Technology Stocks | Lucent Technologies (LU)


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: telecomguy who wrote (19408)3/13/2002 10:37:25 PM
From: Softechie   of 21876
 
Nortel? What a ficking pile of Canadian junk!

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: telecomguy who wrote (19410)3/13/2002 10:39:26 PM
From: Softechie   of 21876
 
When you get blindsided by wireless you have to stand up and confess. I can't wait to hear Nortel stand up and confess. Ficking wireless sector drop will hurt every ficking networkers.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: sylvester80 who wrote (19414)3/13/2002 10:42:33 PM
From: Softechie   of 21876
 
Ficking telecomguy shouldn't even have that name...Nortel is a ficking nightmare!

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Anonymous who wrote (19309)3/13/2002 10:50:11 PM
From: Anonymous   of 21876
 
Well, tomorrow is another day!

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: telecomguy who wrote (19413)3/13/2002 10:57:37 PM
From: Softechie   of 21876
 
Telecomguy if you have any brain you would see that wireless sector is off 30% since 1/1/02. Now tell me who get effected the most? Ficking Nortel!!!

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Softechie who wrote (19424)3/13/2002 11:20:41 PM
From: Joe S Pack   of 21876
 
I am sure this name 'telecomguy' is a shame for the entire industry. I think he confessed as a sales or some other sundry and how can you expect anything about technology leave alone
the current market environment. The best way is to ignore his
all contentless venting.
Here is an interesting article about beloved Roth (a la McGinn of Nortel) and how he ripped as CEO.

How good a CEO was Nortel Networks Corp.'s (NYSE/Toronto: NT - message board) John Roth? So good that he is being paid more not to be at work than he was getting when he ran the company.

Just a few days before former Nortel CEO Roth announced his retirement back in May 2001, he received a $250,000 annual raise, according to documents Nortel filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

For the first four months of 2001, Roth?s base salary was $1,250,000 per year. This climbed to $1,500,000 a year on May 1, 2001. Roth officially retired as Nortel's president and CEO on November 1, 2001. Since then he has been on a yearlong leave of absence, during which he will continue to draw his entire salary.

In 2000, Roth earned $6.7 million in cash, including $1,104,167 in base salary, a bonus of $5.6 million, and miscellaneous pocket-change of $33,199 (see 2001 Top Ten: Fat Cats ).

follows the link for the complete article.

lightreading.com 


I hate these CEO's who screw royally and take a hugh retirement benefits.

Take guys like WCOM CEO who gambled a lot in market and
the company bails him out via loan.

I think it was 19997 or 1998 when Disney went down by
more than 10% and the CEO Eisner took home more than 500
million dollars.

Of course these crooks cannot be compared to natural
crooks like Skilling and Fastow of Enron fame.

Only in America this kind of capitalism works.

Good bless America and stupid middle class which holds bag for all these nonsense.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: telecomguy who wrote (19405)3/14/2002 6:49:56 AM
From: Paul A   of 21876
 
hmm

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Softechie who wrote (19421)3/14/2002 7:04:06 AM
From: Paul A   of 21876
 
Softie softie softie..

Why is it that wherever you choose to hang your hat the thread is left in shambles/destroyed?

you really need to calm down.. and I mean this with alot of respect.. but you really make s/i unpleasant for folks sometimes with the rabid attacks or what I like to call the 'killer bee' approach..Just swarm all over the people with opposite opinions in an attempt to make your voice dominate- and it works great because most people just have to walk away.. Hell- looking at my page of message titles I see nothing but you and sylvestor essentially telling everyone 'how it is'..

You definately get the award for being the most annoying person on s/i.. Hell- you even topped American Spirit in my book and that was not an easy accomplishment.. Relax already.. or take some drugs to help you do so.. its really annoying..

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: DiB who wrote (19397)3/14/2002 7:47:46 AM
From: GVTucker   of 21876
 
DiB, RE: Could you describe in details, how the process of "obtaining shares through the convert" works?

The convert holders send Lucent their shares and Lucent sends them common shares in return. It appears as though the converts are callable starting in 2007, which means that Lucent can force the convert owners to take shares under certain conditions.

How will conversion premium factor into arb's decision-making process?

The conversion premium dictates a big piece of the hedge ratio, i.e. how many shares an arb would want to short per share of convertible preferred owned. Then you get into the question of how much risk an arb wants to take in regards to specific risk with Lucent. Some arbs are true arbs and do not want any risk at all, others actively manage the position. Other factors that come into play there might be the cost of funds for the arb and the amount of leverage that the arb uses.

Come 2007, if the stock price is above $6.10 (a pretty good bet), Lucent will most likely force conversion, send the arb the shares, and the arb will use those shares to cover the short position.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: GVTucker who wrote (19431)3/14/2002 8:01:21 AM
From: Sabrejet   of 21876
 
The problem with that is the arbs lose all the way around. If the conversion was 60 days out or something of that sort shorting would be a smart leveraged play.

That was one of the risks I was referring to earlier. The time frame for this type of game has me surprised that there would be so much short term downward pressure. The smart thing is either don't get involved in the convert or if you do get involved, basically leave the position naked.

Does that make sense? I couldn't imagine shorting a stock for 5 years knowing only in 5 years minimum I was going to cover then. That assumption would imply that the company was going under for one to be successful at that strategy. That's a huge gamble! Heck in 5 years, who knows what could happen.

Sabre!

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.