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 : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lucretius who wrote (147148)	11/11/1999 10:14:00 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

The prosecution rests.... Are you really short? Really? Sold some naked calls maybe? I hope so. TP

To: Lucretius who wrote (147148)	11/11/1999 10:16:00 PM
From: Calvin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

Luc, re: SO almost the whole increase in revenues went into receivables. anybody smell stuffing????? Yeah right. Who are we going to stuff? The direct customer? Yeah sure. You buy one computer, we charge you for two, you pay for one, but we put two in our books. Yeah sure! Says a lot about you LT. Calvin

To: Lucretius who wrote (147148)	11/11/1999 11:25:00 PM
From: MythMan	Respond to of 176387

I'm always amazed how a company this size in such a volatile business can hit both revenue and earnings estimates. These guys are world class -s-

To: Lucretius who wrote (147148)	11/12/1999 12:24:00 AM
From: Alohal	Respond to of 176387

Oh LT your insightful analysis has my heart atwitter!!! So, just go ahead and short at the open tomorrow, then you'll be rich. Simple ain't it? Ho, ho ho! Just be ready with a pile of cash for that call from your broker in a few days.<gg> Cheers, you old brown shorted bear you. Alohal

To: Lucretius who wrote (147148)	11/12/1999 12:45:00 AM
From: Alohal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

LT Re: "let's break down the numbers" After reading your "analysis" (when I stopped laughing) I concluded that you fit in that category or person who is better off remaining silent and letting people just THINK your stupid than speaking and confirming it! LOL! You are truly a joke of a bear! Cheers Alohal

To: Lucretius who wrote (147148)	11/12/1999 6:46:00 AM
From: hdl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

LT, I thought you gave us some keen analysis, but some responses to your post moved my view of your post down a few notches.

To: Lucretius who wrote (147148)	11/12/1999 8:36:00 AM
From: isaac	Respond to of 176387

^revs were up 10.5 % seq while receivables were up 16.6%.i.e one grew 642mm the other 403mm(natch dso's went up a bunch).^ LT seems right about this, until the parentheses, has anyone seen an explanation for this quarter to quarter change? Other comparisons are much more positive though. Days of sales in accounts receivables (is that same as dso?), only went up from 36 days in second quarter to 37 in third quarter. Also, days of sales in accounts receivables dropped from the comparable quarter a year ago, from 40 days to 37. Year over year net revenue up 41 percent, net accounts receivable up 31 percent. So by this metric as well, accounts receivable not growing as fast as overall revenues.

To: Lucretius who wrote (147148)	11/12/1999 11:55:00 AM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 176387

Nice analysis. You received 7 replies, of which 6 were empty taunts. Tom

To: Lucretius who wrote (147148)	11/12/1999 2:22:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

Lucretius, You are quite correct to point to operating earnings rather than bottom line earnings, but if you do so you ought to compare that to operating earnings for the base period. Excluding purchased R&D (that ubiquitous "one-time" expense), pre-tax operating earnings stood at $650MM, down from $694 MM in the prior period, but up from the prior year's $539 MM. Not a pretty picture to be sure. But, the real question to be asked in this context is why. The company has argued that the reason is increased component costs. Given the fact that Dell has the best business model among box-makers we can generate two scenarios: The first, DRAM and component costs will stabilize at higher levels. That possibility will impact the entire industry and will either lead to higher box prices, or it will put increasing pressure on the competition and force the hand of weaker players. There is considerable evidence that a decision time is near for IBM (which has decided to pull the Aptiva line from retail shelves) and HWP. The second is that DRAM prices will fall, and that implies that operating profits will rise. You also noted that A/R rose significantly faster than sales. Under ordinary circumstances one might argue that channels were being stuffed. But owing to the lack of channels in Dell's business model, this explanation is absurd. A more logical explanation might be an increase in sales following the Taiwan earthquake because of a fear of disruption of the supply of boxes. Alternatively, there might be an increase in orders in anticipation of an increase in prices. TTFN, CTC