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 : Loral Space & Communications -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Slick who wrote (5731)	4/10/1999 11:59:00 AM
From: RMiethe	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10852

Unfortunately, Slick, cell service is no better today than it was 7 years ago. I see folks throwing their cell phones out the window here in Los Angeles quite frequently. In fact, I saw a woman do it yesterday. She was in a Mercedes in Century City. It was actually sort of funny. Hot sun, blue skies, polished black Mercedes, and a cell phone being tossed out the window. Would make for a good Globalstar commercial. Eastern Europe is totally wireless. East Asia telecom infastructure buildout stopped two years ago-- something about an East Asia Depression. So I can't fathom what you are writing about there-- probably because it's wrong. As far as the debt goes: Globalstar debt is non-recourse to Loral. Your equation of Loral with Iridium identifies Iridium as a multi-GEOsat broadband provider that also contains a satellite manufacturing division, and VSAT provider. Loral is no Iridium, and you are no visionary. (Sorry to keep going back to old Senator Bentsen's line). Loral's price declined because of delayed launches, which meant delayed EBITDA growth. There is no other reason, Slick. It's not because of Globalstar, not because of Iridium. Had Loral the three more GEOsats in orbit today that it had originally planned in 1997 the share price would never have dropped below $20. Had Globalstar been ready to launch now rather than in September (those old launch delays again) the share price would be much higher today. Wall Street does not care what drives revenues-- just so long as they are there. Starbucks is a perfect example of my statement. A coffee klatch provider commanding the multiple it has? Absurd, actually. As for the Internet stocks-- everyone knows the "double clickers" at trading houses have ponzied up the price of these companies to multiples which someday will be crushed. Kind of reminds me of the Gambling stocks-- Bally, Caesar's World, Playboy, Ramada-- back in the late 1970s, the gold stocks of the early 1980s (St Helena Gold, Agnico Eagle, Coeur d'Alene-- and let's throw in the old diamond company, DeBeers). As I recall St Helena Gold dropped $100 in 8 months after a fellow by the name of Paul Volcker replaced G. William Miller at the Fed, and started hiking the Fed Funds rate. While at it, he broke the back of the Hunt Brothers. Destroyed them, actually. Something about margin requirements on silver futures, as I remember it. I also recall those oil stocks back then. Oil was going to $100 barrel, and suddenly Standard of Indiana was up $70 in one year. Some money managers today equate the Internet schemes with the biotechs of the late 1980s-- that's because they were not managing money in the 1970s, as I was. The examples I picked are closer to the Internet valuations than the biotechs-- the biotechs never got to the prices of the Gambling stocks, gold or oil stocks. The one indication to me that the Internet craze is soon to end is that it is getting too easy to make money in those stocks. Reminds me of the S&P futures that started trading in 1984, '85. You could get 25% return on your money guaranteed because the spreads were so wide. But then, people figured the game out. And now-- you just beat the riskless rate of return. When making money gets easy, the trick is just about up. You have to be around a long time Slick, and in the business for years (I have been in it longer than 20). You see schemes, you see frauds, you hear rumors, you hear lies. Now you even read them on the Internet-- something about Pairgain Technologies just the other day-- a fraudulent post with a Bloomberg backdrop. Right. Then the claim that Iridium is going out of business-- meanwhile the US military is shoveling out millions to use the Iridium system, Right-- Iridium is going out of business, and I am going to be the next King of France. I have learned unfortunately that Wall Street wizards, as you, are right only once. It is a hard lesson to learn-- I think when you lose money, worry about your money managing job-- you learn the lesson. You are a lot more careful about whom you listen to. It's called survival. If you did post here when you say you did, and made the comments you did, then you had your one time that you were right. It was back then. This time, Slick, you are not right. Remember-- you're right only once. Like Andy Warhol's 15 minutes of fame, but old Andy is not with us anymore. I am sure you get my drift, Slick. Take your visions elsewhere-- when you have facts to back them. By the way, Slick-- did you ever work for Loral? The tone of your hatred for the company just makes me wonder. Now, get lost.

To: Slick who wrote (5731)	4/13/1999 6:28:00 PM
From: Dragonfly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10852

slick, you make the classic mistake of believing that the market represents reality. Keep investing on the "greater fool theory" and let your short term profits be your guide. Your continued lecturing us to buy high (internet stocks) and sell low (loral) goes against the first rule of investing: Buy low and sell high. Secondly it also violates the Graham commandment: "Though shalt look at the value of the company you buy." I'll take $20 worth of Loral hard assets over $300 of internet air anyday. Investors always will, yet speculators will never understand. Thanks and I hope your ranting has made you feel better. Dragonfly