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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pezz who wrote (25383)	11/13/2002 7:36:11 AM
From: Moominoid	Respond to of 74559

Again the point was comparing a company like LU to all possible investments. My point I was trying to make was what was the benchmark expected rate of return for that class of "all investments". I said it was more than the rate of economic growth. I also said that the benchmark return on all gambling (casinos, horseraces, lotteries etc) was negative. Some forms of trading of investments (like futures) are zero sum or all traders extract a little bit from all non-traders perhaps.

To: pezz who wrote (25383)	11/14/2002 4:19:16 AM
From: EL KABONG!!!	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

Hi pezz, But the top experts in the field did expect LU to exceed general economic growth. The Mkt had little to do with LU's decline to a penny stock. The company is near bankrupt. That's my point the expectations of those who study companies for a living were wrong. While I do understand the point that you are trying to make, LU is an imperfect example. LU is failing/has failed for many reasons, and the myriad reasons were not entirely visible to analysts or investors. To start with, LU was not 100% forthcoming regarding its accounting practices, in particular its accounts receivables. Had investors known the details within the contracts, the devil would have been recognized as lurking within the details, and the stock price would never have risen to the levels it attained before the collapse of confidence in the company. Analysts most certainly would have seen the red flags, and at the minimum, raised some concerns. But neither investors nor analysts could debate the details that were hidden from public scrutiny until such a time as the details could no longer be masked by other numbers found in corporate reports. The telecommunications industry itself simply had too much capital financing, whether in the form of venture capital or simply the rising daily price of any given telecom's stock. The weak and inefficient companies were allowed, no encouraged, to survive by the huge inflow of capital, to the point where even the viable companies had to slash prices for their products, and no one in the industry could realize profits, or in some instances even survive as an ongoing concern. In essence, the weaklings were subsidized to the point where no one in the industry had any pricing power over the end products. Lastly, the expectations for the industry were (and still are) well above what might reasonably be achieved within our lifetimes. Telecom infrastructure is not evenly distributed around the globe. Rather, there is a glut of available bandwidth in the wealthier countries (such as the USA, most of Europe, Japan, etcetera) while other parts of the world (such as most of Africa, major parts of Asia and South America) make do with a disproportionate share of the resources. Mostly LU is failing/has failed because of a total lack of trust in the company, and a near total lack of faith in the industry. My prediction is that it will be many, many years before the small investor returns to telecom for investment purposes. The current leadership must be purged, replaced by more trustworthy leadership which must prove itself before the little guy will return en masse to the sector for investing purposes. Just my point of view though... KJC PS - Sorry about your vehicle, but at least the loose nut behind the wheel was spared... <g>