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 : Lucent Technologies (LU) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mr.Fun who wrote (14430)	4/19/2000 12:06:00 PM
From: telecomguy	Respond to of 21876

I WISH I was John Roth (his options are currently valued at $300 Million!). Your points are good Mr. Fun but you can't deny that they are not growing the revenue like they were in the past and like NT and CSCO is growing in the recent quarters.......that was my only point. LU is still a good company and as I have said many times to the CSCOites, I fear LU lot more than CSCO in the Carrier space -- especially in the optics arena where there will be huge growth in the coming years. This is an OK performance but NOT as good as the headline makes it out to be.

To: Mr.Fun who wrote (14430)	4/19/2000 2:37:00 PM
From: Mighty Mizzou	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21876

Are you actually John Roth posting incognito? LOL! Right on, MF!!!

To: Mr.Fun who wrote (14430)	4/21/2000 2:30:00 AM
From: jack bittner	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21876

Mr Fun, why would considerable r&d expenses for customer specific development be reclassified as COGS? if it is R&D, why not call it that? were they calling "COGS" R&D before when they should have not under GAAP? what do other high R&D companies call "COGS" - R&D or "COGS? what is the reason for this change? clarification? if so, why now and not before? does a company have the choice of calling customer specific development either R&D or COGS? if they want to be clear, why not have a heading: Research and Development: A. Basic R&D and B. Customer Specific Development R&D. plus any other sub-headings of types of R&D, if that is useful. How come they can't figure out a way to clearly and simply let us know what they spent for R&D on a comparable basis - comparable YOY and comparable to peers? were they kidding us before, when they lumped R&D with customer specific development; or are they kidding us now by reclassifying part of R&D as COGS, so that only you and a lucent accountant could tell us where it is. How come they can't figure out how to compensate their people so they don't soldier on the job for certain quarters to beat their "quotas". (fellas you've been making x% commission heretofore, from now on you get x+y% on whatever you sell. no quotas. more sales, more money - every quarter. pretty easy to understand; absolutely stimulating.) why can't they figure out these simple, basic things? i suppose the C in COGS means customers, what does the rest of the acronym mean? do nt and csco classify customer specific development as R&D or as COGS? do they change the classification from time to time? I put these questions to you because we are on the same thread, in the same discussion. i don't suppose you can know what is in the minds of the lu bureaucrats. my impatience is directed surely not at you, who have shared with us a great deal of useful information. it is directed at the obfuscators who now control lu, and who, in my opinion, are strangling a national treasure: Bell Labs. I wish you well, and thank you for your patient and elegant responses.

To: Mr.Fun who wrote (14430)	4/25/2000 5:29:00 PM
From: telecomguy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21876

Mr. Fun you have to admit that there is a problem in the hen-house when it's nearest competitor NT is growing it's revenue by 48% YOY as per today's earnings report. How can NT grow their top numbers at that rate when LU is growing at 18%? Is NT not still driving a truck through LU or are you going to continue to claim that NT is getting their revenue growth from non-LU customer base..........and if so, since when was it that NT's new customers are not potentially LU's customers as well? Am i missing something here or is NT not clearly outperforming the venerable LU? At this rate, NT will overtake LU for total revenue in not too distant future and wouldn't it be surprising when NT CONTINUES to grow at a higher rate even once it surpasses LU in total absolute revenue/market share? (NT's bookings this quarter again exceeded their revenue meaning they are continuing to build on their backlog -- one of the reason why they upped their guidance numbers for revenue growth on a going forward basis). NT is clearly executing better than LU right now at this critical juncture in time when there are major technology shifts being implemented by the carriers..........