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 : Loral Space & Communications -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rocket Scientist who wrote (7175)	1/3/2000 9:18:00 PM
From: Sawtooth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10852

If Lor and G* price continue to move conversely, at some point Lor will sell for less than its relative ownership in G; all other net assets ignored. At the rate that G is moving up, this looks to be very possible. I'm trying, with difficulty, to get my arms around why this makes sense, debt-wise or otherwise. Can someone sum it up for me concisely and related to Lor's financials; not politics, lack of faith in BS, project slippage (as these would relate to G, also)? Or, is it as some have claimed and I have bet on, a misunderstood situation, an out of synchronization (Lor:G) that provides an opportunity to exploit the relative value difference? Most appreciated. ........VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

To: Rocket Scientist who wrote (7175)	1/3/2000 10:22:00 PM
From: llwk7051@aol.com	Respond to of 10852

Rocket Scientist, Hum, seems like we are getting a huge discount on value. I like that. I have followed Loral and Gstrf for several years, but I didn't commit to a position until recently and am just beginning to closely follow it. I finished adding the shares I wanted today. Unfortunately, my timing was off. I bought this morning. But I doubt that matters. I would have bought same number of shares either way. My faith is long term. I think we will start seeing positive things in next few quarters with gstrf. Once that happens the current prices should be history. Again thanks for the analysis of value. Robert