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: Gary Burton who wrote (54669)	11/12/1999 8:44:00 PM
From: IndioBlues	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

Today's MDR 10Q excerpt re "increase" in certain asbestos claims is quoted below for the convenience of the thread. Gary, I do agree that the market is assuming very nearly the worst possible case, i.e., massive claims, minimal insurance. I suspect this is an unlikely scenario but the market may require the company to speak to the point very directly before the stock heads north again. "Recently, B&W has experienced an increase in the amounts demanded by certain plaintiff's attorneys to settle mesothelioma, lung cancer and asbestosis claims. The demanded amounts significantly exceed the average amount of B&W's historical settlement payments for these types of claims. We are evaluating this development to determine if it is representative of the amounts required to settle these types of claims in the future and its overall impact on the estimates and forecasts of B&W's ultimate exposure for non-employee asbestos claims. If we are unsuccessful in negotiating the demanded amounts down to historical levels, which typically have included moderate annual increases, B&W may be forced to accept higher settlement amounts, begin litigating such claims or take other available courses of action. Any of these actions could have a material adverse impact on B&W's ultimate exposure for asbestos liability claims and McDermott's (including B&W's) consolidated financial position, results of operations and business prospects." (pgs 30-31)

To: Gary Burton who wrote (54669)	11/12/1999 9:37:00 PM
From: Roebear	Respond to of 95453

Gary, MDR Thanks for your interpretation of significant vs substantial, that really helped clarify what I was trying to see in the 10Q. I also appreciated your sharing your thoughts a day or so ago that the bottom was not in yet. That was my 'feeling' from the charts but having confirmation from our resident EW guru really helped buttress my decision to stay out until I saw some sign of a bottom. The stocks slight positive reaction midday, when I bought, and end of day give me some hope that the bottom is not too far away. I do not think the end of day was short covering, but that's just how I read the tape. What did not look attractive, given the dizzying decline and asbestos jitters at 14,(sheesh, longs maybe needed some asbestos underwear!) became gorgeous looking to me in the 8's. Hopefully, given a little public confirmation of the semantic ramifications of "significant", the stock will become attractive. Its striking that a similar semantic issue in the wording of an earnings warning by VTS last February/March, started a big fall in that stock. MDR has broken more support than VTS did so a similar V bottom is doubtful. If it were a tech stock like HIFN it would probably retrace 50% on a deadcat in a day or two, its not a tech, but some kind of bounce would seem technically necessary. Best Regards, Roebear

To: Gary Burton who wrote (54669)	11/12/1999 9:49:00 PM
From: Roebear	Respond to of 95453

Gary, The similar semantic situation in VTS was the word "NOMINAL" used by the company to describe their earnings for the rest of the year. Note the dates and chart of VTS and there was a lot of bucks in that English lesson!: Dumping by: golf1999 3/3/1999 5:46 pm EST Msg: 617 of 1748 The price drop in VTS is due to managements comments that analyst projections for 2nd half of fiscal year were to high. Management feels that balance of fiscal year earnings to be "nominal". Which I assume to mean nil. According to earnings report, VTS has 75 million in the bank and close to 150 million backlog. Market capitalization is only about 200 million. VTS still appears to be a bargain but Wallstreet sold off due to no visible earnings for the next several quarters. NOMINAL by: roebear 3/6/1999 9:30 pm EST Msg: 633 of 1748 Agree this is a key word used by management to describe their earnings for the rest of the year. It is also a strange word to use. It can mean "relating to a designated or theoretical size that may vary from the actual: Approximate" or it can mean "trifiling or insignificant" (which SOME FUNDS no doubt take it to mean) or it can mean "being according to plan: Satisfactory". So obviously it is a nebulous term to use and that would usually make me quite nervous when used in this fashion by a company. No matter what happens they could say "Yeah, that's what we said" However, VTS does have a history of beating their earnings to the high side of estimates rather than the low side. You can't do that by hyping the stock, you have to play it a little pessimistic. Finally, the stock has a very high institutional holding, something like 72% (or did have) so I imagine selling could go on for awhile. Overall, I would say the stock's appreciation potential is "nominal", only I am not sure how to define that <VBG> **************************************************************** Note also the fact that VTS had a high institutional holding. The plot thickens, perhaps the game is afoot! Roebear