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 : Loral Space & Communications -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Parkinson who wrote (2187)	3/11/1998 11:26:00 AM
From: Geoff	Respond to of 10852

Readware comments - The last post is about an analyst downgrade from "market outperform" to "perform". Readware shows a little humor in that posts, and really rips into brokers! Yup, Readware's ok in my book :) =============== Subject: EARNINGS REPORT AGAIN Date: Mon, Mar 9, 1998 22:01 EST From: Readware Message-id: <19980310030100.WAA16920@ladder03.news.aol.com> Loral earned $.06/share for the year without the one time sale of K&F. Read my post on earnings again. The K&F sale had nothing to do with the surprising surge in Skynet's earnings. Subject: Re: estimates? Date: Tue, Mar 10, 1998 09:30 EST From: Readware Message-id: <19980310143001.JAA17199@ladder02.news.aol.com> We changed our year-end estimate to $36/share by the end of 1998, down from $38/share, due to the Orion merger (raised the 2000 year end price however to $76/share due to the merger). I doubt very much that the year-ends will be changed. Pricing models are meant as guidance, and consultancies do not change models easily. Usually only a buy-out, a major preferred, and the like would cause a price change. We had estimated G* to be $71/share by the end of 1998, and it has already tarded above that. So as I say, the pricing model is for guidance, no matter how much its accuracy from the past is validated by backtesting. I don't think we have done anything mathematically wrong in the backtesting (I know we haven't). Subject: Iridium & CDMA Date: Tue, Mar 10, 1998 10:46 EST From: Readware Message-id: <19980310154601.KAA29981@ladder03.news.aol.com> I am very surprized at all the email from people I don't know re: Iridium & CDMA. Iridium publicly made the statement that their second generation system would avail itself of CDMAone. TDMA will still be operant in the first generation, and I would be surprized if the in-orbit 2nd gen satellites did away with TDMA. I do not get the impression from the Iridium comments that Iridium is discarding TDMA, so much as allowing its communications infrastructure to be CDMAone friendly. Recasting the satellite consoles for CDMAone friendliness (and the advantages that consequently accrue to sat power) will be a material undertaking certainly. However, Iridium has stated publicly that their second generation satellites would work with CDMAone. I think that the Iridium board on AOL is probably the place to visit on Iridium specific technology questions, though. Participants there would be more familiar with Iridium developments than I. Subject: Brokerage "Market Perform"& Analysts Date: Wed, Mar 11, 1998 08:44 EST From: Readware Message-id: <19980311134401.IAA11601@ladder03.news.aol.com> The LOR analyst from a major brokerage yesterday reduced his rating on LOR from "market outperform" to "perform". For what purpose and to whose benefit? Loral next year at this time will be at least 25% higher in price than it is today. None of the market averages will have risen 25% in the same period. So what's the purpose of the "downgrade"? To generate commissions? Does the brokerage representative actually think he has such prescience that he can know in the future on what day to reverse his opinion on LOR and put an "outperform" again on it? Did the same analyst find a stock in which to place funds from the sale of Loral that would rise faster in price percentagewise than the market? Or does he in the future have prescience enough to know when to downgrade LOR from a marketperform to "underperform"? What if LOR buys a cash or earnings accretive constellation next week, or in April? Does the brokerage firm change the recommendation again? Does the "market perform" rating from this analys mean LOR will not double in his opinion over the next thirty months in price? Does it mean in his opinion it will not rise 50%, 5%? Is he saying that if the market avaerage remain the same from now till next September. e.g., LOR will be the same price as it is today? Where do these analysts get their ability to remain in their employment positions? I am still reminded of the midwest brokerage analyst who last April put a hold on Loral at $14 5/8/share. He still has a "hold" on Loral, and is still working at that brokerage. I saw notes from another brokerage comments yesterday on Iridium World. The analyst claims, according to the notes, he did his own study on satcom telephony demand and found it not as strong as Iridium claimed. How did he do his study? Did he go to a representative sampling of the 140 service providers worldwide Iridium has signed up and look at what the demand from their side was? Did he speak with representatives of Kyocera? Did he sit down with Booze Allen & Hamilton, and ask for their telco databases for Iridium? Did he meet with ITU representative familiar with the Iridium consumer demand situation? Better yet, did he actually visit some 13-15 geographically representative countries to get a "lock" on actually what was occurring with satcom telephony demand? Don't think so.