Conference 7.286::digital

    He has probably finally accepted the fact that the good old days will
    always remain just that, and the stock will continue to fall.  If he
    is doing it based on some internal proprietary info, that would be
    a violation of law.
    
    What the hay..........probably behind on his car payment.

	As a colleague of mine here said:

	"Aw, give 'em a break.  They rode it down from $200 !"

	Steve H

    
    A simple rule for stock operations is :
    
    	Good news, sell.
    	Bad news, buy.
    
    

>           <<< Note 1597.3 by BEAGLE::WLODEK "Network pathologist." >>>
>                             -< it's good news .-) >-
> 
>     
>     A simple rule for stock operations is :
>     
>     	Good news, sell.
>     	Bad news, buy.

Well...  I don't know about the rest of you, but I feel very relieved now.  You
know, the only thing is I just wish KO and the exiting VP's wouldn't keep all of
this good news such a secret!  I mean, hey...  83,000 shares is a whole heap of
good news, and I'd like to know what it is!!

Cheers,

JK
 
              --==++    "CARPE DIEM - Sieze the Day!!"    ++==--                

    
    Interestingly, Jim Manzi of Lotus sold about the same dollar amount of
    of Lotus stock in the same time frame. Could some kind of joint venture
    be in the works?
    

Won't a lot of doomsayers be embarrassed when it turns out to be for a
philanthropy.

	Why would Ken sell his stock? I can think of three possiblities:

	1. To buy something
	2. As .6 suggested, for a donation to charity (hope he remembers
		the matching gift form:-)
	3. To make an investment which he expects to give a better return
		on his money than DEC stock.

	I just hope it's not #3...

	Mike

    how about to pay off a bet with Jim Osterhoff
    
    
    buzz

I doubt if Ken would sell stock in order to make a charitable donation.
Even with the stock as low as it is, Ken owns a lot of stock on which he
has a humongous capital gain.  If he gave the stock to a charitable
organization instead of selling it and giving the proceeds to charity,
he'd pay less taxes.

    And all these years I thought the animosity and disdain directed at us
    from the Wall Street cliques was envy.  Now I'm not so sure.
    They have never forgiven Digital for taking the power of the computer
    from the hands of the priests and giving it to the people in factories, 
    hospitals, offices, and schools.  The large computer companies of the
    1950s (the darlings of Wall Street), would now have to justify their
    high price tags and centralized philosophy, against distributed
    processing and market competition.  How could a few engineers put such
    a successful company together, they wondered; and without their bless- 
    ing?  It was blasphemy!
    
    I suppose they're satisfied now.  They're pleased.  They waited us out.
    They told us, but we wouldn't listen..."Hey DEC; you snooze, you lose!"
    
    Now, with reference to the base note:
    Last month-
    	.stock at or near book value
    	.huge restructuring
    	.consecutive quarterly losses
    	.layoffs
    	.workstation problems
    	.disk problems
    	.VAX9000 problems
    	.and on, and on...
    So if you were the President of the Corporation and wanted to instill
    customer confidence, what would you do?
    
    I think it is viewed by Wall Street as a marketing faux pas, and what
    bothers them and me is that it appears that Digital doesn't.
    
    Mike

    re: all the commentary on KO selling shares...
    
    Seems as if the commenters have forgotten that SEC requires an
    individual to register the sale of stock *6 months* in advance in a
    case like K.O.'s -- and the individual is required to sell on that date
    whatever happens.  
    
       Think about it... 

    Re: 6 months
    
    I thought it was 1 year?!