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 : Global Crossing - GX (formerly GBLX) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Theophile who wrote (13150)	8/4/2001 11:28:24 PM
From: Ally	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15615

Re: Capacity Swaps The term "swap" was used as a negative connotation by the Prudential Securities analyst during the conference call. He had a negative interpretation on a paragraph of the Q2 release which read: "During the quarter, Global Crossing entered into several agreements with various carrier customers for the purchase or lease of capacity and co-location space. These transactions were implemented in order to acquire cost-effective local network expansions; to provide for cost-effective alternatives to new construction in certain markets in which the Company anticipates shortages of capacity; and to provide additional levels of physical diversity in the network as the Company implements its global mesh architecture. The new cash commitments totaled approximately $358 million." Casey and Coor explained that the purchases were part of GX's capital expenditure budget. Just like VZ or Q buy IRU lease capacities from GX (rather than build themselves), in Q2, GX signed agreements to buy lease capacities and co-location space with various carriers "to provide for cost effective alternatives to new constructions in certain markets". I don't see any hanky panky at all! Why build if you can buy cost effective leases with other carriers? When Verizon or Q buy capital leases from GX, are they accused of swapping? Again it brings back to my previous point that with Reg FD, analysts are now a confused lot. They are receiving the same information and at the same time as you and I. They now have to think and interpret independently, so we'll see many more interpretations in many directions. While some may see a certain development as positive, others see the same issue as negative. It confuses the heck out of investors to see analysts disagree, and I suspect there will only be much more such confusion in the future. You see, analysts now are deprived of simply being able to regurgitate what management says to them like they could before Reg FD. Now they have to think and analyze, and we are seeing the results... some of them just CAN'T THINK clearly. A case in point, imo, is the Prudential Securities analyst on this issue. It shows that this guy has never experienced real business world where it is common for suppliers to be customers, and vice versa. I guess it'll drive him bonkers when the carriers do bandwidth trading... they are all in collusion to up their revenue! ROTFL!