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 : S3 (A LONGER TERM PERSPECTIVE) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael who wrote (7302)	11/4/1997 12:45:00 PM
From: Bill Lin	Respond to of 14577

I an not making up these estimates, they are from analysts. I've seen estiamtes placing S3's portion of the Fab as high as $500 million which is close to S3's entire market value. these analyst opinions were based upon grey market prices of US $3.50. i forget what Lehman said on the ALSC report, but i think that they suggested a $3 billion NT value on the USC fab, which comes out to about $4.50. If you don't believe me, check out the ALSC thread, the S3 10Q, and the S3 Q3 earnings to double check the numbers. BV is affected, when you decrease net income. Retained earnings is listed under Shareholders Equity, under Liabilities. Do you know how to read a balance sheet? if not, then you might want to go to edgar and download their 10Q. If so, then you might like TRC (Tejon Ranch) more, since they own tons of property north of LA/Bakersfield/I-5 and have it on their book at pennies. Or buy hong Kong stocks, who have the same thing. the fab which alone could be worth 2-4 times what it is listed at. i have done numerical calculations to support my $2.25/$4.50 estimate book value on the fab. If you think it's worth 4x or $8.80, then can you please do the numbers for us on the thread? if you invest based on what you "heard" you will be as sorry as i am. i am still investigating the lease deal on the new Santa Clara HQ. Cannot imagine this asset can be easily flipped, nor can i imagine it should be considered. If not considered, its a "trapped" asset. BL

To: Michael who wrote (7302)	11/4/1997 1:12:00 PM
From: Dom Sartorio	Respond to of 14577

To all: Lots of heartache and heatbreak on this thread this morning, certainly understandable but if you're stuck holding this stock this morning (like me) it's probably best to just look at this objectively: 1. As some have already pointed out the stock is trading at the liquidation value of the company. How often is it that a stock trades at or below the company's liquidation value for a long period of time? In other words, I'm not selling now; I just don't see the stock price getting much lower than this for any long period of time. 2. On the other hand, given management's ineptitude and/or dishonesty I wouldn't be a buyer either. I wouldn't trust these guys to grow my investment. Institutions & fund managers think the same way and I'm sure they don't want to answer why S3 is in their portfolio. So the big money is staying away from this stock. I don't see the stock moving much higher for a long period of time. So if you're either selling today or buying more as a knee-jerk reaction to this bad news or the sudden drop in price, I question your strategy (unless you're tax-loss selling, but that's a different matter). Personally I'm holding on a bit longer to see what happens. More news will probably come out over the next few weeks clarifying the damage and how permanent it is. And maybe some good things will happen (like a management shakeup... or maybe I'm just dreaming?) I'll write some out-of-the-money calls on my position to generate some income in the meantime. Lastly, I'm a little surprised to see some people on this thread claiming they've lost years worth of income or that they're relying on their S3 investment for their living expense, feed families, etc. If this really is the position you're in then you've got problems much bigger than Gary being a fruitcake. First, IMHO, any investment in the stock market must be properly hedged or diversified. You should never just take one position and expect it to do well, no matter how much of a "sure thing" is appears to be. Because something can always go wrong. You can never know 100% of what's going on in a company (heck even the CEO doesn't know 100%, especially if that CEO is Gary Johnson), and business conditions can change over time. In other words shit happens. A butterfly can flap its wings in China and the stock drops as a result, and no amount of DD could have predicted it. This is why you should hedge or diversify.. by doing this you play the percentages; in aggregate you'll come out ahead. If you buy just one stock in your life then hedge it with puts. Or buy many stocks (after properly researching each company, of course). If you do your research right, then for every stock that goes down, several will go up. But if you invest in just one company, then maybe that's the one that goes down... Secondly to invest in the markets to feed your family is just plain dumb. You're gambling with your family and your livelihood. As somebody else on this thread said you can gamble with money but don't gamble with friends and family. If you're in a position where you're investing in the markets to pay your rent, then it's time to take a good long look in the mirror. Something is going wrong in your life and only you can fix it. Don't look for the markets to give a damn. Maybe work harder at your job and ask for a raise. Maybe go back to school and learn more marketable skills. Or scale down your standard of living. But something's gotta change and you're the only person who can do it. Sorry if this sounds harsh but it seems like it needs to be said. I think most people will agree that this message is sound so please don't flame the messenger. My two cents, which seems to be all that's left of my S3 investment, :-) DOM