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 : Softbank Group Corp -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (4526)	3/22/2000 5:34:00 AM
From: swisstrader	Respond to of 6020

Are you inferring that the precipitous drop in ZD stock was due solely to what was inferred in the Economist?...don't think so...and while the burden of debt has/had caused shareholders some pain, I was a ZD shareholder during that period and remember with great clarity all sorts of painful fits and spasms ZD mgt went through that caused some pretty nasty wounds for shareholders, which had little or nothing to do with the crap the Economist renders up. How about the fallout from killing off 3 of its publications, or really crappy financials (see below), or introducing a tracking stock (ZDNet) that initially derailed the mother company (in fact, ZDNet was used to pay down the debt), or internet assets that were valued at close to nothing, or softness in tech advertising, or PC cos not having as much cash in the coffers to advertise, or a drop off in publishing revs, or massive relocation expenses, or, or, or....very tough to determine how much of the massive selloff was complements of all this or the debt ZD was carrying. Also, if you believe in the Economist story, then you also must believe that ZDNet was introduced to pay down the debt that this very mean man, Mr. Son laid on them. Well, after the introduction of the tracking stock, ZD actually ran up some 400% since the Oct date you mention!!, so in this case, I would think ZD shareholders would have something to be thankful for. Also, Ziff's results during that period were ugly at best. For the December period, revenues declined by 6.3% year-over-year to $378 million. Even backing out a Q4 FY98 restructuring charge of $52 million, pre-tax income fell 6.7% to $68 million. Excluding the charge, net earnings per share sank to $0.40 from $0.73 a year ago. Media companies are often valued based on their EBITDA, but Ziff's EBITDA plunged 13% to $138 million in Q4!!...not a pretty picture. p.s. non of this has to do with why Softbank does or does not do the ADR thingie.

To: Ilaine who wrote (4526)	3/22/2000 11:51:00 AM
From: Netwit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6020

Most US Securities laws regulate disclosure only. The theory is that when investors have enough information, they can make a rational decision. Given that the Economist found all this info from the required disclosure, I don't see a legal problem. And, by the way, the "Certain Transactions" section many companies 10-K's disclose interested party transactions. I would be surprised if CMGI's 10-K doesn't contain some interesting intercompany stuff as well. If I recall, at CMGI a number of the principals hold direct interects in some of the ventures as part of the corporate compensation scheme--but some have cried foul because the personal interests of the executives could be at odds with those of the shareholders. (CMGI may have taken some steps to rectify this--there was quite a stink about it for a while.) Also, as we've discussed on this board before, I suspect that the reason Softbank doesn't do an ADR in the US, if it has so decided, is more connected with US Holding Company regulations which these venture capital firms run afoul off by virtue of the fact that they hold significant minority shareholder interests in companies--in fact this is the backbone of Softbank's strategy. I own a private stake in Idealab (which is not yet public, and I think the regulatory issue on Holding Company regulations have put off their IPO efforts at least for the time being. Remember CMGI changed its stripes and acquired Altavista to establish an operating base of companies to overcome its Holding Company issues. Also, ICGE obtained an exemption from the act for its structure for a period of time.