Thanks for the welcome, Zeev. I am going to try to make a call to IR tomorrow, but I want to get my questions straight. Here are the posts that I'm basing my questions on:
1. From: Mark A. Holder (Reply #24791)
The whole problem appears to be related to revenue expectations. The ML analyst clearly lowered revenue expectations to 60% greater than the $220M reported last year or $352M.
After re-reading the statement it appears that Atkins said the 2nd half revenue would be 50-60% higher than the 2nd half of '99. If so, he needs to be clearer. That would lead to overall revenue growth of say 80% for the year.
If this is the case, then the market didn't understand his guidance. If it is not the case, then the market is correctly valuing the company because 50-60% growth doesn't lead to a very high sequential growth for this year.
Since I didn't listen to the CC, was the revenue guidance clearer.
2. From: Jay Dreifus (Reply #24797)
If this is the case, then the market didn't understand his guidance. If it is not the case, then the market is correctly valuing the company because 50-60% growth doesn't lead to a very high sequential growth for this year.
Just got internet access. Unbelievable today.
Akins guided 50-60% growth for the year. Far less than I expected, but you can hardly call this weak sequential annual growth.
He also said that most of their growth will come in Q4, and that for now they are going to manage their B/B roughly to 1.12 going forward. They can do this because of the long lead time of their customers getting steppers/scanners. They don't want to book something that isn't going to ship for nine months.
I figure they are going to do $1.75 for the year with $.59 in Q4. If their B/B continues at 1.12 thereafter for a while, we are looking at huge 2001 numbers.
3. From: Mark A. Holder (Reply #24800)
I meant to state low quarterly sequential growth.
Since the first 2 quarters of '99 have weak comparisons, 50-60% annual growth would only allow for say a 15-20% growth in the 4Q compared to last year. This isn't impressive for a small high-tech company.
I expected the 4Q to have at least $120M in revenue which would equate to 50% greater than the $78M reported last year.
I'm so confused now!!!!
So...the real question is whether the 50-60% revenue growth figure is FY2000 over FY1999 or 2H2000 over 2H1999 (the latter being much better since the second half of 1999 was much stronger than the first half). Have I got it right? Mark? Jay? Zeev? Anybody? Mark's reply #24801 is another one--any question begging to be asked there?
N_u |
