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 : Network Associates (NET) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Edwarda who wrote (5432)	7/1/1999 3:08:00 PM
From: Feliciano L. Rivera	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6021

Very good insight on NETA. I am curious to know how they finished the quarter ? In my opinion NETA the R& D is Key, if they are not able to integrate their solution and I do not mean TVD or "Best of Breed Suite" or any other marketing scheme with very little beef. Perhaps it is better that this company begins to sell off parts. Again, ie TIS Gauntlet. It is not a market leader....Axent Raptor, Checkpoint, Cisco, Secure Computing are fighting for this space....Antivirus has changed from desk top solution to enterprise wide solutions primarily gateway and groupware protection. this has been exhibited by the latest Melissa and Explorer virus...Therefore, they are not technological leaders in that space either....Nor do they support the many different os platforms currently in the market...My guess is that NETA will re-define themselves in the next 90 days. I will wait and see....HOW ?....

To: Edwarda who wrote (5432)	7/2/1999 7:06:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6021

Edwarda, I need some explanation for this statement: As I noted above, the company burned cash in the second quarter and expects that the current quarter will be cash flow positive. If, as I surmised, sales into the channel were bogus (because there was no requirement for the purchaser to pay for the goods prior to sale to the end purchaser), and if the company ceased making those "sales" into the channel, then the final sell-through (from the channel to the final user) should result in an influx of cash and a reduction in accounts receivable. So how does the company explain away the negative operational cash flow? Second, Larson claimed (about a year ago as I recall) that sales to European customers would result in a longer receivables period -- around 90 days. But this should have stabilized by now unless sales were growing -which they don't seem to be judging my management's pronouncements. That's why I reject the argument that longer lead times to ink a deal (which certainly should not impact DSO) and increased European collection periods are the culprit. Finally, I believe that the Y2K "lockdown" is a convenient excuse -- although I cannot substantiate this. The hypothesis that seems to fit is that NAI booked bogus revenues in anticipation of those deals, and when they did not materialize, or materialized more slowly than anticipated they looked around for a plausible excuse, and what better excuse is there than Y2K? This also leads me to question the accuracy of the audits by the CPA firm. One of the problems with employee stock options is that it creates a tremendous incentive for management to inflate the price of the stock. After all, their compensation is based on the difference between exercise price and the price of the stock. This creates an incentive to inflate earnings, and the easiest way to do this is by stuffing the channels. TTFN, CTC