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 : Scandinavia Company -- SCF -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BooKooCabbage who wrote (45)	9/30/1999 10:29:00 PM
From: J.Y. Wang	Respond to of 82

<SCF> There is no doubt that it is a risky short. It's approaching $500M market cap. Based in the Cayman Islands. No financials. Used to run resorts. Resort business bought a caching business. Geez, I wonder if the caching company tried to sell itself to the traditional companies in Silicon Valley, Seattle or any other tech hotbed? Of course not. It went immediately to try to sell itself to a resort operator. I'm being sarcastic of course, but the answer is most likely it did try to sell itself to a real tech company and no one bought. Why not? You go figure. Price? I doubt it. Anything a resort operator can pay in cash/stock, VC can pay with cash in their back pocket or a publicly-traded net company can pay many times over in inflated stock. The only reasonable conclusion is that no one wanted it because: 1) The technology was not worth it; 2) Those VC's and net companies in the Valley are not visionary enough and the resort operator was; 3) Those VC's and net companies in the Valley were tight on money because there are too many things to invest in. #2 is laughable. #3 is also laughable -- all reports I have seen point to VC's having so much money shoved at them by investors they can't invest it fast enough. I tend to believe #1. People are also fooled by SCF's P/E ratio. The "E" in P/E all came from its resort businesses. Retail investors are stupid these days. They pull up quote.yahoo.com, check SCF, and see that it "only" has a P/E of 121. That's one helluva bargain for a net company. And the ones who even bother to pull up quote.yahoo.com and reach that idiotic conclusion may be the smarter retail investors -- the dumb ones aren't sure what P/E is and make Anna Kournikova in those Schwab commercials look like Warren Buffett. To recap: SCF is a resort operator with revenues of about $11M and a market cap of almost $500M. As far as I can tell, it has no revenues from its caching business. But who would know? SCF is based in the Caymans and doesn't file with the SEC. The earnings it does report out of the kindness of its heart (almost seven months after the end of its fiscal year) appears to have all come from the resort business. SCF will be splitting its stock again, the second time in about a month. Clearly it is taking full advantage of the spike and hoping that by splitting its stock, it will tank a little slower when "investors" (and I use that term loosely in today's stock market) wake up from their drunken stupor. I shorted it at 68 today. It looks like I got the last tick of the day. Of course, SCF could run to 100+ and I'm going to cover if it runs, but it's an over-priced POS.