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.

Technology Stocks : THQ,Inc. (THQI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AreWeThereYet who wrote (11013)	6/12/1999 8:31:00 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 14266

Andy, Let's see if I understand the No voters. THQ back many..many years ago...well anyway 94-95 was going down the toilet (share value that is) Looks to me that it hit a low of about $1/share around May of 1995. It seems like Farrell gets credit for turning the company around and it now trades at ~$24/share. For anyone fortunate enough to catch the bottom a $10,000 invest in 1995 a mere four years + later is worth a tidy sum. tscn.com So over the 4 year period when compared with the S&P 500, we find tscn.com or for anyone fortunate enough to catch the bottom a return of 1800% and I would think anyone would agree, substantially higher than the returns of the S&P 500. Now, the stock hasn't done squat since Jan, in fact it's gone down pretty substantially. Though I think you all could find more than a few that have been beaten down as well and more than a few beaten down quite a bit more during this same period. So you have 17 quarters of successive positive earnings and an 1800% increase in sharevalue...and a rather positive outlook forward, but it's down 25% off its high so you come to the conclusion that Farrell doesn't care enough about the shareholders? Why are there analysts that still call THQ Toy HQ? There are a lot of idiots in the world and some of them are lazy and they still get paid a lot of money. Regarding the equity market...well maybe he doesn't, but then again I'm not quite sure that anyone really does. We could go on about the "nets" or "value" stocks, which by definition are undervalued as well as PEs, PEGs, ROICs, et al. But I think Peter Lynch expressed it best, when he said "the value of any stock over a three year period is random."! You must know that the liquidity on THQI is low, which lends itself to being a trading stock, along with the perceptions of seasonality and the increasing nature of short term trading brought to you by the internet, post earnings sell-offs, and of course shorts and momentum traders. In a conference call with Farrell, it was pretty clear to me regarding his frustration with the valuation of THQI, but the only way out of that is by increasing the size of THQI substantially, increasing the outstanding shares substantially and to a lesser degree maybe even move off the NAS. With the exception of the latter, it seems to me that is the direction he is headed. Personnaly, it's quite difficult for me to look at the picture since Farrell took over and come to the conclusion that he's ignoring the shareholders. But that's just my opinion. A little rambling but Best Regards, Jim

To: AreWeThereYet who wrote (11013)	6/13/1999 3:21:00 AM
From: Jeff Bond	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14266

Good concerns ... but THQI management HAS done a good job with promoting the stock share value over the past 3 years. It's going to get worked aC, simply becasue its a small cap, that cannot be stopped I'm afraid. Look at the price of THQI over that term, you know it well by now :) Jack Friedman should sit down with Brian Farrell and TAKE SOME NOTES on how its done, not the other way around. JAKK is doing fine, but it was wallowing around $12 for a long time, and what comes up can surely come down. In this respect, THQI has 3 years worth of time proven experience, while JAKK is a lot farther behind. Let's see if JAKK can maintain its current trend for the same time frame, that is a more accurate comparison. I don't want to piss off management aC, and I surely don't want to let someone else come in here and drive this ship. I'm going to say that with my vote of confidence in this plan, I'm going to show them I think in the end they have the exact same goals in this company as I do: they want to GROW THIS COMPANY. I can't make the world smart, and I'm sure you're aware I refer to those dumb analysts as analists. It's a prerequisite perhaps? Look at ALL the companies in the industry group, I think the answer is not too far away when you look at the overall picture. Stupid analst can't figure out how to spell the name of the company, can't get the ticker right, even gets the company name wrong then ... HAHA STUPID, YOU GOT SMACKED TOO HARD BY THE DOCTOR WHEN YOU WERE BORN. Other than that, it's going to be an interesting meeting, many issues lie ahead. I'm convinced of one thing, as a business grows, so does it's problems. It's just a matter of who's taking care of those problems. I'm NOT ready to have someone else take care of these problems, THAT ITSELF would become the biggest problem were it to occur. FOR for me, not a tough decision on my part. Regards, JB