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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BGR who wrote (125599)	9/25/2001 6:34:47 PM
From: robnhood	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

You screw your own answer yourself.. How did these companies get so overvalued? Could it be that money was too cheap and easy for too long? Or did all the money to run these stocks to the moon come out of mattreses? You've been arguing the same BS forever, and still cannot accept that the bright dudes on this thread were dead on the money.

To: BGR who wrote (125599)	9/25/2001 6:41:50 PM
From: Oblomov	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

I thought that the dotcoms had a very low cost of capital, one which was not dependent on interest rates. They get their capital from venture investors and the equity markets. At least, that's what I was told in a personal conversation by a Bear Stearns VP in Internet equity research back in March 2000. Could all of the Masters of the Universe (this time, they wore khakis and unbuttoned collars instead of Hermes power ties and Armani suits) have been wrong all at once? LU had a very unsound business plan. I have been saying that since late 1998. Fortunately I convinced some family and friends to sell back in 1999. Their receivables book was bound to blow up sooner or later.

To: BGR who wrote (125599)	9/25/2001 7:09:12 PM
From: reaper	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

<<no one had ever complained of LU having an unsound business plan.>> Absolutely untrue. Many complained, including members of this thread, Carol Levenson of Gimme Credit, Fred Hickey, Fleck, and on an on and on. Giving loans to deadbeat customers so they can buy your equipment but having no foreseeable means to pay back the loans is the essence of an unsound business plan. It is in fact a ponzi scheme; or perhaps you think that Albania would be a G7 member if only those no-fun regulators hadn't turned off the wonderful little game over there? BGR, are you aware that for the three years ended September 2000, the three biggest years of the mania, Lucent managed to take in a grand total of $794mm of cash from operations. And that during that same period they needed $6.4 billion for capital investments. That there was not a single year from 1997-2000 when LU took in more cash than it used. LU was the definition of an unsound business. Cheers

To: BGR who wrote (125599)	9/25/2001 7:14:33 PM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

The bear market was created by needlessly tight monetary policy adopted by the Fed LOL, you're joking i hope. almost all dotcoms had no realistic business model, but were funded by easy money in the waning days of the greatest bull market in the world. the party had to end one way or another, and the Fed tightening was just the proximate cause. what can i say, if you can't recognize that simple fact, we've really nothing to talk about.

To: BGR who wrote (125599)	9/25/2001 7:36:02 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

<<Dude, don't kid yourself. The bear market was created by needlessly tight monetary policy adopted by the Fed. That it was needlessly tight is clear in hindsight, as there is raging deflation going on right now. BTW, I understand that it was not AlanG but some other members who acted as inflation hawks. The dotcoms had high cash burn rate, so as cost of capital went up, they went bust. But, so did LU. While many had complained of LU being overvalued, no one had ever complained of LU having an unsound business plan. >> LOL, several here including Heinz questioned LU's viability... and folks over on other tech threads questioned their sales numbers and accused them of cooking books WAY before it crashed. Cost of capital of .com's had NOTHING to do with many of them going bust, they should have never gotten funded to begin with, this is more than clear now. There was an insane window open as wall street sold this crap to willing buyers. This is called a BUBBLE, which you still refuse to acknowlege but which is common knowlege every where else on the planet. I'm loving the use of the ignore button, and your on the list too for being so clowinish! You'd be best off not trying to re-write history, but rather learning from others once in a while. DAK