SI
SI
discoversearch

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
WCOM
An SI Board Since July 1996
Posts SubjectMarks Bans Symbol
11568 152 0 WCOM
Emcee:  Paul Berggren Type:  Unmoderated
Introduction Market Data Compact
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
ReplyMessage PreviewFromRecsPosted
10693<i>It's a little of both, really. For the mega-banks like BofA, the letejek-6/20/2002
10692<i>sorry ,what i just edited out was uncalled for. </i> I didn'Oeconomicus-6/20/2002
10691You are obviously much more optimistic about the market in general than I am.I ac.hinton-6/20/2002
10690Chinton, et.al.:<i>With all the financing you have talked about being assuJohn Curtis-6/20/2002
10689When have I said any financing that has not yet closed was "assured"? Oeconomicus-6/20/2002
10688If it does go bk with bonds you will stand to get a piece of the reorganized comc.hinton-6/20/2002
10687If WCOM is NOT BK by then, you'll make a helluva lot more in the stock. If iOeconomicus-6/20/2002
10686Does a 33% return over two years seem attrative?If you have faith in wcom buy a c.hinton-6/20/2002
10685It's a little of both, really. For the mega-banks like BofA, the legal limitOeconomicus-6/18/2002
10684Spreading risk among banks is not just a matter of choice or perceived risk for willcousa-6/18/2002
10683Believe what you want - I'm not going to argue with conspiracy theories. As Oeconomicus-6/18/2002
10682Thanks for taking the time to post that. However, I am now of the belief that thpogbull-6/18/2002
10681wcom bonds 2003 83.375 cents to the dollar face value . wcom bonds 2005 60.625 cc.hinton-6/18/2002
10680Yes, that is clarifying. Thanks. Namaste! JimJames Calladine-6/17/2002
10679Well, you two may be confused, but I doubt anyone on the Street is. Read note 4 Oeconomicus-6/17/2002
10678WorldCom Responds to S&P Action CLINTON, Miss., June 17 /PRNewswire-FirstCasecureit-6/17/2002
10677If the Accounts Receivable are not already pledged to banks I would be very surJames Calladine-6/17/2002
10676Does the 5 Billion include the Account Receivables 1.6 Billion? I understood thapogbull-6/17/2002
10675<i>Tejek, et.al. Tit for tat? Jeeezus....first the little S&P torpedo,tejek-6/17/2002
10674Tejek, et.al. Tit for tat? Jeeezus....first the little S&P torpedo, and noJohn Curtis-6/17/2002
10673<i>Well, this explains why WCOM sold off today. I wish the S&P wouldtejek-6/17/2002
10672Are others hearing that Notebaert is going over to Q to get it ready for sale? tejek-6/17/2002
10671<i>here's something interesting (copied from a yahoo post) caida.org;tejek-6/17/2002
10670Credit Facility for WorldCom Faces Delay as Talks Continue By SHAWN YOUNG StafSoftechie-6/17/2002
10669<i>Also, as I suggested, the pony show begins: biz.yahoo.com . I may havetejek-6/17/2002
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News