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 : Global Crossing - GX (formerly GBLX) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: debra vogt who wrote (954)	5/19/1999 12:52:00 AM
From: CF Rebel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15615

Here's what I said earlier on Yahoo about the Seymour article: by: CF_Rebel 5232 of 5264 The Seymour article has some legitimate points. The complexity of the USW deal, however, is the result of management attempting to structure the deal in a way that will find acceptance among shareholders. If this were a true merger – all assets under one roof with one stock – it is doubtful shareholders would approve the deal. No GBLX shareholder in his right mind would want the USW ball-and-chain attached to his investment ankle. And, the widows-and-orphans crowd wouldn't want their dividends threatened by a brash, young, can't-grow-fast-enough upstart. A true merger, simple enough to satisfy Seymour is/was not possible. What we are left with is a “merger, but not a merger.” The merger is just a rearrangement of the assets of three entities, GBLX, FRO and USW in a way that allows each resulting class of business, “G” and “L,” to gain maximum efficiencies. This is the market doing what it is meant to do. (This is not to say that I like the deal – I remain skeptical, but holding.) Ultimately, if GBLX management gets it's way, this will be one company in name only – just pick the assets you want to put your lot with. Seymour makes an issue of USW “acquiring” GBLX but the resulting entity retaining the Global Crossing name (something he characterizes as “odd"). To make an issue of such suggests that he does not yet understand either the new paradigm of telecom nor the true global nature of the resulting business. To take the name “US West” suggests something provincial. The issue of regulators is legitimate. They are a threat to rapid progress in telecom and see profits as something to be passed along to the consumer, as if competition doesn't ultimately pass along savings (in a somewhat perfect world). Regulators are a disease to this investor and I've always stayed away from industries that are regulated. Regulation equals limited potential. If the resulting “G” shares can be insulated from the regulators, I can stick around. CF Rebel -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: 05/18/99, 9:29PM EDT as a reply to: Msg 5225 by triple_oh_7 View Replies to this Message CF Rebel