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 : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale J. who wrote (14311)	2/11/1999 10:02:00 PM
From: nolimitz	Respond to of 64865

Not only that but the layers and layers of fluff at CBS or any network for that matter. the internet is way beyond the scope of CBS. nolimitz

To: Dale J. who wrote (14311)	2/11/1999 10:56:00 PM
From: QwikSand	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 64865

Dale: I actually agree with Marvin Litman that there might be some interesting possibilities with a CBS partnership for Sun-AOL-Netscape, but I wouldn't normally respond to one of your posts unless it was directed to me. However, I make an exception here to beg you for mercy. You quoted my unfavorite computer columnist, the Reliably Fatuous Jim Seymour (hereinafter abbreviated RFJS). That's hard for me. RFJS, a pompous Microsoft toady who unfortunately seems to have started a night gig as my unfavorite investment columnist, is like many of the Sun-baiters and bashers on this board (except you, Dale). On every topic he writes in a knowing, smug verbal leer as though he were the cat that swallowed the canary. Unfortunately, about 99 times out of 100, Mr. Expert's prose has either no meaning at all (usually) or is just plain wrong: his smugness masks a chasm of ignorance whose bottom you might make out with the Hubble. My favorite recent computer piece by RFJS was last year's PC Magazine column proclaiming that Windows 98's most important new feature was its ability to support two monitors next to each other. He urged his readers to consider buying a second monitor, because they probably didn't realize just how great the personal computing experience could really be. I could pick apart your RFJS article line by line, but that would be mean to everybody and I'm a nice guy. Instead, I've selected a representative quote that sums up the flavor, and the worth, of the whole: Whatever the call, this is going to be one tough decision to explain to Sun's shareholders as well as the Street. (And maybe why a gradually sobering assessment of the value of this deal for Sun has led to Sun's downgrade this morning by Salomon Smith Barney from outperform to neutral?) That was published on December 2. SUNW closed that day at 74 1/8. Please don't quote from RFJS anymore, Dale. It hurts too bad. Regards, --QwikSand fatuous (fàch'oo-us) adjective 1. Vacuously, smugly, and unconsciously foolish.

To: Dale J. who wrote (14311)	2/12/1999 1:15:00 PM
From: Alok Sinha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

Here are some of my comments on the Street.Com article. 1. All large deals have risk associated with it. Wall Street's first reaction is usually euphoric , and reality sets in slowly. The outcome of most mergers is driven by the top people involved in the deal. Based on there past performance, Steve Case and Scott McNealy at least deserve the benfit of the doubt at this stage. 2. I agree with the author on one count - I don't see how AOl will make money (relative to the price paid) off Netcenter advertising in the long run. (I also doubt YHOO and other portals have a business model of profitability that justifies there current valuations). 3. I don't agree with the author's contempt of AOL's consumer strategy. A lot of people who consider themselves tech savvy belittled Microsoft, and do the same to AOL. Clearly, AOL has its pulse on the consumer. That is what matters - you can always buy or build technology over time. 4. Sun is the missing piece of the puzzle as far as leveraging Netscape's corporate assets, and no one would argue that SUN is firmly in the Corporate MIS space. With continued growth of AOL subscribers, sales of SUN servers grow - and the margins on those are quite high. 5. Salomon Smith Barney downgraded SUN at $78 - so I can easily see how he considers the current valuation for SUN high. At least he is consistent in his outlook. I was expecting a downgrrade from him right after earnings, but there was nothing in the earnings that he could cite. Regards Alok P.S. A suggestion on your short SUNW position. Sell naked puts, at t least you collect the premium while SUN stays above the price at which you are comfortable covering.