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 : Compaq -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elwood P. Dowd who wrote (63037)	6/15/1999 12:33:00 PM
From: rupert1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 97611

Have all you nabobs of negativity blown yourselves out yet - or is there more primeval scream therapy to come? Some of you claim to be longs - you won't sell if it gets to $25, $30, $35, $40, $45 or $50. Presumably you have decided it is smarter to hold over a year or two or more. Most of you held when it was at $50. So you have not "lost" anything - you are just waiting for the time to pass until it reaches your target - if you have one. So why watch and vent - to adapt a Biblical phrase. Get a grip! Calling the company or its officers nasty names does not actually improve the share price. I can understand that those who are on margin, or who entered with a six month or less target should be anxious, or those who need the cash. But most of you know that even if you intended investment period is extended by a month or two you will get your money back. The others, the traders should make hay at these levels. Movements from $22-26 or, if you like, from $22-$17 are just as good as movements from $50-55, better, actually, because you can afford more shares. The smart asses who goad and bait should remember that NETP, LPGL are down 50% in little more than a month, most of the internuts are in the same ballpark, DELL is down about 40% and will probably go lower. For my summary of good news see my next post. BTW she_x authorises me to announce that she is an active collaborator in the underground network of COMPAQ cheerleaders who remain bloody but unbowed. I am the most 'umble member of that network.

To: Elwood P. Dowd who wrote (63037)	6/15/1999 3:04:00 PM
From: rupert1	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 97611

Maybe this has caused a scare today - who knows? The Lunchtime News Jun 15, 1999 FOOL PLATE SPECIAL An Investment Opinion by Chris Rugaber Compaq: Bigger is Not Always Better Diversified computer company Compaq (NYSE:CPQ - news) has continued to struggle in recent months, and last week one analyst warned that the company may even post a loss in its upcoming quarter. This presumably disastrous news caused only a slight drop in Compaq's stock, which had already fallen more than half from its January high of $48.875. Such a sanguine reaction is presumably why several analysts, including a guest on CNBC's "Squawk Box" this morning, are pointing out the apparent lack of any further downside in the company's stock. Indeed, even Piper Jaffray's Ashok Kumar, the analyst who puts the chance for a second quarter loss for Compaq at better than 50/50, rates the company a "buy." Nevertheless, investors may want to wait a bit before jumping in. Compaq's acquisitions of Digital Equipment Corporation and Tandy in recent years, as well as its apparent Internet strategy -- it owns the search engine Alta Vista and has purchased a couple of e-commerce sites -- make it more of a sprawling conglomerate with a multitude of interests, rather than simply the "largest PC maker in the world," as it is often called. It remains unclear whether the company can productively manage all of its operations. Compaq's board, headed by co-founder Ben Rosen, deserves credit for booting CEO Eckhard Pfeiffer, and plenty of other top management has departed, including CFO Earl Mason and the heads of the workstation and services divisions. One result of all these departures, however, is that the company has plenty of incentive to write off its bloated inventories and take a loss this quarter in order to blame it on previous management. The new CEO will have his or her work cut out for them, as the company tries to solve its inventory problems and focus on its disparate businesses. One thing the company's recent travails have proven is that bigger is certainly not always better. Pfeiffer tried to make waves by setting $60 billion in revenues as the company's 2002 goal, double its 1998 total. Yet revenue growth hasn't done the company any good, given its inability to make efficient use of its capital. The company grew revenues almost 33% in 1998, but thanks in part to its poor inventory and receivables management, operating cash flow fell by over $3 billion (and that's in spite of the company adding back over $3 billion in purchased in-process R&D it had written off). Compaq has always had higher revenues than companies like Dell, Cisco, and Microsoft, but those are the leading companies of the decade, due at least in part to their outstanding returns on invested capital (ROIC). As has been written here at the Fool many times before, metrics like ROIC can be far more important than revenue and earnings growth. One wonders if Pfeiffer, who was reputedly obsessed with his company's challenge from Dell, really understood that. Investors may want to keep their eye on Compaq's new CEO, whenever he or she is hired, because a turnaround is certainly possible. A few spin-offs might even be prudent, and beneficial to the company's bottom line. Yet productive use of the company's assets has seemed just around the corner for awhile now. Last summer, I had the misfortune of writing a "b ull" argument for Compaq, in which I maintained that the company's revenue would "skyrocket." I at least added the caveat that the "question is whether it can efficiently manage its new business model." Almost a year later, that's still the question.