LSI Corporation Message Board

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 : LSI Corporation

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Jock Hutchinson who wrote (18707)	6/4/1999 2:20:00 AM
From: shane forbes	Read Replies (1) of 25814

BTW I forgot to add that there is NOTHING significantly wrong with the argument you made in the post to which this refers. But the others were crap. ---- Compare this example of an earlier argument of yours: When I wrote that "LSI needs to grow at an annualized rate of almost 35% a year just to have an "average" year, when the anticipated average for the industry is 15 percent" it was clearly a poke at your use of the word "average" as well as your use of the $2.1 billion dollar figure. And that is my primary point--that for LSI to have a year where they achieve $2.1 billion dollars in revenue, they will far need to outperform the industry average going forward--by about 20 percentage points if the industry grows by 15 percent this year. And this is what I mean by being overly optimistic. I am not saying that LSI cannot or will not hit the $2.1 billion figure this year. What I am saying is that they will dramatically need to outperform the industry average to do such. with the correct one in the post to which this refers: Thus, for the second quarter of the combined LSI and Symbios entity, the growth rate was 2.5%. And to achieve the $2.1 billion that you deem “average”. LSI would need to see a yearly increase in sales of 35% over 4Q 1998, which was the first full quarter that LSI and old Symbios were combined. Since there is already a 2.5% increase in the books, this means that each of the next three quarters would need to improve by 9% sequentially in order to hit your so-called average. Thus, the overall increase over the only full quarter that reflects the combined Symbios LSI entity would be 35% in the following year. [Shane's add: Did I say anything about the industry growth rate Q4 1999 over 1998. For all we know the average may be 21%, 27% or whatever. Compare apples and apples. We know of only 1 thing. The full year growth rate of 1999 over 1998 is 15%.] ---- There are so many differences here it is comical. - The key is that you are arguing one Quarter 1999 over 1998 in the most recent post ('only full quarter') vs. 1 Full Year ('this year', - note 15% is a full year number not a Q4 1998 vs. Q4 1999 number) earlier . - Besides previously you argued with the 1.85 bil as an incorrect 'base' first because of the IPR&D then because of the fact that since Q4 was stronger (first note that I did not say this in the Patrick post - the one you referred to in making all that noise about 1.85 bil., 2nd just by saying it was stronger does not mean it was the strongest! You assumed that it was the strongest of the 4 quarters and so had to be greater than the mean. Ouch again.) it had to be more than the average! - The wrong part of your current argument is the 9% (it should be higher) and the fact that there is no god given requirement that LSI should see equal sequential improvement in sales growth. In fact the fact that it is low initially requires a much higher 1999 Q4 over 1998 Q4 rate. ---- So the argument is NOW right but the argument NOW is arguing something quite different. Your problem is that you are changing the basis with which you disagree with me with such frequency that there is now such a resulting hodgepodge of nonsense that your earlier posts now look totally different from your later posts. It's become all confused. What that they say about writing simple English and thinking clearly? Using up the July Quota in another big waste of time. -1 hr.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next