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: Steven N who wrote (63178)	6/16/1999 8:21:00 AM
From: rupert1	Respond to of 97611

StevenN: I have been thinking about the theory that Kumar is informed by Intel. When CPQ was in the mid-40's in February, Kumar was very satisfied with it. As I said, he seemed to be blissfully unaware of the slow January and February until Mason tipped off Credit Suisse First Boston. Then he got very bitter towards COMPAQ for leaving him out of the loop. You have to wonder why Kumar was taken by surprise if he had good sources. But what if Intel was his main source and what if Intel had it wrong and had been feeding him wrong information? The person who mentioned the Intel theory to me also suggested that EP also was influenced by information coming from Intel to the effect that the industry, as a whole, was slow, and that CPQ was doing about the same as the other boxmakers. It has been suggested that Intel's wrong information may have been simply its own misreading of the market or it could have been mischievous - whatever the truth, it makes my point that information which analysts rely on supplied by competitors, suppliers, re-sellers and so on can be affected by industry politics. I emphasise that this is merely speculative theory but I have never heard a satisfactory explanation why Kuamr got it so wrong in the mid-40's just a few months ago or how EP got it so wrong when he repeatedly put his neck on the block when he said that COMPAQ was in line with industry performance in the 1Q. Both these characters had dud information - where did they get it from?

To: Steven N who wrote (63178)	6/16/1999 8:29:00 AM
From: rupert1	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 97611

SteveN: In the 1Q there were two competing theories/observations about costs - one from rudedog and one from she from the Yahoo Club thread. The first was that COMPAQ was pushing whatever costs it could into 2Q. The second was that COMPAQ was bringing whatever cost it could from 2Q into 1Q to clear the decks for a better 2Q. rudedog also reported talk/rumour from Houston that major sales of high-end (Tandem) products would probably not be completed in time to make the 1Q figures, but would show up as 2Q revenues. EP also said after his sacking that benefits from the restructuring would show up in 2Q. Further information on these issues would be appreciated - their relevance to 2Q earnings are obvious.