To: sandeep who wrote (11479 ) 7/12/2001 5:38:45 AM From: Lee Lichterman III Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 52237 I actually am not bearish on MSFT but more so on the over all market long term, especially when I see how fast perma bulls can data dump bad news and accept on faith promises that it will get better next quarter, no wait, next quarter, no wait, the quarter after that, no wait..... Remember when tech was immune to the FOMC rate increases, or when CSCO was immune to the slow down? How about when JNPR was immune, INTC, MU, NOK? I am just realistic and tend not to get lathered up into a frenzy over blah news. I find it amazing that when these techs were making money by investing instead of their core business, it was considered a good thing but now that they are losing money, it is a non event. Not sure about MSFT but I know that INTC actually has less income now than they did in 98 yet is priced much higher. The same is true with most of the bubble techs right now. Valuations are higher now than at the top of the bubble in March 2000 since earnings are declining faster than prices and note these high valuations are on declining earnings, not earnings that are increasing. Negative outlook or just realistic? Their repricing of options is also going to eat their cash flow for a while. This article was mainly written about DELL but it is the same for most of the big techs this year. A worth while read. One excerpt...... .......By my calculations, had Dell wished to keep its share count steady in fiscal year 2001, it would have had to buy back 52 million more shares (on top of the 65 million shares it purchased for $2.7 billion). Using this average price of $41.54 per share, Dell would have had to spend an additional $2.2 billion, for a total of $4.9 billion. Obviously, this was not feasible given that free cash flow was only $4 billion. Implications Even though the cost doesn't appear on the income statement, stock options are clearly a form of compensation, and there is a real cost associated with them. Let's say a company spent 100% of its free cash flow buying back shares, yet the share count remained constant. Isn't this just a compensation expense, and therefore in this scenario the company generated no free cash flow for shareholders? At Dell, the situation was even more extreme last fiscal year: Had it spent 100% of its free cash flow on buybacks, the share count still would have risen 0.8%. Thus, one could argue that Dell had negative free cash flow for shareholders last year. The whole thing is here.....thestreet.com =================== If I see much more of this blind faith bull stuff after AMD, GLW, IBM, EMR etc etc news I may not wait to buy puts until next week, I may have to buy them on the open tomorrow. I am amazed that people can data dump all the bad news of the last couple days, forget the last year and a half just because someone said they would meet expectations but take a huge write off. I find that more amazing than my more realistic view of news. PS - I am long because my charts said to be long but as I saw posted elsewhere, First FA didn't matter, now TA is being said not to matter and people are saying to just trade sentiment. If that were true, then with the manic mood swing that just occured, short would be better than long. Of course I trade the charts so I will try real hard to wait a couple days before going short. -ggg- Lets see what GE says this morning. RMBS should be good for a chuckle after the close. As I recall, that one was going to the moon too a few months ago. Ooops! -ggg- Good Luck, Lee