SI
SI
discoversearch

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 ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Elwood P. Dowd who wrote (50449)2/28/1999 11:30:00 AM
From: rupert1  Read Replies (1) of 97611
 
el: >>>Mason answered a question about how the quarter was going. He said it was slow in the first six weeks, had picked up in February and looked strong for March.<<< when did he make this comment???

This is my composite sentence summarising the information gleaned from several of the analysts reports posted here by Aitch. The impression was given early on Friday that EP had spoken to one analyst, namely, Credit Suisse and ML and other analysts had simply used the CS report as the basis for their reports. That worried me - that CPQ should make such an important "announcement" to one brokerage house and that all the other analysts were working on a second-hand report. Your conversation with the IR lady seemed also to confirm that that is what might have happened.

However, when Aitch posted his reports on Saturday morning I noticed that one analyst explained that a group of analysts had visited Houston. (I am assuming by "group" he does not mean one brokerage house). There were other references to suggest that other analysts had spoken to the company. One of the analysts and possibly two actually say that the information was given by Mason in response to a question on Thursday. Another analyst or report explicitly states that CPQ had not made an anouncement and had not taken back its statement that it was comfortable with analysts expectations for the quarter. Another stressed that the CPQ response was conditional - i.e. that it was not clear that there would be any shortfall in revenues, but that the issues raised may lead to a shortfall of 3 cents per share in earnings.

I say "analysts" and it may be that some of the information came from the various media reports that were flooding in on Friday night or Saturday morning. Didn't Dan Niles state in his CC that he had spoken to the company on Friday morning? I would appreciate if others would look over the same sources and confirm or otherwise what my impression is.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News