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.
Strategies & Market Trends : Roger's 1998 Short Picks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Roger A. Babb who wrote (14676)10/19/1998 4:34:00 PM
From: space cadet  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 18691
 
Does anybody on this thread still think that we will have a correction or crash anytime soon. Right now the tech market appears to be in its normal earnings season rally mode. I suspect that after earnings season is over in a couple of weeks or so, we may get a brief correction, maybe retesting 8000. However I don't see any real serious correction till the normal 6 months from the last correction, which would be in the march-april time frame. It certainly appears that the market has faced its worst fears and beaten them. I don't think we will see so intense a correction as we saw in aug-oct. The market seems amazingly calm and resilient and bullish again these days. Looks like we will have to go back to finding the sick and the wounded for shorting as the bear phase has decisively ended. It looks like we could still hit 12K by y2k without much trouble. Now that the market has dealt with the previously mentioned troubles what if anything is the new bear case? Incidentally it looks like we need to consign Jerry Favors to the absurd cartoonish bears along with Fleckenstein et al. He made a good call earlier this year predicting 7400 but then has been incorrectly bearish since then. I really really regret listening to him, as I missed out on this amazing rally. His 15 minutes of fame are just about up. He is now telling subscribers to prepare to go long soon. Way way too late. Pretty pathetic, actually. It's the typical story, someone makes a great call, and then he gets famous, lots of people listen to him, and he makes the worst call of his life. Oh well, I should have known better.



To: Roger A. Babb who wrote (14676)10/19/1998 4:55:00 PM
From: Dale Baker  Respond to of 18691
 
Briefing's take on RNWK. Notice the cash on hand versus cash burn. I don't have a position in RNWK either way and feel you can probably make 10 points in a pullback. But it looks dangerous based on other Internet stocks:

15:05 ET ******

REALNETWORKS, INC. (RNWK) 37 15/16 +3 1/16 The Seattle based vendor of software for streaming video and audio over the internet takes another step forward in its ongoing battle with Microsoft (MSFT). Once closely allied with the giant on the other side of Lake Washington, RealNetworks sounded the war cry in September when it claimed that Microsoft had purposely written code into Microsoft Windows Media Player that caused RealNetworks media players to crash. Microsoft claimed any failures were bugs in the RealAudio and RealVideo products. Nevertheless, the chasm has since been widening as RealNetworks made a deal with AOL to include RealAudio and RealVideo in AOL Version 4.0 for no royalties. Then, last week, RealNetworks announced that IBM would distribute the RealNetworks G2 product as part of Lotus Notes and Lotus Domino, also for a no-royalty arrangement. Now RealNetworks announces that they have signed a deal with Netscape (NSCP) 22 5/8 +2 3/8 to provide the RealNetworks streaming media products directly into Communicator 4.5, available later this week. No more downloading a plug-in. It, in effect, locks out any other streaming audio-video product from the Netscape corner of the browser market. Although Briefing has been unable to confirm it, this deal is also reportedly a no-royalty deal. So how will RealNetworks make money giving away so much free stuff? To put audio and video into a format readable by RealNetworks products, you have to buy conversion software from RealNetworks. As a long term strategy, this is brilliant, provided RealNetwork can stay financially fit. RNWK has $98 million in cash, but is still losing $2 million a quarter, and Zack's estimates don't have profit anytime soon (FY98: -0.24 per share; FY99 -0.10 per share.) RealNetwork probably started the year with dreams of becoming Explorer's default multimedia tool, but they have moved quickly since learning that Microsoft is a less than ideal partner,and are now one of the key witnesses in the government's case against Microsoft. The stock has been hot lately, however, having traded as low as $16 at the beginning of September.



To: Roger A. Babb who wrote (14676)10/19/1998 5:34:00 PM
From: Kevin Podsiadlik  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 18691
 
But eventually stock price will come into line with revenues, that is certain, only the timing is uncertain.

One other thing that is uncertain is the path by which this convergence will occur. Will the price come down to be in line with earnings, or will the rate of increase merely slow to allow earnings to catch up?

Back when Warren Buffett made his famous "one question exam" remark about net stocks, a lot of Internet bears took it as a sign that Buffett was on their side. What none of them appeared to realize was that his "F" grade would equally go to anyone who opined that net stocks were overvalued, as those who maintained they were fairly or undervalued.

All this year, I've heard hundreds of people, more than I could ever debate with, go on and on about how much of a "slam dunk" a short sale of Internet stock X is, only to see them squeezed a week later.

The worst part of it all is, the bear arguments never change. The same rationales that killed the bears in April did it all over again in June, and again in September. And now here you are carefully explaining all over again why shorting the Internet is the right play, and it's the SAME THING YOU SAID ABOUT THE INTERNET IN JANUARY!!

Maybe being 250% in the hole on your picks means nothing to you, but I for one would at least be trying to figure out what went wrong. At least Wexler admitted he had misjudged a couple of net-based stocks. But here you still are, plugging away, when the track record says that you're going to get, if not your own head, the heads of a gaggle of the less nimble of your followers handed to you, and you have nothing but the same theories you had before to say that this time will be any different.

It's like a car wreck combined with the movie "Groundhog Day". And it's getting so I can't stand to watch anymore. If I hear one more net stock to tulip bulb analogy I swear I am going to vomit.



To: Roger A. Babb who wrote (14676)10/19/1998 9:28:00 PM
From: Mad2  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 18691
 
Herb Greenwood

October 26, 1998

SECTION: FORTUNE INVESTOR/OPINION; Against The Grain; Pg. 320

LENGTH: 733 words

HEADLINE: Short-Sellers: The Market's Real Heroes

BYLINE: Herb Greenberg

BODY:
Go ahead--call me the chief apologist for those scoundrels, the short-sellers. Tell me I'm carrying water for them. Allege I'm on their payrolls. Charge me with collusion. I've heard it all before, during the nearly dozen years I've openly identified short-sellers as sources for my daily financial column. I've heard the shorts referred to as immoral, unethical, and even un-American, and by quoting them I've been lumped by some investors into the same category.

Still, I've never backed away from tapping into the short-selling pipeline, because from what I've seen, it is the short-sellers who really wear the white hats on Wall Street. Who do you think gave me the early heads up to the troubles at dozens of companies--including Sunbeam, Boston Chicken, Snapple, and Planet Hollywood--long before their stories, and stocks, unraveled? (Investors who heeded those warnings saved themselves a bundle.) Where do you think my competitors get most of their ideas for stories about companies that are up to no good? (Hint: Chances are, they didn't get them from Securities and Exchange Commission documents.) And where do you think the SEC gets the first round of research for many of its cases?

Going short means borrowing shares, then immediately selling them with the hope, if all goes according to plan, of buying them back later at a lower price. As a cross between private detectives and forensic accountants, short-sellers make their living ferreting out fraud, debunking hype, and spotting businesses that are about to turn bad. "Shorts serve as a check on excessive promotion," says Mike Long of Rockbridge Partners, who tracks their performance. It was a rough business throughout much of the bull market, when momentum investors bought some stocks merely because they were going up, but that kind of behavior created opportunities for the short-sellers. "These companies have one characteristic in common," says money manager Doug Kass of Kass Partners, who has taught a course on short-selling at Yale University. "At the height of their short interest, the momentum itself is created by the strength of the bull, which carried these stocks to ludicrous levels."

Yet nobody, and I mean nobody, wants someone coming along and telling him his stock will soon be worth a lot less than it is today--not even if there's a truckload of evidence. Several years ago, when he was putting out bearish reports at a small investment firm in Florida, Kass was denounced by analysts at the big investment banks for issuing a "sell" recommendation on casino stocks when, as it turned out, they were at their peak. Similarly, Mike Harrold of Avalon Research didn't make friends last February when he issued a short-selling report on Ciena. He warned that competition could put pressure on Ciena's earnings. Investors and other analysts ignored him, and the stock continued to rise another 50%, thanks to a takeover offer from Tellabs. But that deal fell apart, and the stock has lost 90% of its value. "Every issue we brought up six months ago came true," says Avalon's Alan Jacobs.

That's not unusual, nor is it surprising. There's little argument that the shorts do some of Wall Street's best research. "You develop a certain discipline," says Jacobs. "Some things just don't make sense." And because shorts often put their own money at stake, they tend to dig deeper for details. For example, some years ago several firms shorted U.S. Surgical, in part because of a switch by hospitals from disposable equipment--like the products made by U.S. Surgical--to reusables. To prove it, "we made 1,100 telephone calls to operating room nurses, purchasing organizations, and hospital administrators," says Jacobs. U.S. Surgical, which peaked at 100, tumbled to less than 20 two years later.

Inevitably, many companies blame the shorts, and some even wage public battles. The classic was CML Group, a favorite of shorts several years ago. During a panel discussion at a Montgomery Securities investment conference in the mid-1990s, Chairman Charles Leighton suggested in front of the entire room that all of the money managers in attendance gather later in the back room and squeeze the shorts. CML's stock was at its peak of around 30 at the time; it now trades for pennies.

I rest my case.

HERB GREENBERG is senior columnist for The Street.com. His E-mail address is herb@thestreet.com.

GRAPHIC: COLOR PHOTO: PHOTOFEST, [Cartoon drawing of Superman]

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

LOAD-DATE: October 7, 1998



To: Roger A. Babb who wrote (14676)10/20/1998 10:02:00 AM
From: Hank  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 18691
 
Roger,

Speaking of overvalued internet stocks, have you heard about the troubled waters that companies like ATHM may soon be wading into? It seems that cable companies want to charge cable modem users for access to their cable lines whether they are subscribers or not. The cable companies are also gearing up to enter the internet access arena themselves. I suspect legal battles and severe competition are in store for cable internet providers like ATHM in the not too distant future.

Hank