| To: Kent Rattey who wrote (10592) | 2/27/1999 5:26:00 PM | | From: J. Plesha | | | |
When is the last time you tried to hire anyone with decent technical skills recently? You can't, unless you steal them, and that gets very expensive fast.
I'm not trying to Rah Rah the company but I truly believe this was a good buy. Why do you think CSCO is shopping around in the same market.
dailynews.yahoo.com
I can't help but think why would getting a telcom software company with the international ties, skilled labor, Good marketing team (if you believe the article) (I think this is where they need the most work), be bad for FORE. I think its clear (painfully for some) that this company(FORE) is not interested in being acquired (at least not for cheap)
it is only interested in growing itself.
If you enter this stock from a buyout standpoint, You had better take a hard look at all of the customers for the new company. There are a lot of potential FORE acquirers there.
IMHO,
Joe P. |
| | FORE Inc. | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: J. Plesha who wrote (10597) | 2/27/1999 6:26:00 PM | | From: Kent Rattey | | | |
<When is the last time you tried to hire anyone with decent technical skills recently? You can't, unless you steal them, and that gets very expensive fast.>
I'm quite confident I could hire 110 engineers that could amass the fortune of a little over $1,000,000 in tangible net worth over 9 years, for less than 81,000,000.
From "96" to "97" their net worth increased from 944,282 irish punts to 1,449,838 irish punts. That puts their "97" profits at around $358,994(dollars). Let's say "98" was a "wooper" and they grew profits buy 50%. They would have made $538,417. Now let's say they were public and the market cap was oh let's say $81,000,000. The P/E would be somewhere around 150. Where I come from that's an expensive stock, trading at a considerably higher P/E than CSCO and nearly twice Lu's. Think that's why they neglected to state any financial information on this company?
Good luck with your investment, but maybe you should chart Fore back 2 1/2 years.
Kent |
| | FORE Inc. | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (4) |
|
| To: CJ who wrote (10586) | 2/27/1999 6:30:00 PM | | From: Tavros | | | |
CJ,
I appreciated your sane message in the cacophony of internet posting be that hype, excessive pessimism, greed, hidden agendas, naivity, etc, etc. I also agree with your views as well, and if if your patience permits, I will add my perspective as well.
1. I would like to start by say that I am still in this stock, having been in since almost the beginning. I hold a core position and have traded the stock a few times, taking advantage of the moronity of the some of the so-called "investors".
2. Having said that, I am amazed how this company with such a great great technology and lead times (3/4 years ago), managed to screw things up that badly. A clear testimony that management failed to capture the strategic advantage they had, and translate it to market share. Because, in today's tech environment, the concept of "increasing returns" os scale applies. That, the higher your market share, the more your ability to dictate standards, pricing and etc, etc. On the top of that, they failed to maximize value for the shareholders by not selling the company. The recent, amateurish management of public relations during which the stock sank to low tens on a couple of occassions, for no real reason, except that investors are nervous with management and react like a kneejerk everytime there is an annoucement. So, critisism of the management is valid and justified!!! and if they rewad this message they better watch out!!!too many people, including myself, are getting fed up with their amateurish behavior!!!
2. Despite that, in my view FORE is still in the running and has still a good chance to deliver some very attractive returns to shareholders, if management plays its cards right. A buyout at this point makes no sense, unless it comes at a price at least twice the current levels. Although this may be possible (still, there are a number of players looking for ATM presence), I do no think it will happen in the short-term. So, in this respect, management is doing the right thing, that is, it is trying to enhance the value of its technology and franchise. Viewed within this framework, the Euristix acquisition is a very good move. They buy new complementary technology, engineering talent that is hard to come by, and a great client list.
3. Management needs to hanker down, establish credibility with the investment community by underpromising, overdelivering and stop confusing and surprising the market place. It is that simple!!! Everything else will fall in place if they follow the above. They have the product, the should continue to talk to clients, and stop all the other nonsenses!!!
My 5 cents
Tavros |
| | FORE Inc. | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Kent Rattey who wrote (10598) | 2/27/1999 6:44:00 PM | | From: jach | | | | |
Getting 110 engs for 88 million is really a great move. Go check how much LU had to pay for ASND engs. Typical acquisition here average 3 to 5 millions per head count (this includes every body) for startups. LU paid many times more than this average. |
| | FORE Inc. | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Kent Rattey who wrote (10598) | 2/27/1999 8:27:00 PM | | From: Luke | | | |
>>>>> From: Kent Rattey
Saturday, Feb 27 1999 6:26PM ET
Reply # of 10600
<When is the last time you tried to hire anyone with decent
technical skills recently? You can't, unless you steal them, and that
gets very expensive fast.>
I'm quite confident I could hire 110 engineers that could amass the
fortune of a little over $1,000,000 in tangible net worth over 9
years, for less than 81,000,000.
>>>>>>>
You can say all you want but I do not think you can do it. That's why many companies buy the technology instead of building it.
Even if you could build it and take 9 years, it's too late. |
| | FORE Inc. | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Kent Rattey who wrote (10598) | 2/27/1999 8:29:00 PM | | From: J. Plesha | | | |
Yes I could get them at your price too. But, they would be coffee drinking shmoes who couldn't produce a good product. Even if a gun was held to there head. I also am assuming that there are no other tangible assets in the company, or are we only talking engineers?
About the chart the PE and comparing to CSCO, snore. I've owned this stock since before I was a member at SI. Experienced the great japan shortfall(It seemed like a long way down). But as with many on this board, Jas, Glenn, and CJ, we survived it all. I'm not sure about the BMFM though.
I am more from the techie side of the tracks and actually use and work with this equipment. Can't you tell from my spelling.
Jas could I get an honest opinion about the management and marketing aspect of this acquisition from you. Think it has a chance? I think Gill has done a decent job, not great but good.
Please excuse any perceived brashness, writing and posting on message boards is an art form.
Joe P. |
| | FORE Inc. | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Tavros who wrote (10599) | 2/27/1999 8:59:00 PM | | From: lin huan chen | | | |
Yeah, another brilliant so-called "professional" made a killing trading FORE. The only morons are who gave you money to invest. I bet my wife's CD has better performance than yours.
Your pick can not back up your arrogance.
Just my $5
BTW, I do respect real professionals . |
| | FORE Inc. | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| |
