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 : Winstar Comm. (WCII) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Alejandro who wrote (8116)9/2/1998 8:53:00 PM
From: DubM  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 12468
 
Article of interest from a few days ago. Note the following statement from the article:

''This probably is one of the best times in the past 20 years to be buying lesser-known, smaller-cap names, particularly aggressive growth smaller-cap names, which have been hit the hardest,'' Oberweis said.

Investors in Small Stocks See No Recovery in Sight

New York, Aug. 27 (Bloomberg) -- As small stocks sink further into a bear market, even their fans say a return to full health is several months off.

''I don't see a recovery before the end of the year,'' said Thomas Madden, chief investment officer at Federated Investors Inc. in Pittsburgh, which oversees $95 billion. He advocates small-capitalization stocks as a long-term investment.

The Russell 2000, which consists of companies with an average market value of about $400 million, is down 26 percent from its April record. A 20 percent drop is the commonly accepted definition of a bear market, which historically can precede long periods of decline or little gain.

In the Russell's previous three bear markets, at least 11 months passed before a complete rebound. It took 11 months to top previous highs after a 34 percent drop from October 1989 to October 1990. Two years were needed to get over a 39 percent slide in August-October 1987. The index required 17 months to recover from a 26 percent slide from June 1983 to July 1984.

Small stocks, which have lagged large stocks since 1993, are now in the forefront of the overall market's decline. The Russell 2000 has fallen more than three times as much as the S&P 500, in percentage terms, since April. This year's deterioration has resulted in a moribund market for IPOs and steep losses for small companies that disappoint investors.

Seeking Safety

The uncertainty in the overall market has caused investors to flock ''toward the historically most liquid stocks, which are the large-cap companies,'' said Jim Oberweis Jr., a portfolio manager at Oberweis Asset Management in North Aurora, Illinois, with about $200 million under management. Also, the popularity of indexed mutual funds, especially those that track the S&P 500, ''has dragged money away from small caps,'' hurting their performance relative to big company stocks.

Individual investors believe large-capitalization stocks are safer than small ones, and as a result, ''the incremental cash is going into big, safe, and well-known companies,'' said Arsen Mrakovcic, the portfolio manager for J.W. Seligman's Frontier Fund, which has about $1 billion under management.

Many portfolio managers ''played a game of chase,'' selling small company and buying large company stocks in an effort to mimic the better performance of the S&P 500, and this, too, contributed to small stocks' poorer results, he said.

While small company stocks didn't match the performance of large company stocks in the last few years, they still managed gains that handily beat historical averages for stock-market investing. The Russell rose 26 percent in 1995, 15 percent in 1996, and 21 percent in 1997. In the 1980s and early 1990s, small stocks typically outperformed the S&P 500, beating the larger- company index about two-thirds of the time.

Opportunity Seen

Small stock portfolio managers see opportunity in the current downturn.

''This probably is one of the best times in the past 20 years to be buying lesser-known, smaller-cap names, particularly aggressive growth smaller-cap names, which have been hit the hardest,'' Oberweis said.

Fast-growing companies are undervalued, he said. Historically, these companies traded at a substantial premium to the overall market in terms of their price-to-earnings ratios, although they aren't doing so now.

Large capitalization stocks are riskier than many investors realize, Mrakovcic said.

''Large cap stocks as a group are overpriced in this environment,'' Mrakovcic said. ''People are paying a great premium for (the) perception of safety, which in the next few quarters may not bear out to be true.''

Casualties

Even small stocks in growing industries such as telecommunications have performed poorly in recent months.

Take ICG Communications Inc., a local exchange carrier, which is down 52 percent from its March 19 record high. WinStar Communications Inc., which sells local, long-distance and Internet access to businesses is down 46 percent from its June 10 record.

One casualty of the steep decline in small stocks is the initial public offering. ''For all intents and purposes, the IPO market is dead,'' Mrakovcic said. ''I haven't seen a prospectus (for an IPO) in a couple of weeks, which is very unusual.''

Investment bankers prefer to present IPOs ''when the typical small-cap investor is much more optimistic.'' Now, buyers have too much leverage to demand lower prices.

''Good companies coming to market now would be an ideal investment, but they're smart enough to figure out they don't want to be coming out,'' Mrakovcic said.



To: Alejandro who wrote (8116)9/3/1998 8:22:00 PM
From: Jason Cogan  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 12468
 
Ali:

<<Do you see a market and future for what WCII is doing ?>>

The short answer is yes. Wireless local loop is a viable solution to the last local mile problem, and Winstar's frequencies and rollout put them ahead of most of their competition.

<< Forget the price and earnings etc.>>

I think this is the mistake many investors make. They see a promising technology, with potential, and therefore overly discount the risks inherent in rolling out this business. There are literally hundreds of biotech companies with seemingly limitless potential, but the uncertainty surrounding their cash flow (and burn rate) makes them fundamentally poor investments.

Winstar may be a little different, although I believe they suffer from much of the same problem. Think of it this way. If I told you I had a surefire way of turning water into oil in my basement, but that it would take me 20 years and $1 billion to develop, would you fund me? First, you would discount my technology, no matter how promising it seemed. Second, you would discount the possibility that oil would be obsolete in 20 years. What happens if somebody else optimized solar energy or ethonol for a car?

In my opinion, Winstar is like the oil in the basement story. It costs huge capital to build an infrastructure, but the payoff seems valuable given today's paradigm. By the time the system comes on line and cash flow is returned to investors, who's to say the paradigm hasn't shifted? What if XDSL improves, or direct access to satellites becomes available? What if there is something else out there, that none of us can forsee? What happens to your cash investment then?

In bull markets, investors are willing to ignore these possibilities. The rewards for being right seem too enormous. Indeed, many on this thread continue to focus on "greed" of the proposal. But investments carry risk as well, usually in the form of lower earnings. Winstar's proposal is too binary. It's either a winner, or it loses everything.
Saleable in a bull market, but not something most investors are comfortable with when risk seems more apparent.

Regards,
JC