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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Roebear who wrote (54664)	11/12/1999 8:27:00 PM
From: Gary Burton	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 95453

re MDR---I noticed in the 10Q that the lawyers used the word "significant" when they talked about the increased amounts the plaintiff lawyers now wanted in order to settle the same type of claim. In legalese, that word is nowhere near the word "substantial" that they no doubt would have insisted on using if the % rise in total claims value they were talking about was much larger. I interpret the word "significant" to mean, say, 25% and the word "substantial to imply say 50% etc----So, using the word to imply at most 25%, an extra $345MM crops up (5.50/sh) and then the market in its take no prisoners haste just assumes that there would be ZERO part of this increase that would be covered by insurance (unlikely)----bottom line, it seems to me that MDR's book value might drop by about $5.50/sh due to this state of affairs and more likely much less than that since insurers would probably be on the hook for at least part of the increase---MDR's book value at Sept 30 (ex the goodwill part attributable to BW of about $100Mm) was approx $12--so the adjusted book would be $6.50 assuming NO insurance participation in the "significant" increase. One's impression is that the market has quite overreacted since Thursday am to the likely extent of the problem! (due to "significant" in the 10Q not meaning "substantial"--If the lawyers thought it was in the substantial category,they would surely have said so. Big difference between the 2 words when one is a lawyer vetting the 10Q words the last few days! my 2c fwiw

To: Roebear who wrote (54664)	11/12/1999 9:51:00 PM
From: Think4Yourself	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

No, I saw nothing that even concerns me at these prices. I think post 54663 by John Clarke says it all (and very well written John!!) regarding the asbestos issue. The market SEVERELY overreacted, but that's where the little guys can make the easy money. I am invested in my Roth, my long term account, and my trading account. So what if it takes six months to double from here? Can definitely understand why some would prefer to avoid MDR. It is not for the risk-averse. This thread has really come alive the last few days. Pity it was almost all MDR related, but it is big news. It was a joy to read the many excellent posts by all, and I don't think I saw a single flame (well, maybe a lit match this morning)! Gary Burton in particular has had some very well articulated posts today. Thanks to him, and others, I have a good feeling as to why MDR did what they did with the cash. I believe they did the smart thing under the circumstances.