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 : AUTOHOME, Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom D who wrote (11813)	6/27/1999 1:16:00 PM
From: Ahda	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

Ever heard of LTCM?

To: Tom D who wrote (11813)	6/27/1999 2:01:00 PM
From: Jing Qian	Respond to of 29970

Some risks are real, some risks are not real. Real risks may hurt the stocks bottomline, False risks exist only to scare the uninformed investors. There seem to be multiple risks associated with ATHM, but many are not real: 1) Threat of ADSL: Not real because RBOCs are not committed to roll it out. Even if they do, ADSL can't compete with Cable modem due to its inherently low download speed and proximity limitation. Besides, ADSL can't integrate very well with Interactive TV and digital voice. Increasingly Cable modem is being discovered as the broadband medium of the choice for the next 10 years at least. 2) Threat of Legislation: Not real because FCC is not on OpenNet' side . Even if the cable is forced open by regulators, AOL and other copper ISPs can't easily get on the cable because of technical and economical reason. The bottom line is the AT&T doesn't have incentive to work with AOL on the cable network. Cable MSOs will create all kinds of trouble(such as pricing) to delay copper ISPs' entry as late as possible. This provides ATHM ample time to ramp up its subscribers. Most likely though, there will be No forced access in the near future. 3) Threat of FTTC and Satellite: Not real because it will take a long time and money to build out the FTTC network and who is going to foot the bills? Not AT&T because it's having its hands full with cable modem. Not RBOCs because they are simply not committed to invest a huge sum of dollars to build a network that only AOL and others benefit. Satellite is too slow and too round trip delay sensitive to offer a comparable service to the cable modems. 4) Risk of scale up: Real one. We don't know what will when ATHM reaches 5 million subscribers.

To: Tom D who wrote (11813)	6/28/1999 3:25:00 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

Hi Tom, I took a quick glance at cooperlinsehallman.com and I have a few questions. Why in the world would you want to give your money to an organization that has consistently underperformed the indexes for the past four years? Isn't the whole idea of managing money to do better than the averages? Regarding market timing. It is nearly impossible, according to many wealthy sources. Buffett and Keynes come to mind here. Very often, when the market moves, it does so in a rush. Do you know where CLH was on Oct. 19, 1987 or how about 10/17/97 or 8/31/98? If CLH was not out of the market prior to those dates, they were not living up to their professed claims. And on the flip side, how about 10/15/98, or 06/16/99? If they were not in the market prior to these dates, they failed to take advantage of the peculiar antics of Mr. Market. If this money is in a tax-sheltered retirement account, then you are protected from the grasping fingers of the IRS, at least for the time being. If, OTOH, this is a fully taxable account, then each in and out flip has guaranteed that you will pay tax at the highest rate possible. The CLH method is clearly tax-inefficient. The CLH FAQ and FAQ2 do not specify how the cap gains and dividends thrown off by the mutual fund holdings are to be accounted for. There is a very strong possibility that these may fall, pro-rata, into your lap and present a taxable event. CLH charges 2.5%/PA for their services. Having not read a prospectus, I am unaware of any other fees that may relate to advertising, administration or redemptions. These should be investigated. Finally, the Vanguard S&P500 fund charges a flat .25%/PA for a product that for the past 4 years has yielded a better return. To me the choice is obvious. Best, Ry