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: Night Writer who wrote (76888)	1/27/2000 11:39:00 AM
From: Elwood P. Dowd	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 97611

NW... imho, CPQ is gonna have to go back to 25-27 or up to 30-32 real soon. I doubt that it will base here. El

To: Night Writer who wrote (76888)	1/27/2000 12:09:00 PM
From: Andreas	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 97611

I hate to repeat the obvious...but consider the following: 1. Institutional investors have not, and i repeat HAVE NOT been accumulating cpq. Indeed, during the last 6 or so weeks, institutional ownership as a percent of total outstanding stock has dropped!! Institutional ownership today is once again in the 42% area. It was in the low 50% in early December. (we used to be at 75%!!). Which means we are more under the thumb of the irrational, emotional, momentum driven and hypercritical individual investor. 2. Despite the rah-rah on this thread, the overwhelming majority of investors with money to spend do not believe a damn thing on this thread as it relates to cpq. And really, why should they? Did cpq's operational earnings beat forecasts? NO! Have profit margins increased? NO! Has revenue growth increased? NO! and YES(no when compared to year over year while yes when compared sequentially). 3. Has cpq found a new CFO? NO! 4. Did the appointment of MC as new CEO rub the investment community the wrong way? ABSOLUTELY! (MC's appointment sent out several messages - a) cpq cannot attract a quality ceo (like hwp's fiorina) b) potential talent is reluctant to risk their career on cpq, c) potential talent is reluctant to be associated with Rosen. 5. Has cpq been losing market share? YES! CPQ can talk about focusing on profits rather than market share 'till the cows come home. That is not what investors want to hear. They want it all! They are, as we all know, greedy! They want profits PLUS market share. And cpq is saying they cannot and will not deliver on that expectation. 6. Dell tells people what they want to hear PLUS delivers. (That may change going forward, but until now we have to give them credit for delivering phenominal growth at the expense of the competition). 7. Has cpq solved its distribution model problem (whether or not it is really a problem as large as others claim remains to be seen - after all Dell's model will likely be a problem in a rising price environment - the Dell model is not perfect)? NO! - not in eyes of investors who are absolutely convinced that only the Dell model works. I happen to believe that a hybrid is the best approach. There is significant value in the traditional retail model and cannot simply be thrown out with the bath water. Come on - what's cpq supposed to do? Pull out of the retail market and follow ibm's lead? Of course not! In conclusion, the problem is cpq's inability to deliver what the investment community wants to see. As unrealistic as expectations are the bottom line is until they get what they want we're stuck. They want cpq to deliver year over year and sequential revenue growth with increasing profit margins. They want to hear that cpq's revenue growth will increase over historical norms. They want a cfo appointed yesterday and they want cpq to announce that they have duplicated the dell model to a "T" and at the same time have not cannibalized their traditional retail sales but rather took it all from dell. Somebody do me a favor - wake me up when that happens.