PALO ALTO, Calif. (CNN/Money) - We're all concerned about our investments. And many of you write to share your pain, dispute my interpretations and offer your two cents' worth.

For instance, my recent instant-message chit-chat with a professional fund manager (see "Desperately seeking optimism") riled up a few investors -- in part because it sounds an optimistic tone for the market and for some of the biggest stocks.

Luis makes some good points: "The problem is not one of optimistic or pessimistic outlook but one of valuation. Most well-run companies are overvalued by at least 80 percent. The markets have a long way to fall given that overall profits are down by 20 percent. Assuming slight profit growth during the next five years, one reaches the conclusion that the S&P 500 must be at 750 to achieve a 7.5 percent return [20 percent below recent levels]."

Robert also isn't buying the case for optimism: "[Everyone] is cautiously optimistic, assuming that low inflation and earnings will recharge this market. Unfortunately, we are in one of those hopefully rare investment boom-busts compounded by lack of confidence, not only in what historical earnings were, but also how to value expected earnings going forward. I am optimistic at heart but not yet in my pocketbook."

I wish I disagreed with these guys because their thinking is sobering. During the entire bubble we had a difficult time agreeing on overall values of stocks. Now it's time to adjust expectations: If a basket of stocks grows at more than 6 percent or so a year over many years, that basket is doing great.

Oh -- a handful of literalists had a beef with my apparent typo when writing Xerox. I spelled it "Zerox," and yes, it was intentional, a play on Xerox's busted state (get it? ZERO). And when I wrote that "I love Zerox," I was being sarcastic.

Any column about Apple Computer is certain to attract the attention of the Apple faithful. Mac users must be the most vigilant group of technology-press readers anywhere. The ones who in wrote were really annoyed by my recent characterization of Microsoft's 1997 investment of $150 million in Apple as a "bailout." A sampling:

From David: "Apple received about $100 million from Microsoft in return for nonvoting stock, agreed to certain technology swaps, and settled all outstanding lawsuits between them. Microsoft also agreed to continue producing MS Office for 5 years. At that time Apple had over $1 billion in cash. Crucial cash investment? Bailout? Please."

And from Gary: "The crucial part of the deal was that Microsoft agreed to develop its Office and Internet apps for the Mac for five years. That gave Apple legs in a lot of folks' eyes."

RECENTLY BY ADAM LASHINSKY       Desperately seeking optimism Would someone take a bite out of Apple? Now Intel's a buy -- right?

In fact, at the end of Apple's fiscal year 1997 it had $1.5 billion in cash and $951 million in long-term debt. It had lost money for two straight years. Microsoft's investment reassured people Apple was going to stick around. Indeed, on the day of the deal, the Wall Street Journal wrote "the company remains in such serious condition that many retailers, software developers and customers have already given it up for dead." In my book, that constitutes as a bailout.

Incidentally, another reader, Ron, threw into the mix an intriguing suggestion for who else might be a good match for Apple if the price stays too low:

"There is one suitor that I would like to suggest to you -- Sun Microsystems. Why?

1. Scott McNealy and Steve Jobs have common enemies -- Bill Gates and Intel.
2. With Apple OSX running on a flavor of Unix, a graphical user interface worthy of Solaris [Sun's software] now exists.
3. OS X [Apple's latest operating system] could allow Sun to enter the home computer market with its flagship product lines of desktops and servers.
4. Apple's laptops would propel Sun into a leadership area for developers and mobile business computers due to ease of management and security."

Sun sure could use a new strategy. But I'm not buying this argument for the same reason I'm not buying any of the other conspiracy theories: Apple's management doesn't want to sell. Not to Disney, not to Sony and not to Sun.

But I still want your letters. Keep 'em coming!

Adam Lashinsky is a senior writer for Fortune magazine. Send e-mail to Adam at adam_lashinsky@timeinc.com.

Sign up to receive The Bottom Line by e-mail.