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 : Value Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bob Rudd who wrote (16701)	3/29/2003 1:28:08 PM
From: Larry S.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78666

I don't think that BK is out of the question for MO at all. The continuing litigation, and the bond provision in this case are real. And there may be more setbacks. While tobacco has percerved on appeal, the bond iss ue is a treacherous wrinkle. wasn't that whyTexaco filed BK years ago? The amazing thing is that the states are depending on tobacco money to fund their budgets, they have sold tobacco revenue bonds to get the money up front. States and fed have raised tobacco taxes to the point where its real expensive to buy a pack of smokes. this is leading to smokers finding ways of cutting cost of smoking: off-brands, internet, native american sales, etc. so thehigher tobacco taxes are, the more dependent the states are on these taxes, the more this revenue is likely to slip. MO's warning that they may not be able to make their payments is more than posturing. i personally see no reason to invest in MO or RJR, at this point. UST maybe, but why buy the risks? The reward aren't likely to be there. jmho.larry