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: coachbobknight who wrote (3647)	1/14/1999 5:59:00 PM
From: M. Dion	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5102

The formula you are discussing means very little.....when UBID was trading at $36.....Mall was trading at a value of less than what the UBID represented alone....forget the fact that Mall was doing over $800 million in sales without UBID...... Formulas dont mean alot..... mike

To: coachbobknight who wrote (3647)	1/14/1999 7:22:00 PM
From: Sharon L.	Respond to of 5102

coach: I have heard this about this data, and being an attorney, I have read the data and reports, which, I might add are based on last quarters figures. Never wanting to contradict a coach, I respectfully submit, that most internet stocks would never stand up to the formula set forth by Mr. Faber. I thank you though for for my funds. :) And of course, you may feel you will soon say to me.."I told you so". However, I am not looking at the 'soon' picture. I am looking at the long term picture. Thank you again for your kind words.

To: coachbobknight who wrote (3647)	1/15/1999 5:49:00 AM
From: B. A. Marlow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5102

Hey coachbob! Let's talk about CNBC's Faber. I believe young Faber failed to disclose that he works for a competitor, did he not? And does that small omission not color his commentary? Is this detail not awkward and controversial in view of CNBC's actions regarding the Cramer episode a few weeks ago? Actually, there were a number of "convenient" lapses and oversights in Faber's DBCC/MKTW reports (as there are, apparently, in CNBC's very charter), but that's not so important now. If you really want traction on the other side of the story, just consult my posts. Doubtless, you don't. In any case, here's the bottom line. Faber is not qualified to perform valuation analysis. If he were, would he be a talking head? And this. Maybe, he's not even up to reading aloud. BAM