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 : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dave B who wrote (42988)	5/25/2000 10:33:00 PM
From: Jdaasoc	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Dave: Talking about stock price is just no fun. The only fun about RMBS is going to be when it is near to $100 and is just plain slightly overpriced tech stock with little earnings that everyone will buy. I also come back to the fact that after they cover expense of all of the 2 M warrants for $10, to pay for workers salaries, executive compensation, Intel's 1997 investment and DRAM manufacturers pain and suffering, they will cumulative non cash charge of over $14-15 per share. The only question is whether they will ever make $14-15 in earnings to post a profit in the near future. I base the $14-15 non cash charges on the $7 /per share charge for 500 K of warrants reported on March fiscal quarter plus another 1.5 M to be expensed out when 20% of Intel chipsts support RDRAM. 1.5 M x $150-$10 = $210 M or about $7.5 per share on 28 M outstanding shares. The only way I see any positive earnings is if RMBS tanks and these options are exercised at less than the high prices they were expensed for accounting purposes. Dave you are as close to RMBS management as one could find. Can you ask IR or Gary Harmon about possible non cash gains if these 2.0 M warrants are exercised less than the expensed amount. Then RMBS profits may look very positive from non cash gains in another year or two if RMBS stays at a lower stock price then when these warrants were originally awarded. I am assuming my logic is correct but I am not a tax accountant. john