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 : WCOM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zebraspot who wrote (2348)	4/11/1998 11:59:00 AM
From: Mazman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11568

Zebraspot, On the contrary, I think Ebbers purposely plays up his simple, country-boy background to his strategic advantage. Competitors are more likely to underestimate him. And the media is more likely to give him coverage as 'that colorful maverick" whose shaking up the telecom world. Yet from what I've seen and read, behind his simple, low-tech demeanor beats the heart of a savvy, shrewd businessman. One who follows the maxim of always hiring people who are smarter than you are. Regards, Mazman

To: zebraspot who wrote (2348)	4/11/1998 12:03:00 PM
From: JM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11568

Thoughts on Ebbers: I do not believe it is necessary for the CEO of a company to be an expert in all facets of a business. They must, however, be able to surround themselves with people who are experts (Sidgemoore, et al) and then motivate and lead these individuals toward the realization of the vision for the company. Some companies prosper with experts at the helm (Gates,Grove), but others prosper with non experts at the helm. I believe this is due, in part, because a non-expert leader will be forced to surround himself with technically adept individuals, and then empower them to do what is necessary to get the job done. Successful visionary leaders(like Ebbers), have an uncanny ability to choose the right people, and put them in a position to contribute positively.

To: zebraspot who wrote (2348)	4/11/1998 12:05:00 PM
From: B.G. Galbraith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11568

Ebbers has several great personal qualities that overshadow any lack ot techie knowledge. 1. He knows how to pick people with the right stuff. 2. He knows how to integrate an acquired company and he uses the talent that he acquires appropriately. 3. He keeps a sharp eye on the bottom line, on overhead, and he expects and demands results. 4. Contrary to what he may say for public consumption, he has a clear vision of where he wants to go and how to get there. Don't be fooled by his "aw shucks" country boy act. This guy ain't no country boy! BG

To: zebraspot who wrote (2348)	4/11/1998 12:13:00 PM
From: B.G. Galbraith	Respond to of 11568

While I was writing my reply to your post, I noticed that a couple of others were posted along the same lines. Didn't mean to gang up on you Zebra. BG

To: zebraspot who wrote (2348)	4/11/1998 1:16:00 PM
From: William Cooper	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11568

Doesn't bother me at all. His track record speaks for itself. Sorry if this was posted before... We have just published a 56 page report on WorldCom, which provides a very thorough analysis of the WorldCom/MCI combination. In this report, we first lay out the strategic assets of the combined company, as well as discuss in some detail, the business logic behind the merger with MCI. Most importantly, though, we spend a great deal of time drilling down into the specific drivers of synergies, on both the domestic and international sides, with the belief that once readers go through this section, they will realize that the synergy targets will not only be met but exceeded. In particular, investors will realize that the lion s share of the synergies are being driven by very specific, identifiable, network by network categories, where WorldCom and MCI can take advantage of one another s complementary assets to optimally carry each other s traffic. We also spend a few pages reviewing the Internet, since the Internet seems to be the topic of conversation with regard to Department of Justice (DOJ) approval. The upshot is that we illustrate in the report that WorldCom only owns 14% of the Internet network access points in the U.S., which is hardly anywhere close to being a dominant presence. In addition, we discuss what we believe is the real issue with the DOJ, namely getting guarantees from WorldCom that smaller ISPs that currently use WorldCom s backbone will continue to be able to so, going forward--a concession we believe that WorldCom will easily accept. We also provide a thorough analysis of the revenue distribution in 1999 and how it changes going forward accompanied with sanity checks (as we call them) on why we believe the forecasted growth rate for revenues of 17% per annum, could actually prove to be conservative. For instance, we only assume that WorldCom garners roughly 20% of the growth of its addressable market, half the incremental share gain that MCI achieved over the past 10 years in long distance, despite WorldCom clearly having a unique set of diversified assets in this industry, on which MCI can apply its industry-leading marketing and merchandising and systems capabilities. Finally, a WorldCom report from us (this is the third major one in three years) would not be complete without our famous, "Explaining the Models" section. In this section, we go into gory details about how we build our earnings models, including the incorporations of Brooks Fiber and CNS/ANS into the WCOM model. In addition, we discuss the various non-operational adjustments to these models, such as goodwill and fair value accounting. The upshot of the model discussion will be self-evident. Our numbers are clearly conservative. We are assuming the midpoint of the collar to calculate the exchange ratio. The fact is, WCOM is trading above the high end of the collar; thus, just because of simple arithmetic, our 1999 earnings estimate of $1.90 is 10 cents too low. In addition, we assume no revenue synergies ever in our model, which means that as revenue synergies occur over time, our earnings forecasts of $2.90 in the year 2000, $4.00 in the year 2001, $5.25 in the year 2002, $6.30 in the year 2003 and $7.50 in the year 2004 will become increasingly conservative, as the revenue synergies accumulate over time. NET/NET: We think this WorldCom report is the most thorough, company specific report we have ever written in our 13 year Wall Street career, largely because we have never been more excited about a single company at any given time than we are about WorldCom today. We fundamentally believe that this will be a $100 stock within the next 2 to 2 years (this is how I got it, I guess it is 2 1/2) if not sooner.