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 : Data Broadcasting Corp. (DBCC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Wu who wrote (2564)	1/10/1999 8:20:00 PM
From: Mark[ox5]	Respond to of 5102

<<<A number of Fed officials have already been warning about stock market valuations, but thus far we have not heard from Chairman Greenspan. He testifies before a House Committee on January 20, and what is typically a bond market event might have equity market implications as well on this occasion.>> Mental note to self: Liquidate all short term positions Jan 19 in case Greenspan sneezes the wrong way or blurbs about "irrational exuberance" again. Yes, Im serious... P.S. That sure was a nice message by briefing.com. That makes them 2 for 2 on negative "stories" about DBCC. Hehe

To: John Wu who wrote (2564)	1/10/1999 9:27:00 PM
From: OD Bobo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5102

Part of the 'new' psychology of this frenzied internet trading, especially for small investors who rely on information from the internet, is to try to consider who might be short. Not an allegation, just a comment.

To: John Wu who wrote (2564)	1/10/1999 9:29:00 PM
From: esecurities(tm)	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 5102

>>Briefing.com...a surprisingly naive take on DBCC. >>One rule of valuation still applies -- the value of a >>company equals the discounted present value of >>future cash flow. precisely why DBCC [was] is? a superior investment? >>Our story begins on October 13, when Marketwatch >>filed to go public. At the time, DBCC had been trading >>at $3 3/8, giving it a market cap of $113 mln. >>Since then, DBCC has soared to $26 3/8, why did briefing.com pick October 13?...DBCC traded considerably higher in 1996 ref/ quote.yahoo.com hence its recent gains are not as dramatic/unjustified as briefing.com would like one to believe or perhaps to conveniently fit their [flawed] and suspiciously naive argument...when put into historical perspective >>The only other fundamental news since the >>Marketwatch.com filing was DBCC's Q1 earnings >>report on November 16, which quite clearly had no >>positive news given that the stock price fell from >>$6 7/16 to $6 following the release. And indeed, >>there was no good news -- a multi-year slide in earnings >>and revenue continued. all wrong...news has been substantial and substantive and DBCCs most recent reported q(1) '99 ending 30 September, in fact, indicated a revenue turnaround specifically pursuant/as proximate cause of DBCCs Internet Business Model initiatives circa 1995-6 vs. q4 '98 ending 30 June...$5+ Mil EBITDA...and $30+ million in cash...no debt... it is our opinion that was a dangerous and naive position for briefing.com to take given 1) their information is wrong and 2) and perhaps more importantly MarketWatch.com has not reported q4 '98 ending 31 December nor has DBCC announced q2 '99 ending 31 December 1999...we believe The Street.com, whom we highly admire, also concurs with our perspective given esecurities broke the fact on this thread that James Cramer's and or Street.com and or his hedge fund(s) purchased, at least, a 50,000 share block of DBCC late spring/early summer 1998...

To: John Wu who wrote (2564)	1/10/1999 10:32:00 PM
From: AJ Berger	Respond to of 5102

Wow, great read, thanks! -eom

To: John Wu who wrote (2564)	1/10/1999 11:09:00 PM
From: ztect	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 5102

Briefing.com is Wrong Reiterating esceurities, "Briefing.com" has no clue as to what it is talking about. Citing the same excerpt from the "report" briefing.com seems to be completely unaware as to what has occurred with DBC's business the past two years. The only other fundamental news since the Marketwatch.com filing was DBCC's Q1 earnings report on November 16, which quite clearly had no positive news given that the stock price fell from $6 7/16 to $6 following the release. And indeed, there was no good news -- a multi-year slide in earnings and revenue continued. Earnings per share fell to just a penny from $0.05 in the year-ago period, and revenues were down 2.8%. There has been no other significant news from DBCC since the MKTW filing. DBC during the prior quarters has transitioned its business from providing its services exclusively through traditional broadcast media to one that provides its products and services via the internet AND traditional media. The company HAS turned the corner and made it through this transitional period becoming "Internet Centric" with INCREASED cash flow and cash assets of $27 mil while barely touching their $30 mil credit line. The company has virtually no debt aside from interest at 7.9 % on a 2.5 mil note. DBC is one of the leading , if not the leading, provider of time sensitive data and financial information to a wide range of clients globally. DBC has a wide range of branded products and has a huge number of alliances. Please refer back to my post. Message 7203263 DBC can provide and integrate their products via different media. Such a multi-modal provider can generate traffic for its sites through both conventional and internet methods. DBC also is a rudimentary part of many popular successful financial websites. They are like a part in a car that every car manufacturer requires. Now the MALL / UBID analogy doesn't work on several levels. Unlike DBC, MALL isn't and never was a leader in its sector. MALL stock has a very small float (about 4 mil shrs) that has less institutional investors. Thus the stock price is a LOT LOT more susceptible to wild stock movement both UP and down. DBCC shares have 35% institutional ownership of the 19 mil float. Institutional investors are a lot LOT less whimsical than retail investors. Plus with the larger float, the price has more of a cushion and shorters are less likely to be squeezed. Shorts getting squeezed led to the quick run ups of stocks like KTEL and MALL because shorts continually had to cover at higher prices, since mm's didn't have shares due to the small floats. ztect