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: limtex who wrote (2562)	6/10/1998 12:42:00 PM
From: SDR-SI	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 11568

Although it may be felt that <These guys (EU) are incapable of creating entities for the new world of comms>, and although the statistics which answer your questions, no doubt come from a very limited set of binary-like numbers, the EC and its regulatory process are a reality. We must hope that Mr.Ebbers and Mr. Sidgemore will be able to bring their considerable business creativity to bear, in order to maximize the opportunity with MCI and to minimize the long-term costs of getting by the regulatory hurdles. As the prior news story post indicates, divesting UUnet is not an option (and probably not a requirement). I have great confidence that the people who have brought WCOM from non-existence to where it is today will find a means to make the MCI deal both go through and be the cornerstone of the next WCOM leap forward. Their track record would certainly make one think it is possible. Steve

To: limtex who wrote (2562)	6/10/1998 12:43:00 PM
From: JM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11568

Sum of answers to questions 1 through 3 = 0 Unfortunately the EU can add much more than hot air to the debate of the pending merger. They will approve only when they are satisfied that the new entity will not violate their own stodgy antitrust regs. Also EU and our own DOJ are said to be working closely at considering the antitrust implications of this deal. What a scary thought, two groups of uninformed regulators working on the same problem. According to previously posted press releases, if EU/DOJ insist that WCOM divest UUNET, the deal will be off. Is the value of MCI proportional to the premium that WCOM has agreed to pay? Since the numbers were reworked (additional synergies found) after the GTE counter offer, I have held the opinion that this deal is a stretch. Why weren't these synergies found the first time around? Could WCOM be better off without MCI?