SI
SI
discoversearch

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: M CAHILL who wrote (2740)6/24/1998 6:49:00 PM
From: stock_bull69  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 11568
 
You don't buy companies based on their current p/e. WCOM's current p/e is astronomical because of all the aquisitions they've made over the last few years. MFS, UUNET, and others cost billions. WCOM is a great stock because of projected future earnings going forward.

Steve



To: M CAHILL who wrote (2740)6/24/1998 7:53:00 PM
From: Anthony Wong  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 11568
 
The following sites provides some basic statistics on WCOM. It's a good starting point:

rapidresearch.com
stockfever.com

For analyst viewpoint, a good example of a WCOM bull is Grubman of Salomon Smith Barney. If you do a search on SI on Grubman, you'll find some posts on Grubman's recommendation. Here's a recent one:
techstocks.com

For a bearsish view, I understand that the latest edition of Forbes has a bearish article. A Barrons roundtable discussion on telecom. stocks earlier this year had all three analysts recommending WCOM. The article was posted on SI, but it's difficult to go back so far to find it since I can't for the life of me recall the date.

The consensus estimate for 1999 is for WCOM to earn around $1.80 - $1.90 per share, that's not including MCI earnings. Others please correct me if I'm wrong.

Hope this helps.



To: M CAHILL who wrote (2740)6/30/1998 8:45:00 PM
From: Sauron  Respond to of 11568
 
MC,

Interesting experiment. I think you need a handle though. Could you imagine MK on here without one?

Regards