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 : America On-Line (AOL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Vendit™ who wrote (20305)	6/4/1999 6:39:00 PM
From: KENNETH DOAN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 41369

I was kinda disappointed about AOL when T and ATHM got control all of the cable companies. But it's always amazing to see that when it is darkest for AOL, they were able to pull it off again and again. I am so glad that I was able to hang on to my shares. The only way AOL is going to go is up from here. I will never have doubt about this company again. Have a great weekend everyone here, I know I will.

To: Vendit™ who wrote (20305)	6/5/1999 8:30:00 AM
From: David Petty	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 41369

Vendit, this follows our conversation last week re: AOL and value per subscriber. In June 7th Barrons Jack Grubman says (in cover piece) "Let me echo something that Marc said, and let's throw America Online into this mix. AOL's market cap per subscriber is about $15,000. Cable companies trade at $4,000-$5,000 per subscriber. If you look at local-telephone-company access lines, stripping out things like cellular and international services, they probably trade at $2,000 per subscriber." Mr. Grubman, $15000, I don't think so... either that or we teach math here in NC differently. AOL shares outstanding = 1,082,357,000 AOL value/share 06/04/99 = 118.00 AOL market capitalization = $127,718,126,000 AOL estimated number of subscribers = 20,000,000 AOL market cap/subscriber = $6386 Vendit this also answers more precisely our valuation question the other day. These articles that discuss these items ought to have to date their figures and give the underlying assumptions/values, so we can distinguish between math deficiencies versus timing differences. David II