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 : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: patrick tang who wrote (51394)	9/6/2002 11:09:58 AM
From: QwikSand	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

Thank you for an intelligent post, Patrick. But I don't think you have to worry about cost controls. McNealy runs the place over-emotionally, but he's not an idiot, and he can add a column of numbers. The "negative income with positive cash flow" rationale can only fend off reality for so long. My bet is that at the October CC the direction will become quite unmistakable. --QS

To: patrick tang who wrote (51394)	9/6/2002 2:19:11 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

The last time sunw had $3B/Q in sales, it had 25k headcount. Even with extra R&D, it should not have more than 30k. This company can/should cut off 10k without missing a beat in R&D/future. Where do you find the headcount, is that in the 10-K somewhere? It looks like the 99 fiscal year (june98-june99) had sales of almost 12 billion, of course they were projecting much higher growth rates going forward at that time. L

To: patrick tang who wrote (51394)	9/6/2002 3:21:01 PM
From: I Am John Galt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

I started a tech-related company during the dot com era and sold it for a nice profit. You can say what you will about my business skills and thought, but the object of the game in the end is to make money... and if a surplus is made, you make your company ready to make another one by spending. Also, you talk about cutting thousands of jobs and I recall you stating that they shouldn't be in R&D... but you didn't really specify where they should be. Tell me where. Why is the stock price in the short term relevant? Scott McNealy is getting greedy. When IT spending returns, he'll be well positioned to supply market demand AND be able to move the models quickly. You don't take on giants by cutting your arm off. Maybe you do. I didn't, and in the end I won. Again, this is all conjecture on both sides. So I appreciate the bonehead comment and a few figures thrown at me that are absolutely meaningless. McNealy's been around since 1982. And your business sense vs. his is why you invest in tech and why he creates it. He sized this company for 4.5 billion in sales? I'd like to see where you received that number from. <<But at such a ridiculous stock price of toady's, somebody WILL raid. When that comes, 15k cut will be the place to start. R&D will definitely not be spared. You choice, cut 6k/7k now, or 25k/28k later.>> I don't see the relevance. Somebody will raid what? You think there will be a hostile takeover? If that does happen, wouldn't it then be the case that the stock price will skyrocket? What does the stock price have to do with the amount of layoffs now or in the near future? And R&D won't be spared because someone will raid the stock price? I'd like to see evidence of such a claim. You need to understand this... the quality of this company is looked at now as low. No one is arguing this. But the relevance of that is non-existant to the tech industry. If you stop buying superior products from a company who is financially fine for AT LEAST the next six years, then as an IT Director, you should be fired immediately. Galt.