Compaq Message Board - Msg: 12196320

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Compaq

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: rudedog who wrote (73291)	12/6/1999 4:25:00 AM
From: rupert1	Read Replies (1) of 97611

rudedog: Your analysis relies on blind faith in the omniscience of Rosen, allegedly relayed to you by his neophytes. I think I have made my point that I am not a follower. Furthermore, I can read the SEC regulations as well as you can and COMPAQ is held accountable by its public statements not by the spin put on them privately by office politicians to their acquaintances. Since I said that EP was sacked why would you use his moving to a position as the head of a smaller company as an example to refute the unrefutable fact that El was wrong when he said that in addition to EP, Rosen had sacked most of the executive? Furthermore, your description of EP's present position is slanted. If he intends to exercise his options he has the largest or second largest individual holding of COMPAQ shares (after Rosen) as well as an active position in several other companies. He has every right to criticse the decisions of Rosen and the board. It's too bad that your faith in Rosen requires that you ridicule his critics. The fact is that Rosen not only did not sack Earl Mason - the main culprit acording to you and most others - but he went out of his way to praise him. Nor did he sack the head of EMA. Nor did he sack several of the others. Spin it as much as you like, they moved to other jobs or they retired after selling their shares in 1Q before Rosen and crew told other shareholders that the company was not doing as well as they had been telling the public. I suppose if any of the class action shareholder suits ever get to a trial we will learn a little more about what went on - but I suspect that Rosen will use our money to buy them off before that ever happens. In calculating the present value of the CMGI holdings read the small print. Since COMPAQ cannot sell any of it for more than a year and the rest for a period after that - the actual worth is contingent on what the value will be if and when it comes time to sell. In that time an Alta Vista floated by COMPAQ in October/November 1999, which is what COMPAQ had originally aimed for, would be worth at least as much. You have said several times that you do not understand the internet sector. I believe you. So I interpret your judgement of my understanding in that light.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next