SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Geoff Nunn who wrote (151576)1/18/2000 9:45:00 PM
From: JRI  Respond to of 176387
 
Hi Geoff-

You raise a good point, although I don't know if it necessarily applies here...but, maybe some other can chime in..

As I see it, the .01 is not a "permanent shift of the growth curve" (which is what your explanation alludes to)...rather, it is a "one-off" (well, make that "two-off, given the .18 miss in November)...due to rising component prices/Y2K demand shortfall...now, if the .01 represent a PERMANENT shift of the growth curve (ie...Dell projected 5 year earnings, both the rate and aggregation) would both slow measurably....for longer periods (than 5), the difference/gap (compared to the previous growth path) would be even more pronounced....in that case, your point would be totally valid.

It is assumed that the component spike/Y2K shortfall were an unlikely, unrepeatable phenomenon...and that without it, Dell would have reported earnings closer to .20/.21 for quarter three, and .22 (or thereabouts) for this quarter..

To me, the more (interesting?) question is: To what extent are (the potential for) these "one-off" component price increases/revenue slowdowns, due to extraneous events, ALREADY reflected in the stock prices...is Dell's price being (adaquately) discounted for them (already)?....I think so, but who can really say?.........hopefully, I am not being too convoluted here, but I do see this as a different question then...has the growth curve permanently shifted for Dell? (to which, I would answer: I don't think so)...

BTW- Dell recorded .155 EPS last February, so with a .20 EPS result this February....that would represent a 29% increase y-o-y (not 25% increase y-o-y)...and, it is likely that the results will be compared to .15, and not .155...(rounded, which I supposed is allowed under GAAP, but one must question the ethics of such)...Dell has used such rounding (when it is favorable) before, and I would be surprised if they don't use it this time (Yahoo listed EPS for Feb. '99 at .15)..so, that would represent 33% Y-O-Y EPS if Dell produces .20 EPS for the quarter....

Hopefully I am not misunderstanding you here, but wouldn't you agree that the conditions of October-December are likely not to be repeated (in the near future)? Also, I fully expect that Dell will produce a nice EPS Y-O_Y comparison in Q1 '00....at .24, it would be 50% EPS growth...which is a rate which will be unsustainable (for sure), but will represent the "opposite" effect of what we are seeing this quarter....ie...Dell's "real" EPS growth rate lies somewhere between the 2 quarter (not so low as 30-33%, not so high as 50%)



To: Geoff Nunn who wrote (151576)1/19/2000 11:01:00 AM
From: JRI  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 176387
 
Hi Geoff-

In order to put a little more "meat on the bones" of yesterday's discussion, I submit the following:

In early '99, Dell's management talked about a "gently falling" growth rate for Dell going forward...I believe, at the time, that Dell's internal projections were as such and that Dell's management expected (something like the following) for this past year's results (EPS):

'98 fiscal: 53 cents
Projection '99: 16+18+21+22= 77 cents (which would have represented 45% EPS growth, y-o-y)
Projection '00: 24+26+28+30= $ 1.08 (which would represent 40% EPS growth)....

Again, this is speculation on my part, but I believe Dell's management thought that EPS growth would fall "gently" from low 50's (beginning of 1999) to mid-40's (during 1999) to around 40 (during 2000)...as presented above...

Now, let me give you the current consensus forecast(s) for Dell, per Nasdaq, for fiscal 2000: (Q1) 22 (Q2) 26 (Q3) 28 (Q4) 30, or $ 1.06....

I believe, this year, Dell will be back on track to meet or beat earnings estimates each quarter (unlike this past year, in which we had one miss, Q3, and potentially a second in 4Q), and that overall EPS (for the year) will be around $1.08 (or matching, what I think, Dell's management projected for Dell's growth for the period, dating back to early '99)...In other words, this year, Dell would return to its previous (declining, but still strong) growth curve...and that the "one-off" quarters of Q3, Q4 fiscal '99....will be just that, "one-offs", and not reflective of Dell's "true" growth curve...

NOW, if Dell can only grow EPS in the neighborhood of 35% this next year (somewhere around $1.00 of EPS), or, starting with Q1, '00, .22, .24, .26, .28.....I would agree with you, there has been a permanent shift of the growth curve (slower than I expected)....and the .01 miss, to which you refer, would be significant...and Dell's stock price would be affected as a result...Given the lower base of earnings in '99, it is critical that Dell "overacheive" vis-a-vis '99 y-o-y results in '00....for the "one-offs" to be truly "one-offs"..

But, I am, as stated, expecting $ 1.08 in EPS this coming year, in some form or fashion (I don't know which quarters are going to surprise), which should, ironically, give us an INCREASE in y-o-y % EPS growth (vs. '99- due to the "one-off" Q3, possible Q4 results)....In fact, it is likely, if Dell can produce $1.08 for the year '00....Dell will produce a couple quarters of 50% or better y-o-y % EPS growth...which will certainly raise some eyebrows on the Street, but also will not be accurately reflecting Dell's true EPS growth rate...which has really fallen from around 45% (sans "one-offs") to 40% this year...and likely between 35-40% y-o-y next year (2001)....

I hope this didn't confuse you, I'm not known for my lucid arguments....<G>



To: Geoff Nunn who wrote (151576)1/19/2000 2:24:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit  Respond to of 176387
 
Geoff,

I must disagree, because IMO there is an an incorrect implicit assumption in your argument. The assumption you make is that future growth is a function of the growth of earnings for the current period. It is much more reasonable to believe that earnings are lumpy due to several factors, including some postponed sales due to Q4 Y2K lockdowns, one-time, temporary component cost boosts, seasonality, etc. On the other hand, if growth is slowing faster than expected as evidenced by (as opposed to caused by) a $.01 miss in earnings, I agree.

TTFN,
CTC