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 : Ampex Corporation (AEXCA) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: valuehunter who wrote (11046)	9/15/1999 11:54:00 AM
From: valuehunter	Respond to of 17679

If anyone wants to get excited: Go to AOL's tech business PR release section and read the following from today: "Balthaser Studios and Pixelon Announce Exclusive Agreement and Equity Investment". Talk about ENTHUSIASM!!!!! I realize these are not public companies, but I would be first in line for an IPO after reading this. Anyone, after reading this - I would like to know if iNEXTV(as a subsidiary of Ampex Holding Co) can be as upbeat on PRs? Also, isn't this part of what the "forward looking statements" clause is all about? P.S. On (Business Wire).

To: valuehunter who wrote (11046)	9/15/1999 11:55:00 AM
From: Hal Campbell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17679

I'd be shocked. The Parliament and Cricket channels - Gardy said this himself - may not be interesting to us but they are both generating tremendous worldwide hits. Perhaps it was Ampex that told HIM that his community focus would not work in its present form. And, as an aside, being the first and only streaming company to hook up with two ...maybe 3...major governments is of no small significance. Alot of subtle connections there. Many luminaries and influential people will see those logos again and again. To quote the adage again, 90% of success is just showing up. There's long term value for you to hunt here, V .....question to me is do they have the money? Are they seeking financial allies? If not, why do they think they will have enough to both survive and do all they wish? And once the revenues are there, can they make them grow? We both know it is growth and not PR that determines a stock's success over time.

To: valuehunter who wrote (11046)	9/15/1999 12:47:00 PM
From: Carl R.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17679

What an odd post. It strikes me that the situation is exactly the reverse. If you go back and watch the original TVoW broadcast of Washington fireworks you will note that Gardy mentions a price of about $200 a month to underwrite a channel. At this price, surely the even the narrowest of channels can afford to have one, but such channels could never be profitable. By early this year the price was up to $2000-5000 per month. This change in pricing no doubt eliminated many of the 100 channels that were to be online by the end of the year. But the channels that were eliminated would never have been profitable, at least on their own. Gardy's view was that it was better to have many channels with a very narrow focus, even if they lost money, on the basis that people who came to watch those channels would stay and watch other channels. Did they? My guess is no. Maybe regular viewers of the cricket channel would tune in once to see the shipping channel, but unless the alternate channels were broad interest (such as the Right Channel), my guess is that the strategy was not working. Thus I see a clash between two perspectives. Gardy embraced the internut perspective, growth at all costs, take any and all channels even if they lose money in an attempt to achieve "virul" growth. Bramson's view is the old-line business perspective, don't undertake a venture unless you can see where the profit is coming from. In today's world Gardy's plan would have no doubt achieved a high valuation. Many of today's internuts reflect that strategy; growth matters, not profit. In the end though profit will matter, and the internut companies that can not earn a profit will crash and burn. Maybe the problem with Ampex's stock is that Bramson's desire for profits, even if it means slower growth, is out of fashion. Small investors and internut investors are looking for growth, not profit, and snapping up many an ill-conceived venture if they have dramatic growth. On the other hand, Bramson's internet initiative is too bold for conservative investors (and the balance sheet too risky), thus leaving Ampex in no man's land: too conservative for gunslingers, and too risky for conservative investors. Despite this, I understand what he is doing and why. If I were in his shoes I wouldn't have done the same things, but I can't say he is wrong. I would have viewed TV on the Web (and Reiter) as a cash-burning ventures that didn't fit what I was trying to do, but which fit nicely into what the gunslingers wanted. Accordingly I would have IPOd them and sold the overvalued shares as fast as possible so that I would have money to invest elsewhere. Instead, Bramson elected to try to fix TV on the Web to make it profitable. I bought a money-losing company once and tried to fix it; a few years later I realized that I would have been much better off to split it up and sell the parts. The way I see it, Bramson is trying to build a company with lasting value, that produces both profit and growth. I would have sold the broken parts to suckers, um er internet investors, and tried to turn a quick buck so as to shore up my weak balance sheet. Just two different perspectives.... Carl

To: valuehunter who wrote (11046)	9/15/1999 12:58:00 PM
From: Michael Olds	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17679

Valuelessplease, I am sorry, friend, I have held back on this using my best efforts, but I am annoyed at the way Ampex stock is performing, and your constant complaints are not helping me analyze my situation. You call yourself Valuehunter, and yet, as I understand value investing, it is often very early to the game and those who are good at it know that they will have a wait before they realize the value that their due diligence has discovered. You are hitting us with a daily barrage of complaints about a turnaround situation that has existed for all of nine months. I think you have chosen your handle with poor judgement. We have evidence of the other day that you were unaware of the redeemable preferred series and how it would affect price. I think this is evidence of a lack of due diligence. This to me means you have exercised poor investment judgement from the point of view of value investing. And with all your eggs in one basket, a real lack of investment judgement from any investing point of view. You have not seen the history of Ed Bramson's involvement with Ampex correctly. This company was bankrupt when he took over. It would not exist at all without him. He was not responsible for the so-called Keepered Media Fiasco. That was a combination of bad luck and misplaced media frenzy. You are refusing to look at certain very clear indications that this is a story with a very strong potential that is rolling out in record time: 1. New Institutional investors 2. Old Institutional Investors increasing their stakes 3. Clear indications that substantial advertisers are on board (have you checked out the iNEXTV sites?) 4. No indication at all that the PR ball has been dropped: the market has been down and nervous for a month, we have the redeemable down pressure, and the launch of the Fall Campaign was never due until October. Who on earth with any sense would spend precious dollars on PR in the face of this market and knowing that there would be a lapse of a month or more between any hoopla announcements and actual evidence of their quality? You are not after value, you are after hype. You have no idea of what Ed Bramson and Management are doing at this time, and Carl, Jubimer, Hal and others have provided you with facts which you ignore. You have told us, if we are to believe you, that you have a huge (for an individual) investment in Ampex. It is clear, and we have suggested the fact to you, that you have invested in over your head and are hurting and that this and this alone is the motivation for your constant, essentially valueless and contentless postings. Lack of faith in management is the A#1 best reason to get out of an investment, and yet, with your clear lack of faith in management, you hang on. What I would like to ask you is: with your record before us, why should we consider your judgement worth anything, why should you consider your judgments worth posting?