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.

Non-Tech : Littlefield Corporation (LTFD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: freeus who wrote (6349)	1/14/1998 3:12:00 PM
From: WallStBum	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10368

I almost think it comes down to the type of investor you are. Nothing wrong with being a short-termer and indeed, depending on the security I may have varying long and short term interests at any given time. I personally started buying BNGO in Mar 97 when VGM were a non-factor. I was really turned on by the charitable connection to bingo operations, the strong balance sheet equity, lack of debt, cash-per-share, earnings per share. Indeed, I have more intimate knowledge of these today and value BNGO considerably higher than I did then. But the conundrum comes with the VGM. To the extent they provide an additional earnings stream, that's fine or even a bonus. To the extent that they have become a focus for investors in valuing BNGO, that's disappointing. Personally, I hate the things. I hate gambling, I hate lotteries (espcially those sanctioned or operated by state governments) And indeed, BNGO may get beaten down in share price even further as a result of VGM. But I still consider VGM a side business or ancillary to their true operational mission. I may get hate-mail over this, but truthfully, it would not trouble me greatly to lose them. It's not worth the trouble, if every time some state legislator, attorney general or governor up for re-election, feels like calling a press conference to rail on the industry of sin, we lose our collective asses. Having said that, I concede I was damn excited myself when VGM were being added gangbusters, but I think it is now obvious, they've overshadowed the rest of the story. Not to mention, as far as a proven or dependable earnings stream, they've proven not to be all they're cracked up to be. A solution, however unrealistic, might be to split off the VGM portion of the BNGO operations into a separate public entity, so those uncomfortable with VGM sell those shares and increase their holdings in the pure charitable bingo operations. Maybe even offer 1 for 1 of each, or 1 for 2 of either one. At the moment, I'd vote for it. But of course it's just my opinion. dax