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 : Philip Morris - A Stock For Wealth Or Poverty (MO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rarebird who wrote (1403)	4/15/1998 9:21:00 PM
From: puborectalis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6439

You know Rarebird...why doesn't the government forbid smoking of cigarettes in almost EVERY film coming out of Hollywood...don't you think that is more poignant than raising the price of a pack of cigarettes.Seeing every cinema star chainsmoking on the big screen is more of a stimulus to teenagers to smoke than billboard advertising,IMO

To: Rarebird who wrote (1403)	4/15/1998 11:07:00 PM
From: don kramer	Respond to of 6439

! ANOTHER HEADS UP ! This evening, a Federal Judge in Fl. ruled against plaintiffs of a Union bring suit ... CHECK OUT what the Judge said... !!!!!!! [from Yahoo about 8pm EST ] after rejecting all of the plaintiffs' claims, the court concluded in its 16-page opinion that: ''The tobacco industry has, as of late, become the whipping-boy of American political discourse. The fact that the tobacco industry has recently become very unpopular, however, is insufficient ground for this Court to overturn well-established common law rules and well-settled methods of statutory interpretation to permit recovery where recovery would otherwise be barred. If courts were to ignore the law and permit recovery as a matter of course against an unpopular defendant for the sole reason that the defendant is unpopular, courts would have abandoned their constitutionally-mandated role of interpreting the law and would have assumed the role of political institutions.'' I am buying, dk

To: Rarebird who wrote (1403)	4/16/1998 9:59:00 AM
From: RWilson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6439

>>The chances of your doomsday scenario becoming realized are extremely slim. I give it at best a 5% chance of coming true. << Doomsday ?? I just painted today's reality. No speculation as to "doomsday". I think MO will continue o make a lot of money both here and abroad. Just not 12-15% annual returns. They'll stick around to make a cupla a billion less than they do now which is still more than most Fortune 500 companies. There is no "cash on the table" as the companies involved have walked away from the June '97 settlement deal. Kessler started the entire teenage-smoking crusade which has usurped the once strong political clout of the industry. Kessler and Koop are very important to any deal that Clinton, and dems in the HOuse will sign on to. I think he's a goof but that's besides the point. >based on your own principles and views of what the tobacco industry should have done, but it will be sufficient to propel the shares of MO significantly higher.< I agree with the foreoing. And I'll sell my remaining shares on that rally because then you'll have an overvalued stock based on their new EPS potential. In the meantime hold on to your wallet cause Minnesota 'aint gonna be pretty. The key question in my mind is how likely it is for them to simply go back and resume legal battle and pretend the last year was a bad dream. I'm trying to see if there's any good reason for the p/e to go up because raw EPS driven stock appreciation--like he old days-- isn't gonna happen. So far, I haven't heard one thing that will drive up the p/e --and which will make the shares less compelling to buy/own--besides litigation relief. (By the way, the companies signed on the June settlement which didn't shield them from individual suits, just class-action. I think that was a mistake also because class actions don't bother me. They won't get certified or succeed because of the disparities among the different litigants claiminng cancer,and other illnesses, etc. I didn't like the June deal either as I thought it unneccessary. I feared they'd take away the "edge" of owning this great company. (Low p/e high EPS. ) I was right. The individual cases are OK because they rarely set prescedent and we can calculate the potential damages basd on logical models of victims, case dockets,demographics,average pay-outs, etc. I really beleive mnmgt just got sick of lawyers and lawsuits and being treated like public enemey numero uno. Too bad. Bible blew round one big time. He's rich. Maybe if he's sick of litigating he should have stpepped down. He cost the shareholders a lot of dough. Oh and I'm too busy to make my replies "pretty" . I assume you get the point without perfect spelling and syntax. RW