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 : Qwest Communications (Q) (formerly QWST) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gary Mohilner who wrote (4267)	6/22/1999 12:36:00 PM
From: Scotsman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6846

LVLT is sure taking a beating today. I wonder if this is related to Qwest somehow. Its holding up fairly well considering the confusion.

To: Gary Mohilner who wrote (4267)	6/22/1999 1:13:00 PM
From: RTev	Respond to of 6846

I think we have to view BLS as our partner, and if they think we should do the deal at a higher cost, it will be perceived positively. I'm not so sure. Becoming a "partner" with BLS would make QWST part of an even bigger low-growth RBOC. (And, in fact, the one with the lowest stock-price growth of them all: techstocks.com [chart includes two of the cousin-Bells that USW or PacTel shareholders got in divestitures].) The market didn't respond when BLS bought their 10% stake at a premium. I doubt it would respond positively to a bigger stake that would ultimately result in management of QWST by BLS. Another factor is the apparent enmity between USW and its siblings. USW has taken two measures to protect itself from takeover by another RBOC. For a few years, it was protected by poison-pill tax liabilities that it assumed in the UMG divestiture. With the expiration of that protection, it arranged for its bizarre marriage with GBLX. That indicates that USW management would only accept a new offer involving BLS is it was dripping with sweeteners, and I just don't see how BLS could justify that to their own shareholders, given the poor deal they made earlier for their stake in QWST. (Here's a story on the UMG/USW poison pill: archives.seattletimes.com )

To: Gary Mohilner who wrote (4267)	6/22/1999 2:04:00 PM
From: Maven	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6846

I think Nacchio angered BLS by his hostile bid for USW. BLS had shelled out $3.5 billion in May for 10% of Qwest, and then saw their investment drop by 24%. I also think that BLS had intended buying more of QWST, and anticipate more trouble acquiring USW if Qwest is successful in its bid. It would surprise me if BLS steps up and offers to finance Qwest's takeover attempt, viewing it as a rash movement on Nacchio's part rather than a strategic play. RSSheldon