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.

Pastimes : The Justa & Lars Honors Bob Brinker Investment Club -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Allan Harris who wrote (6335)	6/28/1999 4:36:00 PM
From: Math Junkie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15132

Allan, I am still waiting for the answer to one question: on what objective basis does one decide how much an Internet stock is worth?

To: Allan Harris who wrote (6335)	6/28/1999 10:22:00 PM
From: Justa Werkenstiff	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15132

Allan: Re: " It's called supply and demand. There has been a huge supply of dot.com IPO's and even with your Jays and Tonys buying all they can, there just hasn't been enough dollars to go round this this quarter. " Or maybe the demand has simply dried up in the face of huge supply and a melt in the sector. But surely Jay does not need more nets. Jay had 40% of his portfolio in AOL alone. Re: "As for ridicule, like pornography, I know it when I see it...or in this case, hear it." You said Brinker was ridiculing two callers this past weekend for riding their net stocks down 50%. You did not provide any specific facts regarding either call. I took the time to listen to one call before commenting. You did not. And I doubt you took the time to listen to the call again before posting to me this last time. You see, once we make an accusation against Brinker on this thread, I think we owe it to him to be as specific as possible to make sure we get it right. Don't we owe Brinker that much? Shouldn't we look at something a few times before deciding whether it is pornography <g>. Re: "But I do appreciate your taking the time for such an exhaustive post, including what appears to be at least one, maybe more, re-listenings to the exchange between Bob and Jay." Sure you do. And I think you would agree that we should discover and pinpoint Brinker's opinion before criticizing it. One should take the time to try to get it right. Re: "Reminds of my years in solo practice in Atlanta, going up against the big downtown law firms who would without exception dump tons of paperwork and discovery on me, thinking it would intimidate, or worse, cloud the issues to the extent that they could snow the judge or jury. Not that there is anything wrong with that, right? Wrong! But I digress, like the Ameritrade (AMTD) commercial, if you want to talk about lawyers, "Don't get me started." You are on to us. Justabid.com is just a front for a huge Atlanta based white shoes defense law firm which specializes in snowing and intimidating posters and get paid a premium rate for every billable hour logged and then some. We are the exact same firm you recall so fondly. Web Hubble is our lead partner on your case. We know we have succeeded in our goal when the complaining poster develops a persecution complex. Hey, did someone say reality check? Re: "See, here I am in the same paragraph and I bet half of the lurkers have forgotten what started this tirade." Forget about the lurkers, how about me <g>? No need to go into a tirade on my account unless it makes you feel better. Re: "It was Bob's ridiculing of Internet investing." What a complete gross oversimplification of Brinker's view and it is plain wrong. Besides, you originally said specifically that Brinker ridiculed two callers for riding their internet investments down 50%. You want to change the subject now and broaden your criticisim of Brinker? Maybe you should try to pinpoint his view before criticizing it. Brinker's view is much more complex than a simple ridiculing of all things internet. He has discussed the internet for years and the great things that would come of it. He has helped many callers with their internet investments without ridiculing them or their profits. How about the guy with all of those options in Broadcom? Maybe you think Brinker ridicules the internet stock valuations and not the investors themselves. Maybe you think he is ridiculing the internet day traders and not the true internet investors who got in on the ground floor. Maybe you think he is ridiculing some of the prices paid for these stocks. Maybe you think he has you in mind everytime he says something negative on the nets. Who knows what you think because you did not post any specific examples as a foundation from which to criticize. Re: "You can take any one phone call and analyze it to death to prove that it wasn't really ridicule." Don't blame me if you did not do your homework <g>. At least I provided a call and analyzed it period. Maybe I got it wrong. But at least I listened to a call at least four times. Sounds to me as if you listened to it once this past weekend live. Guess Brinker is not worth the time to go to the archives. Now that is the easy way out. No work at all. Just turn the brain off and hear what you want to hear. Brinker ridicules internet investing. Spread the word. Post it and make it so. Re: "But the totality of circumstances surrounding Bob's comments paint a clear and unambiguous picture." What does "totality of circumstances" mean? You mean the fact that Brinker may have shot under 80 before he did the show? Or is it the fact that he owns T and LU wanted to drive the price down with interent trashing so he could buy more shares at a lower price? I love it when a sentence claims that something is clear and unambiguous while the sentence is unclear and ambiguous in making the claim. Get specific please. Re: " We all heard it and if you have any doubts, just listen to his next show, we'll no doubt hear it all again." Hey, Alan, the good news is that you don't have to wait. You can find last weekend's show on the net and discuss those calls you heard in detail by using the archive function. Get specific. please. Re: "Now it's time to take the kids to see something called Big Daddy. Boy I hate it when it rains at the beach." Good for you. Sounds like you could use the rest and relaxation.

To: Allan Harris who wrote (6335)	6/28/1999 10:51:00 PM
From: Carl R.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15132

Looks like the DOT index jumped the gun and the train left without me. <G> I wasn't expecting it to rally until tomorrow afternoon. Seriously, I do have some "nuts", but was going to add some more tomorrow morning. Since you told me about your favorite "nuts", here is my favorite, Ampex (AXC), a play primarily in internet video. Here is a fascinating, very well done internet video presentation that will tell you a bit about them, and show you what they are up to, and show you what internet video is capable of: tvontheweb.com The are currently reasonably priced at about 2-3 times Sales, and have a reasonable PE based on trailing earnings (but note, due to conversion to internut status, they will probably not earn money this year.) They are positioned in several potential high growth areas including internet video, HDTV, fibre-channel RAID, and ultra high speed/high capacity tape drives for backup and near-line storage. Like SFE they have several internet subsidiaries that are potential IPO candidates. They do have one noted downside though, and that is their capital structure. For the last several years they have a negative book value, and the cash they have to invest came from a high interest junk bond issue. They do have a strong on-going revenue stream from royalty payments which pays the interest, and have done a good job of investing the cash on hand so as to minimize net interest expense. They have also recruited quite a few big-name people to the company since the first of the year, and seem to be building quite a team, as well as a worldwide internet video network. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this one, Carl