Forum Archive Index - April 2000

["Phyllis Taylor" <phyl@clear.net.nz>]

Me too -  not a tech buy - just a join in the attitude buy!!!!!!!!
Phyllis
----- Original Message -----
From: Graham <graham@ts.co.nz>
To: <sharechat@sharechat.co.nz>
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: [sharechat] my tuppence worth on constructive criticism vs
robust debate


> Hugh
>
> Thanks for bringing up AQL.  I have a dilemma as to what to do with those
> lovely shares  purchased at 21c.
>
> I sold half the small holding on the way down but now dont know if I
should
> wait for the promised land to materialise or put the money elsewhere.  As
a
> newbie investor how do you make such a call?
>
> I'd appreciate your thoughts and anyone else who has such pearls to offer.
>
> Thanks and kind regards
>
> Jane
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hugh webber <hugh.webber@clear.net.nz>
> To: sharechat@sharechat.co.nz <sharechat@sharechat.co.nz>
> Date: 7 April 2000 08:18:AM
> Subject: [sharechat] my tuppence worth on constructive criticism vs robust
> debate
>
>
> >While I agree that personal abuse of participants and public figures
> >such as Eric Watson has to be out (we may have been lucky to escape some
> >sort of legal case for a start) and that inventing derogatory names for
> >companies
> >doing badly, while quite clever and amusing and apt, is rather pointless
> >there are some elements which disturb in the lack of a robust debate.
> >Sure arguments have to involve facts and not just journalese interviewing
> >of one's
> >typewriter but take the Aquaria case as an example.
> >When it was trading at about 21 cents with no actual tech business or
> >factual
> >possibility of one, it was going on momentum trading and association with
> >'names'.
> >When I pointed out it was a 'risky share'  due to its chequered history
and
> >some
> >of those involved and asked what its NTA per share was (4 to 5 cents) I
was
> >roundly abused and called negative etc.
> >Further analysis shows that of the 'names' there are a number involved,
not
> >just one,
> >and that there is no history for some of these 'names' for acting
together
> >and that
> >the major 'name' is interested in an ASX listing not an NZSE listing so
> >that a real
> >possibility is that the NTA will be just shovelled out of Aquaria to a
> >vehicle in Oz -
> >the NTA involved is only pocket money to the 'names' involved after all.
> >Current price -
> >about 12 to 13 cents I believe; so was buying at 20 cents & risky or not?
> >Anyway that is by the way, the issue is that factual points need to be
> >considered
> >even if they are in the reverse direction to the momentum desired. I
could
> >point to
> >several other cases if required but I won't exacerbate old wounds.
> >I'd just people to be able to point to facts without getting abused as
> >'negative' or
> >comments like 'dishing it out but not being able to take it' - rather a
> >mysterious
> >remark but I'll let that pass.
> >
> >But anyway lets get on with the game of factual discussions of the
> >sharemart,
> >there are some really promising situations on hand - at least to a long
> >term value
> >investor.
> >
> >cheers,
> >hugh
> >
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> >http://www.sharechat.co.nz/          New Zealand's home for market
> investors
> >To remove yourself from this list, please us the form at
> >http://www.sharechat.co.nz/forum.html.
> >
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> http://www.sharechat.co.nz/          New Zealand's home for market
investors
> To remove yourself from this list, please us the form at
> http://www.sharechat.co.nz/forum.html.
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/          New Zealand's home for market investors
To remove yourself from this list, please us the form at
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/forum.html.