up for a loss of 80%. Over the course of last year I got convinced that buy and hold investing is a thing of the past for the time being. I reached a point where I wouldn't even keep what I previously labelled core holdings anymore, I even sold and bought LLTC several times. I joined Table on the second of February last year which was right after I had concluded a piece of research that made painfully clear that we had just entered the beginning of the unwinding of a bubble (I posted a link to a post I made elsewhere stating that, addressed to srudek). Heck, ever since I began posting on Table I had that pessimistic smell to me and was cautious (FYI, on February 2nd, 2001, the Nasdaq was trading at 2660.5 and standing at 1291 now it is down by 51.5% since). What's wrong about being bearish in a bear market? You are in denial of the bear market to this day and you have proposed averaging down all the way while the market has tanked. Ok, let's get further ahead. I admit that I have messed up the positive and the normative side as lined out by maniati repeatedly during our exchange about the expensing of options. No, not on purpose in order to further my arguments by what you now call lies, I simply didn't pay attention to that important distinction early enough. I started out that discussion with the normative side when you were talking about the positive side. However, I precisely clarified my viewpoint in a later post. I also acknowledged (repeatedly) being wrong about the liberty of managers to set the strike price at will and made clear that the enormous value of these option packages does not come from the strike price but from the length of time the option packages are valid. Before I entered that option discussion I pointed out that I hadn?t looked into options in any detail, so I simply stated what I observed and that was option exercises today at strike prices that only are a fraction of going stock prices (the exercising information made public does not disclose when these options were granted and I didn't assume these to be options granted as long ago as it later turned out to be the case). It is this type of exchange which I find so tiresome, having to repeat a statement ten times before you realize it as your insistence of being right makes you constantly overlook what others say. I have proved that point about strike prices and the long vesting periods with examples that perfectly confirmed this being the case, there are still options outstanding with strike prices that were set 10 years ago or longer. You can read, can you? Also the re-setting of strike prices if the stock price falls is a common occurrence, that fact has even been confirmed by the answer of CalPERS to an email by me which I posted. For further prove check out the basic and diluted number of outstanding shares of Altera at the end of last year and at the end of June, there were new options granted in the meantime. It is a further fact that Cisco has reserved 2 billion shares for option grants. At what strike price they will vest will only become known after they are being granted, I surely did not say "bargain basement prices" (again you are putting words in other people's mouth that never were told) when these prices are not known yet. I wanted to point out that insiders are reserving themselves almost 30% of outstanding shares, I don't take that as a modest claim by insiders. Whether you like that or not you can't prove these 2 billion shares being reserved for options to be wrong, it's in the 10-K. In addition to all options that CSCO insiders already have exercised there were a further 1.06 BILLION options already outstanding at the end of fiscal 2001, the 10-K for fiscal 2002 is not out yet. Otherwise I stated many times that IMO the equivalent of compensation has to be expensed but that this is not possible with options. If options cannot be expensed then compensation has to be by other means, cash (again, how often do I have to repeat this?). Next, XICO. You are again putting words in my mouth that I never said, I have not mentioned with a single word your "value buying range" on that stock. I said that you were calling a price of about $ 11 (from memory) an excellent buying point. Giving it further thought I admit that I might have mixed up XICO and HLIT, it doesn't matter, both tanked. No links to the posts as they distortet the post every time and I have already wasted hours on this: ISIL recommendation at $ 32 on November 29, 2001 (Blackfin article): Table post 30526 My post about more competition for ISIL: TABLE post 30519 XICO Buys 2.23.2002: Ca. $ 7.80 TABLE post 33133 XICO 4.9.2002: TABLE post 34120 Also see posts # 871 and 6665 on the HLIT board (links don't work). One clear example is your recent misstatement about my value buying range on XICO which, until 3/10 was $6.75 to $5.21 and never increased to above $8.50. As I've posted on the XICO board, I couldn't be happier (well I could if it dropped to $2) with the recent price collapse. Gosh, between $ 8 and $ 2 there lies a loss of 75%, it might be that you would be happy with that, I doubt other people appreciate such a development as much as you do. Twisting words again, I haven't mentioned your "value buying range" and hence I can't have posted a misstatement. I managed to come through 2000 with a low single digit loss after stratospheric gains in 1998 and 1999. Considering the choppiness of 2001, I'm very pleased with my modest gains that beat every equity index like a drum. However, you say that one can't just pick a place to start. I have taken the time and checked prices of your "new ideas for 2001" list which you posted on January 2nd, 2001, see the separate post to follow. I don't take the time to discuss stocks, technologies, sectors or economics to compete with anyone. I do it simply to share opinions and hopefully exchange perspectives. Sure I'm rough on those that constantly publish BS or on those who should know better, but use distorted data to support a thesis whether the thesis is right or wrong. I think it is apparent that your endeavours on this board are not as unselfish as you would like everyone to believe. Table has degraded from a polite open forum where people exchange investment opinions to a selling platform of your "newsletter". However, if you want to play the "portfolio game" the only appropriate place to start is when you're willing to (have the guts to) put something out here that can be measured. There are people who know about my allocation decisions (of getting long and getting out) which I have not posted, people who participate (or participated) on this board, just a select few, 4 or 5 people. I'm not going back in my posting history now since I know for sure that I have exited the market entirely on October 26th and stayed fully in cash until 3/14 as I have posted here. I again went fully into cash on May 15th while being on vacation which I have notified the mentioned select people of. I have re-entered the market peu ą peu during July and sold out entirely again at the open of August 23rd. That yielded me enough to reach 10% year-to-date (in dollars, we are comparing apples to apples, right?). I leave it up to the people whom I shared these decisions with to confirm this or not. Whether you believe me or not, I don't really care. Contrary to you I have no agenda on this board and hence don't feel obliged to post everyone of my moves. You have to, selling recommendations by you ahead of any significant market decline I can't remember (as I said I don't read each of your posts anymore. Maybe you did, then refer to the post/s please). While I wouldn't have a problem competing with you on the performance front I can't see what I would have to gain from this. If I did it here I would only help you, which I have no intention to do as you get paid for what you do. Besides I rather take care of my paying clients. And, more importantly, what are you sharing beyond rants of how our system in America, the foreign one you choose to invest in, is a failure? My goals are mine (Culmus: we know what these goals are) and they don't include beating you or anyone else, but if you're throwing out a challenge, please feel welcome to outline your terms and be prepared to step to the plate. I never called the American system a failure, it is extremely cheap to play the patriotic card here. Again putting lies in my mouth. If I felt the American system to be a failure why would I chose to invest there? I am not trying to "play the dollar" on a short term basis. I accept currency losses in between, since concentrating on the US markets in 1997 I'm still sitting on tons of currency gains, tons. The following sequence of my posts following 3/14 you cited I have covered above, all positions I bought on or after 3/14 were sold entirely on May 15th in anticipation of a severe summer correction. Again, there are people who can confirm that, whether they do it is up to them. If the aim is to take advantage of such a rise (should it happen) isn't in theory a high beta stock what you want to own? Well, EMLX has a beta of 3.5 and it is among the stocks that do have rather violent moves, in whatever direction that move might be." Well, ELX (was EMLX) is now down about 50% and SANM is down by over 70%. No support of a 10% gain here. As mentioned, all these stocks were sold on May 15th, I have not been riding them down to where they are now. maniati...your defensive market assessment has certainly turned out right, and I certainly was too early to get back in. The market is down about 10% since I bought, and so am I :-( I'm still hopeful to make it back during the next couple of weeks and then some. The warnings in the hardware sector caught me by surprise to say the least. But now the bad news is out in terms of earnings warnings, there should be some companies out soon that have some better things to say. Are you trying some trades now?" Credit to where credit is due. Maniati has pinned this market more accurately than everyone else combined. It started with his seminal post on cap/ex deceleration and continued through his spring warning. Maniati was right, I have no issue with him. But contrary to you I got out before that severe summer correction. Here comes a funny part. You posted the following link to a post of me from July 3rd: http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=TABLE&read=37566 "pmcw, actually I took your (that was pmcw's advice) advice of going totally to cash and wait, in mid May. However, having spent the last 6 plus weeks in cash I find that prices are starting to get attractive again, on some select issues that is." Your comment about this: Hmmm, took my advice to go to cash huh? Knowing you were a short term trader I felt it a good move. I was a bit concerned when we didn't hear from you for so long, but I'm glad it worked out for you. Thanks for giving me credit. That post of mine you cited was in response to this post of yours, from July 2nd: http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=TABLE&read=37536 in which you said: .... Of course, another way to play the game is to go totally to cash and wait. How could I take an advice of yours on May 15th if you only gave it on July 2nd? Since you advised to go totally to cash on July 2nd AFTER the market had tanked for over six weeks (note: the last high before that was on May 15th, exactly where I sold) I felt inclined for a sarcastic remark. Admitted, that was not a very kind post of mine, but you didn't get it anyway:-) I was NOT giving you credit with that post in any way. It was right when you recommended to go totally to cash when I started buying again, on July 3rd. I bought on weak days during July and cashed out again at the open of August 23rd. I currently only have one meaningful position (no, not LLTC). Ok, so you did come up with a reasoning for starting a new model portfolio now (Kind of, I take it the lower market level now has nothing to do with it:-). That doesn't alter the fact that you did this already in September 2001 and then took credit for price increases that were in the context of a general market rebound following 911. There were still plenty of people who owned stocks from your recommendations before that and I still think that practice was a slap in the face of these people. Culmus, I've enjoyed some of the dialog we've shared in the past and I believe we've both learned from each other's varied perspectives (aren't you glad you took your trading money to cash in May). Again, I have parted with the buy and hold strategy for the time being, no more core holdings since October 26th, last year and my decision to sell in May had nothing to do with you. However, if you want to spread lies about CSCO, defend Buffett when he is clearly wrong about a specific issue and write insulting, arrogant and untrue comments about me, don't expect me to sit on my hands. The insulting and arrogant person spreading untrue comments on this thread is you (see above where you put words in my mouth that I never said), not me. Like for you, my foremost concern is with my paying clients, for you that is Table, for me that is offline. I'd put up my performance against yours anytime, alas, clients come first, ego comes second. If anything, I will prove my performance to a select circle of people. Regards, Culmus
Post 42003 by clo OT: AT, one last thing before you take flight~~
Post 42004 by jeffbas Reply

sr, for some reason a space was put in that link. If you take it out you will get access to the whole, interesting article (if you sign up for free). The key paragraphs are given below: "Even for shareholders who have little faith in the software market's near future, there are noteworthy similarities between today's market and the market of 1990. Software stock prices, when measured by price-to-sales ratios, are nearly the same now as they were 12 years ago. About 75 percent of technology service companies tracked by FactSet Research Systems trade below 2 times sales, compared with 72 percent in 1990. And a smaller percentage of software stocks now trade in the ultra-expensive range of 10 times sales or higher than in 1990. The research suggests that the price paid for software sales growth is about in line with 1990's level." I don't know for a fact that P/S works well, since until now I had no statistics whatever, just my experience in looking at companies that lost a lot of money at cyclical bottoms that the one thing that was most important in determining value was the combination of P/S and balance sheet strength (a low P/S being meaningless if a company was going out of business because of losses). In my opinion, the reason P/S is a good measure is that Sales don't disappear as fast as Earnings. After a cyclical bottom is seen, and excesses wrung out, companies tend to make normal margins on the sales they have - and improve sales in a recovery. Thus, the sales at a bottom is a reasonable guide to what the company might soon be making in earnings - and comparisons with prior time periods a good place to start. My guess on why other companies are not at 1990 levels is a combination of factors: -telecom companies probably are way below, because of bad balance sheets allowing the P/S (appropriately) to get down to bankruptcy levels. -the non-tech parts of NASDAQ have probably not sold off that far, consistent with the general market. -important parts of NASDAQ tech market cap, like DELL, are probably well above 1990 levels. My guess on why software companies are at 1990 levels - AND maybe not cheap - is that the mix might be different, now including a lot of software companies created to serve the Interent, that like telecom companies are selling at distress levels (at or below cash) because their businesses are not worth much. This could depress a higher than 1990 average for companies with the mix that existed in 1990. I have no info on P/S for Adobe. Probably the best source for a company you are interested in is Value Line, available at many local libraries. By the way, I generally consider P when I am using it for P/S or P/E to include debt (an alternative to equity, which in this kind of environment could be argued ought to get a multiplier).
Post 42005 by maldinero Reply

Let's discuss issues, not labels http://www.rep.org/news/ge6_sprawl1.htm The conventional conservative wisdom seems to be: “Sprawl is the result of the free market at work. Conservatives have no good reason to worry about sprawl. Even if sprawl is somehow problematic and somehow related to statism, it cannot possibly be limited without making government bigger and more intrusive.” …and what should conservatives conserve? http://www.rep.org/opinions/speeches/12.htm There is absolutely nothing more fundamentally conservative than conservation. It’s not "conservative" to squander our resources. You know that. I know that. Sometimes it seems everybody knows that... except the self-proclaimed "conservatives" who currently dominate the Republican party.
Post 42006 by pricegriz Reply

AT Griz is fine, and I'm honoured. By the way White Dwarf and Red Giant are specific stages in the evolution and demise of a Galactic Star. A strong frame of mind is required here. Don't know wether this relates or not but "Mitsu no Kokuru" springs to mind. If I've totally confused the situation then please erase last sentence. Best regards - Griz
Post 42007 by srudek Reply

jeffbas: p/s, etc. I know you didn't like the last article/graphs I posted from this guy. However, here is a P/S graph for the S&P and lots of other graphs using different metrics. It so happens this article is a continuation of the discussion on how to measure market bottoms, so it fits in well with our discussion. ----- http://www.contraryinvestor.com/moprinter.htm
Post 42008 by uponroof Reply

HSBC not willing to sell cheap? Mike Bolser, aka 'sector', offers some very interesting insight on the recent withdrawal of HSBC from the gold market.... Are free market equilibrium pains starting to take back control of gold trading? ******** sector (9/15/02; 10:53:32MT - usagold.com msg#: 85157) @MK My LBMA work and How Options Keep POG Down Actually I'm interested in the continuing drop in overall volume on both the LBMA silver and gold markets. The effect of rising options volume on POG is the purview of Don Lindley, who is the only person outside the cabal who has captured the entire COMEX derivative spectrum on a single spreadsheet. He can tell on balance the "Tilt" of the COMEX at any given instant by measuring ALL it's positions and therefore has a clue as to the future movement of pog. Arrayed against Linley's efforts is the invisible OTC market actions which is 9X bigger. That's where the hidden movements are that we all would like to see. My assertion is that there is a falling LBMA gold and silver volume which can only be the result of a departure from these markets of customers willing to sell their metal at inappropriately low prices. The remainder of trades are "Official" in nature. The LBMA represents, to an increasing degree, the trades of central banks. Belgian rightly asks who will benefit when the manipulation stops? The answer depends upon who can wrest legal ownership of all the loaned gold [12,000 - 15,000 tonnes]. A morass of legal filings, a cloud of confusion can be imagined. In the end, for people here and possibly some bright hedge funds, actual ownership of gold is the ticket to wealth preservation. Who wants to immerse themselves in a claims battle over leased gold or possession rights to an options contract? Whatever profits garnered from options may be eaten up by legal expenses or lost altogether due to a COMEX default. The simultaneous devaluation of World currencies via inflation is upon us, therefore Gold's price will [And IS rising in all currencies as measured by the Dollar Index price of gold]. I have been very interested in detecting any new facts that may add to the mystery of cabal tactics. I place some extra weight on HSBC's recent decision to exit Hong Kong gold trading last week. My conclusion is that they did this because they value their considerable physical holdings greater than the current market prices...this is the exact mechanism that is contributing to a fall in LBMA gold volume. If HSBC is unwilling to sell gold at today's prices then we can be sure that other central banks are unwilling too. That leads us to the further conclusion that a strategy may exist to somehow mitigate this situation and lead to a near-term rise in the price of gold [If there is already in place a cabal strategy of gradual POG rises, then HSBC would simply adhere to it instead of departing the gold trade in Hong Kong]. As time passes there is more and more information available to undercut the cabal's manipulation efforts. It is that information accumulation that attracts more and more speculators to the COMEX and LBMA to drive POG higher. It is an inexorable process that is known as the free market.
Post 42009 by tinljhtkh Reply

Pmcw! Will you please give us all a break! We're not asking for much here! It's your option! Try the weather, sports, just anything but options! Could we go a day without options? I know its hard! But you have to take it in small steps! If we can go a day, perhaps we can go two days! I didn't post for 16 days so I know you can do this! I have great faith--it's Sunday! Life has some great and unfathomable mysteries and expensing options just may be one of them! Sometimes you're damned if you do and damned if you don't! Regards, Tin
Post 42010 by pmcw Reply

Culmus, I was sure your reference to moving to cash was based on the email exchange we had in April when we both agreed that if a May rally doesn't materialize that cash is where traders need to turn. Oh well, if you don't want to admit is that's your option. But don't try to pull the wool over Table's eyes with your distortions of my comments. Let's take a look at the entire post of mine you quoted rather than your out-of-context quote: "1343 is the current support for the NAZ and $2.60 (not $3) was the low end, albeit soft, support for HLIT. HLIT had a number of soft support points leading to $2.60. However, after it broke its strong support at $2.75, nothing was very firm. The TA's and briefing.com can throw darts all they want, but when these points are broken, there is no substantial support other than the intrinsic value of the company. Maybe I was right - it fell all the way to what, a buck ten where maniati bought a ton. I made nine substantial buys under $3 and four others between $4 and $3. They will all soon be very profitable! IMO, HLIT is worth easily $500M+. However, it is only one of many companies selling well below what I feel they are worth. Personally, I wouldn't run from HLIT. I've outlined the downside points on the HLIT board. I don't see them as huge fundamental issues. Due to this, I feel when the market finds its bottom HLIT will show a strong recovery. I placed a fairly strong buy at $3.03 and will likely grab some more if it sees $2'ish. Of course, another way to play the game is to go totally to cash and wait. I think semis are going to show generally good results for Q2, but suspect that visibility will be poor. Due to this, the weather might be the only thing hot this summer." This is exactly what happened and the SOX fell by nearly 20% from the day I posted this message to the bottom it's realized thus far. from a value model, it certainly doesn't deserve to be where it is today, but emotions could easily drive it lower. The above post certainly didn't indicate I went to cash on July 2nd as you indicated - only that I saw danger along with opportunity. I think I've made it abundantly clear that I've seen that combination for over a year and a half. Through the turmoil I've made some very good and some very bad decisions. As I said then, I'm buying HLIT, ISIL and XICO very heavily through this current dip. I'm confident at least two of the three will soon surpass their old highs and that in the longer term, all three will be huge winners. Even though I never classified $11 as you term "an excellent buying point for XICO" I'm confident $11 will look pretty attractive by the end of next year. Even though I never said ISIL was a buy in November of 2001 at $32, those buyers will probably be happy by then as well. If you look back, you'll find you posted several very complimentary articles about ISIL as well. I also don't recall any angry words exchanged over LU. Your most recent deception is another facet of stock options I've tried to correct. Re-setting option prices is not, as you termed it "a common occurrence" and that statement is NOT supported by the CalPERS email you posted. I even provided you the IRS code that would clearly show you why this simply does not often happen. There are other ways to retire old options and issue new options, but they have clear risks. I can show you cases where employees have actually ended up with higher exercise prices. You should also know that CEO's very seldom use this tool in an attempt to gain lower cost options. After you shared with me that you managed investments for a living you were asked that I keep it confidential. Clearly you mentioned the same to AT and probably others. Maybe this is why you like to frequently mention your performance - maybe this is your motivation for posting. Well Culmus, it's time, as we say in America, to put up or shut up. Let's see if you can put together a few profitable trades and beat me real time. I'll run with any term of at least four months - trading or buy and hold. You name it. All I ask is that all posts of activity be limit orders and posted at least ten minutes before the trade. Come on Culmus, if you're as good as you say, you'll beat me hands down. Of course if you're not so confident, divert the dialog with more of your distortions of reality or come up with some excuse that you don't have time to post a few picks and trades. Since this is your profession there will be no additional research - just a few posts.