Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: shane forbes who wrote (18871)	6/14/1999 5:24:00 PM
From: Jock Hutchinson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25814

BTW the real difference between 2.13 b and 2.1 b: the first requires 10.3% sequential growth from Q1's 457 mil. the 2nd requires 9.3% sequential growth from Q1's 457 mil. - again appreciate the delta here - that is 100 full basis points. Now do you see why you should not round? Compound interest man. Compound interest with a high interest rate. Double Duh! Great! The 10.3% sequential growth is an even more compelling figure that supports my core argument that LSI will need to see spectacular quarter over quarter revenue growth to meet your so-called average figure of $2.15 billion for 1999 revenues. And for the last time, I repeat that the core problem is that your use of a base figure of $1.85 billion in revenues for 1998 is reckless and irresponsible method for arriving at your so-called average figure of $2.15 billion in revenue for 1999. $1.85 billion doesn't reflect reality or currently accepted accounting principals. Case closed. Take it up on appeal if you feel that justice hasn't been done. "You only hurt the ones you love."

To: shane forbes who wrote (18871)	6/14/1999 6:24:00 PM
From: Ross	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25814

Re: "The truth of the matter is there is very little that needs to be said about the chip stocks at this point and maybe a while more. So shutting up is the best thing to do." That's the way it looks to me, too. Or, more precisely, there seems to be a lot of positive news in the limited range of things that I look at. But a perusal of the chart and thread from May/June 1997 (last trip in the 40s) shows how quickly the bad news can accumulate. My recollection is that going into the 40s last time there was a lot less good news and a lot more hoping, but maybe I'm being selective in my memories. Ross