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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : WCAP - Winfield Capital: Insider buying -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Marconi who wrote (1057)	6/9/1999 12:12:00 PM
From: Bob Trocchi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1305

Marconi... Re: CMGI and WCAP I have never had a position in CMGI, much to my regret. IMO, the most significant difference in CMGI and WCAP (and potentially other CMGI wannabies) is CMGI's Management. Dave Wetherral (sp?) the CMGI CEO is a very savvy investor and he takes a very active role in the management of the companies he invests in including placing experienced people in key positions. WCAP does not do this as far as I can see. CMGI's results over a longer period of time have shown the soundness of this strategy. I have been long in WCAP and took my profits and if it pops up to the 30's again I will be very tempted to go short. Bob T.

To: Marconi who wrote (1057)	6/9/1999 12:24:00 PM
From: Bo Le	Respond to of 1305

Marconi, very good writting. I really (and I think many others will) enjoy it. I agree with you on everything you wrote, including the reason why I buy WCAP (no position right now). It seems that you agree that WCAP is undervalued if we compare it with CMGI's valuation, even though you think CMGI is valued at a crazy level. What I believe is that with strong support like Fidelity (They just took a 10% position on CMGI), the bubble.com is not going to burst anytime soon. Happy trading. Bo

To: Marconi who wrote (1057)	6/9/1999 3:29:00 PM
From: Dale Baker	Respond to of 1305

Imagine you are hiring a fund manager. You have two candidates with equal experience, education, etc. One produces consistent 15% returns. The other produces consistent 150% returns. Are you likely to pay the better performer 10 times more than the average manager in a competitive market? Or would you insist on equal pay for equal experience and refuse to pay more? That's the factor in CMGI which you are omitting. It is ridiculous to look at CMGI in terms of current book value when they have a track record of gaining 100%'s on their investments.

To: Marconi who wrote (1057)	6/10/1999 4:48:00 AM
From: Top Jim	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1305

Marconi, since you confess ignorance to CMGI, I thought I'd shed some light on what investors see in publicly traded VC's. Contrary to popular media, it's not all unsophisticated newbie etraders driving these stocks. FYI, institutional investors, including CitiGroup and Intel, own over 8.5M shares of CMGI. First of all I have to commend you on you insights into the market. I agree with your assessment of the market reactions and esp. the bit about rates affecting net stocks. Interest rates have more to do with the Dow than the ISDEX. How many inets have debt (1 - AMZN) and how many net stock buyers are looking for 6% APR? Certainly the enthusiasm over the exponential growth of the internet and the companies that power it has led many stocks to become overvalued in a relative sense. And a lot of buyers do pile on to drive stocks outside their logical trading range. But when I hear Mr. Ginny-Mae on MoneyTalk paint the net sector as overvalued he always uses the comparison of the S&P P/E of 26 to the Internet sector P/E of 200 and (purposefully) neglects to compare projected EPS growth (S&P 7-8% vs. inet 100+%?). Well, he has his audience to consider but I wouldn't call it a sector bubble. By Lynch's model the S&P is 3x overvalued and the internets are not significantly higher. I think this is what Greenspan testified to a few months ago. Anyway everyone has an opinion on net stock valuations and that's mine. Only time will tell but remember Tulips didn't really integrate with and change the world. As for WCAP's history, WCAP had dropped to $1 under prior mgmt which favored loans to local businesses. When Perlin took over, they shifted strategy to equity investments in promising growth companies with strong mgmt teams. It wasn't until COOL that this strategy paid off. Now a year after COOL's IPO they've amassed an impressive lineup worth $8-11 per share in NAV (current-90 day avg). While the stock price may be 3x current asset values, keep in mind that valuations for net stocks have great potential for appreciation. More importantly, WCAP can compound its NAV by investing profits in new ventures. As long as WCAP excels at finding promising companies (inet or not), their capital can return 2x-30x on each dollar invested. So while one may pay 3x current NAV, next year NAV could be 5x higher (fiscal '98 saw a 7.5x increase in NAV). 3x current NAV thereby becomes 3/5 of forward NAV (40% return if future stock price = NAV, 500% return if 3x:3x). Moreover future investors may be willing to pay >3x NAV (or 15x in CMGI's case) as the company establishes its track record and improves its market positioning. With the higher multiple the stock price is propelled even higher, potentially yielding a 1000+% return to the investor. That's how WCAP and CMGI have done it. As long as WCAP can continue to locate strong candidates for venture capital they will continue to make $ and increase NAV. Nice to see them follow up COOL with WGAT, JWEB, ROWE, MODA, and MPTH. Not a "one-hit wonder" as the naysayers were taunting when I initially bought in last year. Imagine where this stock will be when Commerce One, Vivid SemiConductor, Wedding Network, and Bluestone Software make their debuts and the next crop is sitting on the bench. All IMHO. Regards, TJ PS> The use of "NAV" or Net Asset Value here should be "book value" but I used NAV because most posters are referring to it as such. VC's are not mutual funds. Anyone can buy a stock but few are invited to participate in the private funding of promising young companies.