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: verdad who wrote (25820)	1/26/2005 1:00:01 PM
From: verdad	Respond to of 29987

Message 20986796

To: verdad who wrote (25820)	1/27/2005 7:20:47 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 29987

<One would think that after the amounts lost in GSTRF that, as you suggested previously, Bernie, et al, would be in the poorhouse. That is hardly the case.> No one wouldn't. I lost a big stack of money, but I'm still not in the poorhouse, and those guys had a LOT more than I did so I'd be amazed if they were in the poorhouse. Globalstar wasn't a charade Verdad. <Bernie, et al, had the opportunity to buy enormous amounts of GSTRF shares at a discount when Globalstar rockets blew up on the launch pad only to regain their full value when the Company announced it was fully insured. > It wasn't a discount because the crash meant actual damage in terms of huge opportunity cost due to a one year delay in start of operations. The loss of the satellites was only $100 million or so, a relatively small amount. The share price did fall a lot more than the cost of the satellites and launch failure, from about $15 a share to about $9 a share overnight, if I remember rightly. This is all ancient history and I don't know why you are obsessing over it. It seems that you have a chip on both shoulders over it and are trying to ascribe criminality to Bernie, Irwin and co. <GSTRF shares at a discount when Globalstar rockets blew up on the launch pad only to regain their full value when the Company announced it was fully insured. > They didn't regain "full value". The share price went up because people realized the launch failure was minor and expected that the costly delay wouldn't be too bad and that the expected profits due to selling 10 billion minutes a year at $1 a minute would be huge. In fact, the company had no value from when the dopey marketing strategy was adopted. That doomed it to failure and management and financial backers wouldn't, or couldn't due to contractual choke hold by service providers, change their plans. I thought they would figure out after a year of marketing failure that they would have to slash the minute prices to attract sufficient subscribers. Bad idea! They never figured out that there is such a thing as price elasticity and a concept called supply and demand with price as the arbiter. Those were apparently novel concepts to them. Mqurice