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: pcstel who wrote (17773)	10/8/2000 4:00:36 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29987

PCStel, I used an Iridium phone myself and phoned Valueman [in June 1999]. He initially thought "Oh NO!! This is awful" until he realized it was NOT the Globalstar phone, but the Iridium one. The voice quality was rotten. I then phoned him on the Globalstar phone and he was happy [he had not at that time given up on Globalstar due to bad management]. Iridium was reasonable on my end [me holding the phone]. But far from the quality of the Globalstar phone. I was not aware of it, but I believe Iridium also had significant latency problems [maybe intermittent and certainly wayyyy less than the horrible Geostationary systems such as ACeS]. However, I have used Globalstar QUALCOMM phones lots of times and the QUALCOMM versions have been simply excellent and there are so many users that it is indisputable that voice quality is simply excellent. When I used the Ericy and Telit phones at Telecom99, they were NOT so good, but still okay. I believe they've been improved since then. I believe Iridium failed because of price of minutes and price of handsets and by the time they figured out they had to really get the Wacky Wireless marketing method going, it was too late and not enough people would want a phone if they were given it. My concern is that Globalstar said they would learn from Iridium's mistakes. I have no idea which mistakes they learned from, but how to price the service is not one of them. It is not good that you have ditched your short position and are looking for a yummy cheap buy at $6. Your duty [and Geoff's] should be to remain enthusiastic shorts and point out any mistakes, blunders, mismanagement etc so that I'll be warned. Also, you are supposed to short stock so I can buy more at $5. It's unfair that you swoop in ahead of me and become another damn closet short in long drag. Iridium couldn't be used in some places due to licensing issues, so it's true it couldn't be used everywhere, but I think that was inconsequential to the failure. Similarly, the lack of coverage of Globalstar is not the central point of failure so far; the problem has largely been expensive pricing by the service providers [including Globalstar] who foolishly believed the market researchers [my experience of market researchers is that one is better to use good judgement and chicken entrails]. It's amazing how long Iridium is lingering. Mqurice

To: pcstel who wrote (17773)	10/8/2000 9:50:07 AM
From: Investartist	Respond to of 29987

PCSTEL, I have a Loral question for you. You claim to have loaded your boat with a very large number of Loral shares at $6.50 a couple of months ago. Yet, you post about 10 to 1 about Globalstar vs. Loral. Almost all of which is about Gs failings in your opinion and then you even go so far as to praise Iridium over and over again. Now, if you loved Loral at $6.50 you would really love Loral a $5 and change. If you were really a Loral long it seems you would be pounding the table at what a great buy it is for all of its "real estate in the sky" as you have indicated..... or has your opinion changed since $6.50. Nothing has really changed with Loral for the worse since you claimed to have loaded your tub with it at $6.50. In fact, since that time Bernard has reiterated how Loral would not be putting much more money itself into G relative to other partners. Privately, Bernard told a friend of mine last week that Loral was "firing on all cylinders" and doing very well. Even if Globalstar did not succeed, Loral is worth considerably more than it is priced at now as evidenced by Loral director Charles Lazarus's purchase at $6.44 per share. Also, Lehman Bros. analyst Joseph Campbell stated in August that Loral is worth at least $12 per share without Globalstar. Loral is well positioned to benefit from not only a Globalstar home run but from many other trends developing in the growing satellite data delivery business which should grow to about 50% of all data traffic in just a few years I hear. As an investor I have been buying more Loral in the low $5's because it is in a great segment of technology, has a great piece of the limited "real estate in the sky" and stands to benefit enormously from the trend towards heavy satellite data transfer (both GEO and LEO). Also, if (as I belive it will be) IFN is a home run in airplanes and potentially cruise ships, so will Globalstar and Loral be indirectly. Globalstar's data potential is just beginning to emerge and it will grow from potential to enormous reality over the next year or two in my opinion and as evidenced by Qualcomm's serious work to develop this. Globalstar has not even begun to sell data services. In a private conversation George Gilder several months ago he told me that data is where Globalstar will find its biggest potential. As an investor, the best opportunity is found when public sentiment is bearish...right? Gregg Powers verbalized this theory too. Here is a paraphase from "The Battle for Investment Survival" by Gerald M. Loeb as posted by another Loral poster. I think it applies well to Loral...don't you? <<<<<What to buy and when by: pj1020 8/22/00 2:31 pm Msg: 44284 of 48767 1. Popular sentiment should be bearish and the market should reflect this bearishness. 2. The security should be thought by the public to be so weak that it sells at low prices and is given low ratings. 3. Stick to issues that have had active markets in the past and can be expected to have active markets in the future. 4. Stocks that are widely held by institutions are not necessarily a good buy since they are usually difficult to buy cheap. 5. Invest for large gains. This requires a certain amount of speculation. These aren't my ideas. They are paraphrased from a book that is considered by many to be an investing "classic", The Battle for Investment Survival by Gerald M. Loeb. It seems to me Lor fits the above profile.>>>>>>>>>> So in the words of Maurice to you with regard to Globalstar, "It's unfair that you swoop in ahead of me and become another damn closet short in long drag." With regard to Loral I am starting to wonder if you do own it as you have stated. I find it unusual that in your great efforts to be heard on the message boards you expend virtually no effort in support of Loral which you claim to have decided to invest in heavily. This is strange. I'd be more interested in your comments about a stock you actually own like Loral than one you don't own and have actively shorted. The market has unreasonably discounted Loral and it is an enormous buying opportunity in my opinion. Investartist

To: pcstel who wrote (17773)	10/8/2000 11:46:10 AM
From: Rocket Scientist	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29987

pcstel, <<You can tell when I make a mistake, because RS is there to jump on any inaccuracy>> Well, I don't think any one person could catch all your mistakes [g] but here are a few comments.... 1. 495$ G* phones are available at ICC and have been for about a month, at least; see: Message 14289579 2. <<Don't you think the US Govt. tested the system extensively before plunking down a large chunk of change to purchase a Gateway for their exclusive use?? >> So are you really saying that the military didn't invest in their gateway until after the system was ready for testing? If they can install GWs so fast, I wish they were working for us. Come on: you must know that the USG signed on as a user (and, essentially, coinvestor, since they paid for their own dedicated Gateway) long before any opportunity to "test the system" existed. And having made that investment in a gateway, the persons responsible for that decision are naturally reluctant to admit a mistake...which could explain the lack of complaints from the USG about the QofS. Besides, at nearly the time a practical alternative to Iridium became available, Iridium stopped charging for its service. So, the QofS may not be too good, but it's free, and "you get what you pay for." 3. Iridium phones never "worked EVERYWHERE." We've discussed this countless times. In fact, Irid was never licensed to provide service in a number of places G* is working right now, including much of the Caribbean, northern Africa and parts of Eastern Europe. 4. I agree with your comments about what counts as "revenue." Clearly, cash received from selling stock, is not, formally, revenue. Payments received for Gateways and phones have not been so counted, either, but royalties on those sales are. Regards, RS