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 : Internet Capital Group Inc. (ICGE) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Hua who wrote (1001)	1/7/2000 11:29:00 PM
From: jim	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4187

We agree. I think the biggest concern with ICGE was their operational ability. Doubtless with the money they now have they have the ability to attract good people to help run things, but good people are in short supply and there is now a board to deal with, gone are the days of hundreds of thousands of cheap options just for signing on. There are now lots of venture capital funds, these have been good years, this is just the one that has made the headlines first with the B2B angle. Look at other P/NAV ratios like LDP's for example. I think the GE's and IBM's are just as surprised as anyone as to how high and how fast this ran up, they will be looking to exit. I think it's close to the top, 200 is the ceiling and I also see alot more downside than upside risk here.

To: Tom Hua who wrote (1001)	1/8/2000 11:05:00 AM
From: LarryCPA	Respond to of 4187

Tom, SFE invented the public VC company. They are more often accused of over managing their properties, not of being a closed end fund. Traditionally SFE sold at a premium (1980s) to their public companies for the earnings and pipeline. CMGI, which I own and love, has copied the SFE strategy and applied it to the internet before Pete Muser knew what the internet was. However their "hands on" approach is the same. ICGE is a SFE baby and still has SFE management advice. They too, very much want to be "nurturers" rather then just a VC company. That, IMHO, is why these huge companies are buying into ICGE. It is a younger hipper version of SFE. That is not to say that ICGE deserves such a large premium, but expecting it to trade at less than $15 per share could get you a job at Barron's. LOL

To: Tom Hua who wrote (1001)	1/10/2000 10:21:00 AM
From: still learning	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4187

Tom, this is not a defensive post, so try not to take it wrong. Valuing SFE or ICGE as a closed end fund is simply misguided, since neither you nor I have the oppt'y to buy into early satage pre-IPO companies. While ICGE may have gotten ahead of itself, IMHO, the appropriate way to value it is using some % of the NAV -- you think it's 80% I think closer to 90-100%, but that's not the key issue. The real test is what are the private companies worth. In SFE's case they have been valued at nothing on many occasions, but when a home run is clearly in the pipeline -- such as when ICGE came out, and to a lesser extent when CATP or other "sure winners" were on deck, SFE ran up to accurately reflect the impending "dividend value". What makes ICGE tricky is there are so many pipeline companies, IPOs are coming very quickly, and guaging the impending NAV vs the current NAV is getting very hard. That explains why ICGE is getting a premium to NAV. Is it the right premium? Who knows. I think it's too high, but not 10x too high, more like 20-30% too high. But let's not kid ourselves and say we can replicate their portfolio on our own, since we can't. If all you want to do is own the public companies, then of course you can do so. But you still won't have their cost basis, nor will you get into any IPOs at offering. What ICGE needs to do is accelerate its IPOs, exit its early investments, and refill the pipeline in order to show an ongoing ability to start companies, move on, and create a business around venture capital. How is that any different from a product release cycle or an ongoing service business? OTOH, if all they do is keep filling the pipeline and don't bring enough companies public, then it's like having slowing earnings, since all their earning power is derived from seed capital that goes public. As an aside, Barrons, on the whole carries little weight for me, positive or negative.