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 : Commerce One Inc - (CMRC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Pruguy who wrote (1096)	4/1/2000 7:08:00 PM
From: Hands Off	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1938

Here is a link to a more positive cut on Crook's comments: ragingbull.com My take is the following: Assume CMRC were to get 50% of the transaction fees on a GM only deal. For illustration assume $1000 of tran fees and, therefore, $500 to C1. Now add Ford and Chrysler to the deal. Obviously, more transactions with these additions. Shall we say $2500 in transaction fees with the addition of Ford and Chrysler. Also we reduce C1's cut to 20% (half way between 15% & 20% mentioned in above article) and guess what - C1 gets the same amount of $. It seems logical to me that GM is saying to C1 - look we are bringing more folks to the party and we got to split the pie a little differently - but its a bigger pie. The other part of the puzzle is that now ORCL is saying they will build the exchange and won't charge transaction fees. Give it a rest Larry. These folks like GM and Boeing are are big enough to want the best with the least amount of uncertainty and headache. They are less interested in exchanges than building cars and airplanes. C1 proved they are the best by beating out ORCL with BA. Nice try Larry but stick to your SQL. I agree that we need more information from C1 on the details of the exchange but this drop only proves to me that most of the folks investing are followers and it just takes a loud voice to point them to the kool-aid bowl. BTW C1 only represents 3% of my portfolio but I won't be adding more until I see some clarification on how revenues are to be generated.

To: Pruguy who wrote (1096)	4/1/2000 7:14:00 PM
From: LLCoolG	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1938

All, The problem lies more with the fact that in-depth analysis of all of the technology stocks will not reflect well on the current prices. Err, at least until 3 weeks ago. If somebody wanted to break these things down as Crook did, he has a point in stating that revenues may not be as expected. However, there are large amounts of uncertainty which account for both the tremendous stock runs, and the points that people like Crook tried to make. I guess the only big problem I really had with that whole thing was it seemed like Prudential was buying an awful lot of CMRC in the 152-153 range early Friday morning. Read whatever you want into something like that, but it looked pretty poor from where we were sitting. The better houses would be a little more subtle. Either that or their clients don't hold their opinions in very high regard. Bottom line is, I don't think anyone, including the company officers, know exactly what pounds of flesh they will be able to extract, or even what kind of flesh it will be. However, software is a fairly lucrative business, and if CMRC keeps wrapping up deals with large multi-national and international companies, like they have been and Oracle and Ariba have not been at nearly the same rate, I would think that regardless of the current sentiment, the current market cap is probably low. And for disclosure purposes, I have traded this once, from last September to December (105 to 240X3), and hold my current block at 152 from about 6 weeks ago. It may go down to 100, who knows, but I suspect we will see 200+ again sometime in the coming weeks. It's just a matter of time. Don't blame Prudential. They just piled on to everyone else. G