GGR: GeoGlobal Resources Inc [was GEOG was BOWG] (2000 + )

Top 71. Sep 28, 2000 6:22 PM

» Kirk - Trades the last two days

Trades the last two days
<img src=http://host.cnbc.com/jetson/GR-D-bowg-13... width=460 height=212>

Interesting Table showing the last 10 trades.

Looks like someone wanted it to close low today...

-- posted by Kirk

Top 72. Sep 30, 2000 10:20 AM

» Hugs - Okay, is it time for some fun?

Why not. And, though I don't wave a big disclaimer at the bottom, anybody that's dumb enough to think or believe that I should... and then acts or does something irrational based of what they read here... well, then... I say they deserve to reap the full reward or consequences of any and every subsequent outburst of irrational behavior. (Nope... no need to share it with anybody. You can have it all by lonesome self.)

But, partly inspired by this article today on Fish or Cut Bait: Hunting for cheap Internet stocks, I thought to myself... how good are these "analysts," and just what do they really know that is more than what "the average Joe." Or, maybe I should say, "the savy Joe" (which, I guess, isn't average at all. In fact, maybe he's quite unigue.)

Here's a paragraph from it:

It was only a year ago when one Internet stock after another went through the roof. The investment rationale was that since the Net was revolutionizing the economy, old-school gauges of financial performance like earnings seemed passé. Of course, since the spring investors have suddenly started caring more about profits and less about long-term promise. As a result, Net stocks are now considered leprous in nature, branded with a heinous scarlet "L" -- for losses.

Earnings, eh? Well, do you ever find yourself wonder just how smart these guys are that are projecting 6 and 12+ months out on a start up venture with rather "unproven" markets? I know that have. This one, especially:

About.com had traded as high as $105 back in March, hit a nadir of $22.50 in May, and now trades at about $37.50. So, where does it go from here? I sat down with About.com's chief financial officer, Todd Sloan, at Red Herring's Venture Market East conference in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on Tuesday to talk about his company and the current state of Internet stocks.

Of course, I must not be alone in my doubts and skepticism there. There's a huge short position set against BOUT. Time will tell, I suppose. But, not this quarter's earnings, mind you... I say, watch the next one. That will give a much better picture of what 2001 is going to be like.

And here's a little more from the article:

About.com has several sources of revenue beyond banner advertising, such as sponsorship of email newsletters and auctions for preferred placement on About.com's sites. Nonetheless, these are still just different types of ad revenue.

But, here is the part that I really fall down at (and, that's not out of "worship" or any sort of adoration and respect unto):

Analysts are predicting that About.com will earn $1.05 a share next year, so at its current price, the stock sports a multiple of just 36 times 2001 estimates. Meanwhile, the long-term estimated growth rate is 75 percent. So About.com is incredibly cheap right now when you look at its price-to-earnings multiple divided by its expected long-term growth rate, a measure known as the PEG ratio.

Yeah, right. Just what sort of skyhook are those numbers hung on? And then I thought to myself... you know, I wonder just how close I might "hang up some numbers" for our little bowgy here? After all, it's not esactly like we have some high ridin' hot shot analyst doing it already. So, maybe I'll "beat them to the punch" with it.

Oh, you can be sure that I'll "modify" the numbers occasionally... changing the estimates whenever I "feel" like it, I guess (what information are they going to be privy to that I will not also be able to learn and know of?). But forget the "upgrades or downgrades" charades. (You're all already smarter than that, I think.)

So here we go... (and, nevermind the third quarter that just ended. It's over already, and it would be too easy to guess at. You do that, and see how close you are, eh?)

Quarterly estimates, per share:
Q4 2000, -0.045
Q1 2001, -0.032
Q2 , -0.068
Q3 , -0.039
Q4 , 0.014

Now, it has to remain a little "mysterious" here. So... which of these other "analyst" do you get to call up and ask more questions to? Yeah... I thought so. So, don't expect me to answer any questions either.., ah ha, ah ha, ah ha. (A little stutter laugh for you.)

But, I will say that I do anticipate a change in "outstanding shares" at some point in time. (Geesh... real rocket science involved in saying that, isn't it?) I'll let you "figure" the rest out on your own. Except for when I might feel like changing mine.

As for projections into 2002, well... extrapolate, and do the math.

And, forget any "price target" for the stock. Who do you think I am? God?

-- posted by Hugs

Top 73. Oct 6, 2000 10:35 AM

» Kirk - What if.

What if... as the old HP advertisement went....you have a WalMart store or a Big Book store... Thousands of books to sell....

Wouldn't a suite of experts that are ALREADY there be fairly valuable to you? Come here and I will point you towards some good investment books like in this article http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/inve... Wouldn't 1200 experts with similar lists in their topics be worth a bit to you?

Something nice about stores of the old days is you could go in and get someone to help you that spoke the language of the country the store was located PLUS they knew something about what they were selling you!!! Stores, for the most part, can't afford that unless they serve the 1% of people AL Gore seems intent on Goring with even higher taxes. They can afford to pay $100 for a silly shirt at Nordstroms.

I belive About.com plans to "lease" their experts where brick and mortar or internet companies can have these experts linked with their sites.

Lets say you have a medical condition. You might want to go to a discussion site of people that discuss the problem and ask what they do to treat their condition. If the site is attached to the drugstore part of WalMart.com or Longs.com then you could just order the drugs and give the experts a small commission.

Of course, this "feature" isn't worth $50B to WalMart or Longs.com or Amazon.com, but it might be worth $500M.... especially if the "feature" is NEARLY self funding with revenue it generates on its own.

-- posted by Kirk

Top 74. Oct 6, 2000 10:51 AM

» Kirk - Do the math

62¢ a share
13M shares
$6M in cash (roughly maybe less now)
46¢ / share in cash

I think what I have here in just this forum is worth more than 16¢ x 13M, but I am biased. It would sure take more than that to go build it.

-- posted by Kirk

Top 75. Oct 6, 2000 2:30 PM

» Hugs - Tried running some numbers, Kirk...

And everytime I hit that last "multiplication" number, I keep getting an -e symbol at the end of it. What's that mean? Too big a number or something?

Well... anyway. Without setting any particular "pricie target" (ha!... what a joke they are anyway), I decided to go ahead and intiate a Strong Buy recommendation on BOWG. (Hey, it's such a stong buy, I'd practically call it a gift at these present prices.) And as for the "reason" for coming out with a recommend, I'll cite,

"In spite of adverse market conditions, the sellers appear to have exhausted themselves on this one. It seems there can be no more bad news pending that can knoock the stock down any lower. Give the proximity of the current market cap to it large cash balance and no debt, and the immenancy of the release of its greatly anticipated Millenium Project, this stock appears deeply oversold and significantly undervalued, and should outperform the broader market in the weeks and years going forward."

...In other words... the shares are super cheap right now, guys. Grab you some before the rest of the world out there wakes up and finds out about this place.

-- posted by Hugs

Top 76. Oct 6, 2000 5:19 PM

» Slick - I Tried To Execute Today...

I had a limit order @ .540 & .525 and failed to execute all day. Monday, I'll try again ( maybe I'll up my limit to .59) I really have plenty...but I think I know what this company could be worth, and it's so...... cheap now.

Slick

-- posted by Slick

Top 77. Oct 6, 2000 6:37 PM

» Lawhawk - On a related note to Kirk's comments about About.

On a related note to Kirk's comments about About.com and leasing experts. Consumer Reports ratings of consumer websites has found that sites that sell items with content added tend to make a more enjoyable website experience.

This cannot be lost on the S101 board and other businesses.

-- posted by Lawhawk

Top 78. Oct 6, 2000 7:55 PM

» Hugs - Slick

It's hard to imagine that this stock could have been slammed down any harder and any more persistantly than it has. This dowg's d is dragging in the dirt big time. The really hard part to explain is where the F* all the shares have come from that have been for sale all this time. Everyone (and I do mean everyone) that I know has not only not sold a share under 5 dollars or thereabouts, many have added. Some have added beaucoup. No insider sales have been filed, and I honestly don't expect to see any. The one institutional investor has no recorded sales through the end of June, and appears rather to have added over 60 thousand shares to their long position. I really have no reason to believe that they suddenly decided to sell in the period between June and now. (It doesn't seem to be their "style"... they invest in some number of "high risk" stocks, and literally "ride them to zero" if they don't work out. They ones that "work out" go up big. They have a huge position in this stock, and I'd be somewhat surprised if it wasn't bigger on their next 13F quarterly report.)

All in all, I've got to tell you that my gut feeling is that there is huge short position that has developed against this stock. Given how we've seen this stock trade in the past, you all know the incredible burst of speed it can seem to move with. However... it needs a catalyst to ignite the fireworks. Without it, it's just not going to show. What sort of thing can provide the needed catalyst? Well, obviously something that will attract a very significant amount of buying,

1) Several things might "spark" it. Probably the greatest of which might be some sort of "revenue deal," where they initiate some testing of their revenue model. And, by the way, there is sufficient membership numbers as is... no need to spend a big chunk of cash chasing down any more. (In fact, that may even be counterproductive as it might skew the preferred demographic profile of the current memberships) The "spark" there would ignite not only new interest in the stock from investors, but the sudden rise may scare some long time shorts into covering. That gap up would quite likely be like one we have never seen here before. (My opinion now,... but it's only a matter of time before this one happens. And, it will hit with a vengence, as nobody will know when or where it will be coming. It will be the "first" of such news, and will be virtually assured of catching every flat footed. News of it will in all likelyhood be while the markets are closed, and that will be one gapper that you really won't want to miss out on.)

2) That aside, it may be that another institutional investor learns of and becomes interested in taking a position here off the open market. Taht one will be much more difficult to detect until it is well underway. Most likely, the stock will rise very quickly (I'd guess well into the 2's, maybe even 3's), and then simply refuse to come back down, no matter how much volume trades. This will signal more buying, shorts would think about covering, and it's off to the races again.. Of course, there would still be spark # 1 that could hit the track and stratle the dowg into a flat out sprint.

3) Well, the "least" interesting of the three will be whenever the heck it is we'll get to see how this new "Millenium Project" come on line. How much interest or enthusiasm it might bring is hard to say. Maybe not much, but any little bit might be enough to "turn the corner."

Say, isn't it about time for their bi-annual news release? (Or is it 3 times a year that they do news... it's been so long, I sorta forget.)

In any event, anybody selling stock right now really ought to have their skulls examined for open fractures. 'Cause I think their brains (if they ever had any) must have "leaked" out. With, perhaps, one possible exception which I almost hesitate to mention the possibility of... but, screw it. I think I will anyway.

Hmmm... well, on second thought... maybe I'd better not. If there is somebody that "has a motive" for not "playing fair" with the stock price, they obviously got a bunch more bucks then I do, and I don't need nobody like that ticked off at me for spillin' the beans... and, in the long run, it will all work out anyway as long as we just keep sittin' tight.

Buy at .54 Slick? Yeah, sure... you dreamer.. What a stinker of a print that last trade was, eh? Cough up and don't be so greedy Slick... most people are paying 5/8... and that's still cheap!

-- posted by Hugs

Top 79. Oct 6, 2000 8:49 PM

» Slick - LOL ... Hugs

Thanks for your post , as always. I never tire of your analysis of this stock , that is so dear to our hearts. And you're right....54 cents or 5/8---it don't amount to spit , at this price. shhh...I think I just might try and sneak a few more shares Monday, even if I don't get the " bragging rights" in chat for making the bottom score.

Slick

-- posted by Slick