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 : EMC How high can it go? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gus who wrote (13583)	12/3/2001 7:40:02 AM
From: JDN	Respond to of 17183

Dear Gus: Denial is not a river in Egypt. It is if your from Brooklyn!! JDN

To: Gus who wrote (13583)	12/3/2001 12:10:28 PM
From: pirate_200	Respond to of 17183

RE: EMC's manufactured market share numbers > You don't even friggin' understand the basic definition of NIS > -- SAN (includes SAN/NAS hybrids) plus NAS (includes SAN/NAS > hybrids) less SAN/NAS hybrids > Double-counting revenue ordinarily means cooking the books, > a criminal offense. That's right. EMC doesn't put this SAN/NAS breakout in their 10-Q, because then they would be committing a crime. Double-counting in the SAN and NAS segments. If there were no double counting, there wouldn't be anything to subtract in the NIS equation above. The reason "less SAN/NAS hybrids" exists is because that portion is being double-counted in the SAN and NAS segments. You either understand this and are playing dumb, or you are severely math challenged. If you can't figure out the math equation, ask yourself why the phrase "SAN/NAS hybrids" exists in both the SAN and NAS part of the equation and also gets subtracted out in the end. Follow the math for last quarter: 1. EMC says their NIS revenue (SAN+NAS) was $449M. 2. EMC said the SAN revenue was $385M. 3. EMC said the NAS revenue was $148M. $385M and $148M is $553M, why isn't the NIS number $553M rather than $449M? The reason, is that "hybrid" revenue is counted both in the SAN and NAS market segments, so if EMC left it in, they would be reporting non-existent revenue. So, $84M has to be subtracted out to report the real revenue $449M. If you don't think this is true, then EMC has $84M of revenue that they aren't reporting because they are reporting $449M in revenue for both SAN and NAS, not $553M. EMC reports the "hybrid" revenue in both the individual SAN and NAS segments. Most likely, the major portion of the hybrid revenue is put into the NAS numbers, but I'm sure they juice numbers in both segments. EMC could have easily said we have $84M split between SAN and NAS, let's split the $84M. If so, SAN would be $343M and NAS would be $106M, the total (NIS, SAN+NAS) would be $343M + $106M or $449. The math works. Instead, some "genius" in EMC marketing says let's count the "hybrid" revenue both in the SAN and NAS markets individually to boost our market share. The sad part is that the analysts on the conference call apparently can't do math either. That, or they have enough interest in not exposing the fallacy that they refuse to ask the question publicly on the conference call. And if there's anyone that works for EMC that can explain this creative marketing for us, please post. I'm fully willing to retract all this if someone simply shows me the math.

To: Gus who wrote (13583)	12/3/2001 1:34:31 PM
From: pirate_200	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17183

RE: EMC's manufactured market share numbers > "For industry research purposes, reporting the revenue of a SAN/NAS > hybrid product twice under legacy SAN and NAS categories and then > reporting the overlap to better reflect the ongoing convergence of > SAN and NAS under NIS, while always arguable, is perfectly reasonable > for those who pay attention to their definitions." By the way, math aside, when you say above "reporting the revenue of a SAN/NAS hybrid product twice" is essentially saying "double-count" revenue in the SAN and NAS categories. Your statement is a hilarious example of marketing run amok.