A battery powered handheld device with a 1000 times the current of an electric chair. Sheer genius.
Maybe GCI will lose the suit, maybe they will win... but how can the author, editor and fact checkers of that article ever show their face in professional journalistic circles again?
Calling the author of the TASER article stupid is a tremendous insult to all of the stupid journalists out there.
Is it safe to assume GCI will earn $4.99? With recent earnings estimate cuts and ever growing competition taking classified and advertising revenue from GCI et als, maybe $4.99 is too high?
Do you think $4.99/earnings share and 7% earnings yield is realistic?
I do not ever buy stocks that have to grow in order to justify the price.
Since GCI does not have to grow to beat the daylights out of bonds and may outperform the stock market over time given that its PE ratio is significantly LESS than the market's, I don't much worry about organic growth possibilities which I would not know enough about to worry about anyway.
Thanks for the reply.
If GCI has zero earnings growth, don't you think it is overvalued at these levels? The general rule I've always heard is to not pay more than 2 times earnings. The P/E for GCI still seems high then - unfortunately.
What do you think?
Will GCI management ever make a splash to demonstrate new organic growth possibilities...?
Do you agree
I have no opinion where it will bottom - even at no growth which should give everyone all the management discount they want, you get 7% on earnings of 4.99 below price 71.25. That is 300 point basis point premium to 10 year trasuries so you know you are not going to be 7% per year richer 10 years from now in treasuries. You likly will be in GCI.
Horatio - Do you have an opinion of the price level GCI will bottom and when? Economy is good but not the strong go, go of the 90s.
Many people including me thought the level was in the low 70s boy weren't we wrong. I think it's very difficult to estimate that level until some of the fundamentals begin improving for GCI. What do you think? Thanks and good luck.
There is a demand for financial reporting that is too large for the number of reporters competent to provide it.
Stupid, however, is not lible. Geting the facts wrong is not lible. And, as all politicians now know, even a maliciaous spinning of the facts is not lible.
We are very close to a standard that says you must, with ill intent, "make up" the lible.
I can't speak to the legal issues with any expertise. However it was my understanding that any printed word that is not based in fact and causes financial distress is libel.
You can't just print anything you want and check the facts later. There must be some consequences to being wrong when it causes injury.
That is the flip side of the right to free speach.
"Stupid, however, is not lible. Geting the facts wrong is not lible."
Will not hold water anymore! If courts find out who paid for that article and who shorted or covered TASR shares prior to that publication, Gannet will be in deep trouble! TASR may have the secret trump card! A great lesson for Gannet and others wanabees!
as to why TSAR would bring a case it will have some trouble winning - it does impose a cost on GCI to defend that GCI may settle for a lower cost out of court.
My guess is GCI can easily afford to get exnoration in court.
I can not comment on the notion that TSAR is particularly litigious - the poster claiming that needs to show it - but in this case TSAR may find itself in court pressing its claims when, indeed, they expected to take a freebie on a settlement.