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 : CAWS - Wireless Cable (New and Improved) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: WTC who wrote (5476)	7/31/1998 7:39:00 PM
From: Zorro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5812

WTC et al, I was recently contacted (privately) by a MDS licensee who is developing several markets in the US. He is also a regular reader of this thread. I will withhold his identity unless he indicates to me otherwise. He currently holds a rather large position of CAWS and seriously believes that CAI's assets should be valuated somewhere between $750M and $1B!!! He also acknowledged that spectrum valuations can be highly subjective, thus justifying his position. I hope to get more info on the basis of his valuation. In any case, CAI's ridiculous valuation of its wireless channel rights will definitely not go unchallenged in court. At a minimum, the new assessment should include a very thorough engineering, legal and marketing analysis. The engineering analysis should include interference studies for ALL channels in each market. The legal analysis should include a complete review of all lease/purchase contracts. The marketing analysis should identify which wireless applications are most likely to succeed in each market and provide the framework for CAI's business plan. Now, if CAI management had only performed all of the above in its valuation instead of taking an easy & sleazy way out, then maybe they could have partially justified those not-too-shabby bonuses. Zorro

To: WTC who wrote (5476)	7/31/1998 8:13:00 PM
From: Zorro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5812

WIRL dealing with the Devil freeedgar.com On July 30, 1998, Wireless One, Inc. (the "Company") commenced a solicitation of consents from certain holders of its 13% Senior Notes due October 15, 2003 and its 13 1/2 % Senior Discount Notes due August 1, 2006 (together, the "Notes") to certain proposed amendments to the indentures governing such Notes (the "Indentures") in order to permit the Company to borrow, and its subsidiaries to guarantee, in each case on a secured basis, pursuant to a proposed note facility from Merrill Lynch Global Allocation Fund, Inc. (the "MLGAF Facility") set forth in a consent solicitation letter, dated July 30, 1998 (the "Consent Solicitation Letter"), from the Company to such holders. This Form 8-K is qualified in its entirety by the text of the Consent Solicitation Letter (and related materials relating to the consent solicitation), which is filed as an exhibit hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The Indentures permit the borrowings and guarantees under a "Bank Credit Facility," as defined in the Indentures. Although the Company believes the MLGAF Facility represents the best source of financing available to the Company at this time, the MLGAF Facility may not meet the definition of Bank Credit Facility in the Indentures. As described in the Consent Solicitation Letter, the Company is seeking to secure commitments with respect to the MLGAF Facility and there can be no assurance that the MLGAF Facility can be obtained even if the consent solicitation is successful.

To: WTC who wrote (5476)	8/6/1998 11:23:00 AM
From: Rusti H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5812

WTC, This is a quote from a message you sent on 7/31/98: "I did not see or review the CAI valuation methodology, but I would concede to anyone who has plowed through a valuation process that there is nothing tidy or obvious about the most reasonable approach. I would also agree with you, Zorro, that the complications tend to make the process quite easy to game if there is a specifically desirable result sought from all the manipulations and calculations." May we use it in a letter to the judge with attribution to a "Senior Technical staff member of Bell Atlantic"? Rusti