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


To: rupert1 who wrote (76655)1/26/2000 6:35:00 AM
From: rupert1  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 97611
 
Briefing.com - It's early comments on COMPAQ is that it surprised to the upside by 19% and was down in after-hours because of the Capellas statement about 15% growth going forward.

(It will probably have more to say later).



To: rupert1 who wrote (76655)1/26/2000 6:38:00 AM
From: marquis103  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 97611
 
Wow. I just saw one of the worst cases of prejudiced reporting on CNBC than I would have believed. They opened at 6 by saying what a great quarter Qualcomm had. I was a little surprised because we knew Qualcomm fell as much as 13 points in after hours due to the fact they only beat estimates by .01 and said Q1 would be a little slower. Instead CNBC reported how one of the analysts said due to other considerations, the real number was .27, .03 over. Then they said the slow 1st quarter was seasonal, and that the year would be fine. Finally they showed the stock closed up over 8 in regular hours and NEVER mentioned the after hours shock. Then they mentioned CPQ. They started off saying Compaq revenues were lower. Their earnings were lower. However, they did manage to beat lowered expectations. Also said how certain sectors were lower and then reported the AFTER HOURS price showing Compaq down 2 points. And finally said that Capellas expected 15 % growth. Unbelievable. From now on the only way to watch CNBC is with the sound off. At 6:30 the LEAD headline was "Qualcomm beats estimates by .01."

Russ
p.s. I'm e-mailing them now with these same concerns.