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.

Non-Tech : The Critical Investing Workshop -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stantheman who wrote (724)	1/15/2000 4:08:00 PM
From: Hobie1Kenobe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35685

<<The guy's last name started with Hy......? >> Stan, It sounds like your referring to Greg Hymowitz (sp) of the Circle T Partners hedge fund? I know he was quite critical of Q during the run to $800 a few weeks ago. I'm not sure, but I do believe his fund was short the Q so (as with any manager or analyst) be wary of motives. Good luck. JF3

To: stantheman who wrote (724)	1/15/2000 6:02:00 PM
From: Jim Willie CB	Respond to of 35685

Stan, I think the issue with Telecosm stocks is different "less dependence on borrowed $$ than other non-tech companies" I dont think that is the central issue older slower companies lacking serious growth are vulnerable to the prevailing interest rates their PEratios run consistently with the inverse of interest rates Telecosm stocks that are likely to change the face of our entire society are not dependent upon borrowed money... they are given valuation on the future size of their business operations what difference does it make for interest rates to be 6% vs 7% ?? more the issue is whether CDMA for theQ reaches 85% vs 45% adoption rates by end of y2001 if a firm's revenues are likely to grow 10-fold, then a marginal hike in rates is immaterial... it aint borrowing costs that define the valuation... it is revenue growth and owning an emerging tech platform / jim