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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Globalstar Telecommunications Limited GSAT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (16018)	8/21/2000 3:47:13 PM
From: not925	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29987

Look down, before looking up ... Gregg: Thank you for your feedback. What if I said: Okay, I accept your upside outlook (i.e. 3x better in MOU, and therefore upside equity valuation of $40 billion possible). Looking at the upside was never my problem for this project/investment. I know the tech is good, it works, and the market will widen as Moore's Law march forward. I also know management and its partners have an outstanding track record (it's been a long road getting here!). It's the short-term downside that holds me back. A timing issue really. As value investors should do, what if we looked down before we looked up? I wonder what do you see? Can you provide some insight here? I am surprised to see PCM, a risk-averse value manager, in this investment at this point in time. Given that the market cap of the equity is $2.5 billion and break-even cash flow seems so far away. As expressed above, this project will remain in orbit in the long-run for sure. But (for me) the issue is when will this business reach reasonable cash flow? And, more importantly, what will happen to existing equity holders between now and then? There is no doubt the project will need a significant amount of additional cash by 4/2001 (just seven months away). So what will existing shareholders have to give up to obtain the additional cash to keep the project moving forward? Looking down first, quantitatively, how do you think about GSTRF?

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (16018)	8/21/2000 4:07:44 PM
From: Valueman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29987

Globalstar U.S., has a contract to provide 4,000 fixed wireless units to geographically dispersed villages throughout the country. Did I miss a press release somewhere?

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (16018)	8/21/2000 5:00:09 PM
From: John Stichnoth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29987

Re expected rates: 47 cents is the mobile terminal rate. I believe fixed terminals are projected to wholesale for 35 cents. The prevailing wisdom is that a blended rate will be about 40 cents. (Not that the difference is crucial to our analysis, of course.)

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (16018)	8/21/2000 6:23:20 PM
From: pcstel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29987

Gregg.. A couple of quick responses to your posts.. The first being to the Mexican Govts "universal access service".. As I am sure you are aware.. There are many nations. (i.e. Brasil) that have "universal access mandates". These "Blue Laws" have been on the books for many a year, and the political parties in many of these countries seem to prefer using public funds for purposes which behove the privileged, rather than enrich the masses.. Sure the ideals of "universal access services" make great election day "fodder", but the reality of providing "basic subsidized communications", will generally fall below the need of basic health care, potable drinking water, and reliable waste treatment facilities.. Even here in the US where "universal access laws" are enforced.. There are remote mountain towns that do not have telephone service, and since telephone service is not available.. "Universal Access" is not enforceable.. BTW.. I did not see a press release about the Mexican Govt. Contract.. The Mexican Contract I have seen is the 4,000 phones for the Gas Stations.. And even that announcement seemed more like an agreement than a contract.. i.e. There was no dollar figures provided in the announcement.. The cruise ship argument has been discussed many, many times.. And basically boils down to the following IMO.. Cruise Ships are not stationary vehicles.. Cruise Ships typically Criss-Cross the Globe.. I have personally been on several "Re-location" cruises where ships move from one part of the world to another.. Like Orient Cruise Lines. orientlines.com . Their ships go from the Caribbean to Antarctica to India, to the Red Sea, to Africa.. Their current telecommunications provider can provide access from almost anywhere they sail.. Until Globalstar can match the coverage area that Inmarsat currently provides.. Cruise ships will have little incentive to change out telecommunications carriers.. IMO.. Best Regards, PCSTEL