The full name of the first company I chose is Entrust Technologies Inc. The state and year of incorporation is Texas in 1996. The company was a spin-off of Nortel Networks. The worldwide headquarters for the corporation is 4975 Preston Park Blvd Suite 400 Plano, Texas 75093. The Chief Executive Officer and President of the company is John Ryan. The number of shareholders is in the 26, 000 range and the stock is traded on the NASDAQ. The ticker symbol for the corporation is ENTU. The CUSIP number is _________. The price range of Entrust Technologies from 1998 – 1999 was $24 upon opening on January 1, 1998 and it’s close was $60 on December 31, 1999 (See chart 1.1, attached to back of paper full year price range). The corporation has many subsidiaries that it recognizes: Entrust Technologies Limited, Entrust.net, Entrust Technologies (United Kingdom, Switzerland, Japan), Entrust Technologies GmbH (Germany) and CygnaCom Solutions.
“Entrust Technologies Inc. provides products and services to ensure secure electronic communications and transactions over the Internet, Extranets and Intranets.” (http://biz.yahoo.com/p/e/entu.html) The company is ahead of its game in the Internet business. A lawsuit was filed against the company in February of 1999 by Surety technologies, Inc. The lawsuit involved the supposed infringement of patent rights on the part of Entrust Technologies. Surety said they developed a digital – timestamping method using hash – and – sign. They claim it was their method and only theirs. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled for Entrust claiming that the patent covering the “special” hash -and- sign method used by Surety was not a new thing. Any company could use the technology to better their communication systems by timestamping electronic documents. The lawsuit and verdict proved to the rest of the world that Entrust Technologies is ready to advance all companies with special devices to make their business run a little bit smoother. The verdict was handed down in November 1999 and gave ENTU a very strong third quarter. Their revenue increased from $13.0 million to $22.6 million in one year. The lawsuit benefited, not hampered the business practices of Entrust Technologies.
There are literally hundreds of competitors in the computer services business. AutoBytel Com Inc., Agency Com LTD, Publicard Inc, Zapme Inc., Knot Inc. and Paychex Inc. are just some of the companies that compete in the business with Entrust Technologies (See 1.2, attached file regarding the competitors).
VectorVest rates the long-range outlook for the stock poorly in most areas. They rate stocks well that are steady and predictable. All the stocks are rated on a 0.00 – 2.00 scale, a relative safety greater than 1.00 is safe and below 1.00 is not a safe buy. ENTU was given a relative safety of 0.71, very poor. The relative value is a 0.82, also poor. When a stock has a relative safety and value greater than 1.00 the earning rate will increase and shares will increase in value. Entrust was given a relative timing rating of 1.04, which is fair in this field. The trend established is fair and might last depending on the stocks dependability. VectorVest also suggests that ENTU is overvalued and having a high-risk dividend because it does not pay a dividend. This also shows that ENTU has not dividend growth and that indicates future outlook and past history. In conclusion, Entrust Technologies has a below average safety with below average upside potential. This reflects the stocks potential and almost ensures below average, inconsistent returns.
Reesegroup.com rates ENTU as having no interest at this time. ENTU has no inventory to calculate its inventory sales and it fails the growth rate test. They claim that ENTU has grown too fast in the past three years. They do, however, give good financial strength to the company. My final analyses were given by StockConsultant.com and Zacks.com. They give ENTU a neutral rating when it comes to long term moneymaking and stock increase. Zacks.com gave it a strong buy in most areas.
Entrust Technologies Inc. was a good buy. I disagree with the critics on this one. When I bought the stock on January 20th it was at $56 and it rose up and down slowly to 92 7/16 on March 2nd. It jumped to 125 per share on March 9th and then fell again slowly to a price of 59 7/8 on April 13th. That was the week the stock market went haywire. I do have faith in the stock based on my research and against the critics. To conclude, ENTU is not a good long-term buy from the standpoints of most analyses. It will not produce the results the shareholders are looking for. Stick with it though, I feel the stock will pull it out in the end.
The full name of my second publicly traded company is BroadVision Inc. Dr. Pehong Chen the Chief Executive Officer incorporated them in 1993. The address of the headquarters is 585 Broadway Ave. Redwood City, California 94063. The state of incorporation is Delaware and the CUSIP number is 94-3184303. The number of shareholders is 9, 845. The ticker symbol is BVSN and it is traded on the NASDAQ.
Please see attached file 1.3 for 1998 – 1999 price ranges for the stock.
BroadVision is the leading company for supplying personalized e-business applications. Rival Software Company Art Technology Group Inc. paid BVSN $15 million to settle a claim that Art Technology Group Inc. infringed on its software patents. “The idea that they were able to defend their intellectual property was positive…They defend their turf”, exclaimed Shayna Malnak, an analyst at Williams Capital Group. Their stock shares rose 10.3 percent after the rival agreed to pay the settlement. BroadVision also has many more rivals in the Internet Stock category: Amazon Com Inc., Broadcom Corp., Spyglass Inc, and Verio Inc are just a few (See attached 1.4 for complete list). BroadVision Inc. has no legal subsidiaries that it recognizes as such.
VectorVest says that BVSN has a below average safety with an average potential. They have valued BVSN with a relative value of 0.98, a fair rating, and a 0.73 relative safety rating, which is poor. The growth rate is excellent, it is at 57% per year right now. BroadVision also does not pay dividend, which gives it a rating of being overvalued. ReeseGroup.com also gave BVSN a no interest at this time rating. They consider BVSN a fast grower but a fast faller. They are somewhat right because after the 3 way split the stock has consistently gone down. They believe an over 50% growth rate will be hard to continue.
All in all, BroadVision Inc. is a fast growing company with fast results. I bought the stock at 148 3/16 on January 20th and it rose to 267 1/8 on March 9th. The stock has since dropped considerably because of the split three ways. When this happened the stock fell to $73 per share but I tripled my shares. The stock has gone down since then, especially since the stock market dropped BVSN to a staggering 40 1/8 on April 13th. I thought the stock would be a great investment, but it has since been disappointing. I have not seen a rise since March 9th and I hope it will go up before the deadline. So I guess they are right, it’s a good stock to hold for a while, but not too long.
The complete name of my last publicly traded stock is Williams Communication Group. It is traded on the NYSE (New York Stock Exchange) using the symbol WCG. Keith E. Bailey is the President of the company since 1992. The state of original incorporation was Nevada and the year was 1949. WCG was reincorporated in 1987 in Delaware. The address of the headquarters is One Williams Center Tulsa, Oklahoma 74172. The stock is 85% by Williams Communication Group and the other 15% are publicly traded. The CUSIP number is 969457100. For a complete look at the price range for the stock for the 1998 – 1999 fiscal year please refer to the attachment 1.5.
Williams began building gas and petroleum pipeline networks more than 80 years ago and is currently one of the largest volume transporters of natural gas in the United States. They have constructed and acquired/managed over 100,000 miles of pipelines over the years since they have been in business. In 1985, they switched gears and began installing fiber optic cables in pipelines that were no longer in use.
On March 1, 2000 WCG and eTech Global Communications made a contract that would enable Williams to provide eTech, a gigabit Internet Protocol (IP) network company based in South Plainfield, New Jersey, with Williams Optical Wave ServiceSM. The deal involved the transfer of $270 million for a ten-year contract. Jay Shanker, CEO of eTech, said that Williams “….allows us to be competitive immediately and to focus on what we do best…”
Williams Communication Group has two main subsidiaries. They are WilTel and Information Technology’s Enterprise Services and Systems. It has a list of competitors in the telecommunications/long distance category. Sprint Corp, AT&T Corp, MCI Worldcom Inc, and WorldQuest Networks Inc and just a few that appear on this list.
Williams Communication was given a below average rating and low return level by analyst VectorVest. Its relative value is 0.15, which is a very poor rating. This means that its long-term price appreciation is not as high as other medium rated stocks in the same field. The relative safety of the stock was given a rating of 0.67, which is also poor, this was given by equity investors not personal investors. The relative timing of the stock is excellent for the year of 1999. Williams Communication Group was also given the value of overrated, not a good buy for the long-term investor. The rating given by ReeseGroup.com was poor as well. They have given the category of no interest, but not to sell.
Williams Communication Group is an excellent stock to own. I realize that this goes against all the research I have done, but I must disagree again. The stock is stable, not going up and down too much or too little. When I bought the stock, it was at $36 per share and has risen slowly. It hit a high rating on March 9th when the price reached 55 3/8 per share. When the stock market began to die out after its great month of March, they price only fell to 38 11/16 per share, still higher than what I “bought” it at. You can’t always listen to analysts’, they are like weathermen, sometimes right and sometimes wrong. This time, they are wrong.