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 : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kemble s. matter who wrote (172582)	3/25/2003 2:41:03 PM
From: William F. Wager, Jr.	Respond to of 176387

Michael Dell Sells 2 Million Dell Computer Shares Through His Wife Tuesday March 25, 2:12 pm ET WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- Dell Computer Corp. (NasdaqNM:DELL - News) Chairman and Chief Executive Michael Dell sold 2 million shares of common stock through his wife Thursday, according to a Form 4 filed Tuesday with the Securities and Exchange Commission (News - Websites). Dell sold the shares at $28.36 each. After the transaction, he directly owned 287.9 million Dell Computer common shares, indirectly owned 31.4 million shares through his wife and indirectly owned 8.2 million shares through other entities. Tuesday, shares of the company were up 47 cents to $28.28. -Todd Goren; Dow Jones Newswires; 202-628-9782; todd.goren@dowjones.com

To: kemble s. matter who wrote (172582)	3/25/2003 2:43:17 PM
From: DHB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

I think they are busy at the protests. DHB

To: kemble s. matter who wrote (172582)	3/25/2003 3:19:12 PM
From: William F. Wager, Jr.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

Dell: As Steady as It Gets in Tech It has been consistently strong through the downturn. Will its diversification efforts help it break out of a narrow trading range? Had you been prescient enough to invest $1,000 in Dell Computer in January, 1990, you'd be sitting on more than $500,000 today. But say you weren't so psychic, and instead you waited until the bursting of the Net bubble had sliced Dell's once stellar stock price in half. How much would $1,000 invested in early 2001 be worth today? About $1,000. Dell's shares, whose value rose faster than any other in the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index during the 1990s, today trade at around $27 -- or about the same price they did two years ago. While the broader market has plunged and rebounded in a series of bone-jarring moves, Dell (DELL ) shares have bounced gently between $22 and $30 a share. What's Dell's secret? Efficient factories and direct sales keep costs low, allowing the computer maker to undercut competitors and steal market share, especially while demand has been soft. And because Dell collects from many customers long before it fills orders, it has little debt. In 2002, Dell, No. 14 on the annual BusinessWeek 50 list of top-performing companies, expanded sales 14%, boosted net income 70%, and kept its debt-to-equity ratio a lean 10.4%. HEFTY PREMIUM. Having proven it can outrun a technology recession, Dell should see its shares soar as investors gain confidence, right? Probably not. Dell's valuation remains rich -- 27 times expected earnings for fiscal 2004, which ends Jan. 31, compared to 13 times for rival Hewlett-Packard (HPQ ). Part of that premium is due to Dell's dependable execution, analysts say. It hasn't had to guide Wall Street lower for seven straight quarters and has remained free of accounting scandal and management missteps. Wall Street is already factoring in a repeat of the vigorous growth Dell managed in 2002. A survey of analysts by First Call shows that they expect revenue to increase 14.4% in 2003, to $40.5 billion. "It's a big number to sustain," says Merrill Lynch tech strategist Steve Milunovich. He rates Dell shares neutral but notes that the outfit is "fundamentally… in great shape." And with Dell's average PC prices continuing to drop, it needs a boost in overall info-tech spending to generate bigger growth that can goose the stock, Milunovich says. Trouble is, Dell acknowledges, it's facing the same reluctant tech buyers as the rest of the industry. With the economy in low gear, spending on computer gear will rise just 3.7% in 2003 as big corporations make do with less, according to market tracker IDC. Investment bank Credit Suisse First Boston, for example, has moved to replacing only 10% of its PCs each year, according to a recent report by Kevin McCarthy, a tech analyst at the firm. Says Dell CEO Michael S. Dell: "We're not anticipating massive growth for the industry this year." However, the biggest lid on Dell's stock growth may be perception, analysts say. Despite continued, quick expansion in new product lines such as networking switches and PDAs last year, Dell still generated about 80% of revenue from PC and notebook sales. That can be hard to swallow for investors who know the PC industry has matured and profits dissipated. Dell executives note that the outfit has been continuing to generate fast growth in its core product lines, masking what would otherwise be progress in changing the product mix. BRANCHING OUT. But Banc of America Securities' Joel Wagonfeld thinks more profitable sales of storage gear manufactured and sold in tandem with storage giant EMC (EMC ) will be one key to assuaging such doubts. In the fourth quarter, external storage sales hit a company record of $300 million and likely generated much more in add-on sales of servers and services, says Wagonfeld, who rates Dell a buy. To break out of its trading range and hit his 12-month price target of $34, Dell needs more of the same, notes Wagonfeld: "It's very important for Dell to further penetrate spending among its customers." Michael Dell agrees, and last year he set a goal of hitting $60 billion in revenue in four or five years, half from non-PC products. Until then, though, Dell investors may have to be happy to just have their heads above water while many a tech concern's shares remain submerged. MARCH 24, 2003 Park writes for BusinessWeek from the Dallas bureau Edited By Beth Belton

To: kemble s. matter who wrote (172582)	4/6/2003 7:19:43 PM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 176387

ibid

To: kemble s. matter who wrote (172582)	4/6/2003 7:20:50 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

Re "Still laughing..." All the laughs are on you. Harvard study: Dems/Communists wrong, "Global warming" is a natural occurrence: Middle Ages were warmer than today, say scientists By Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent (Filed: 06/04/2003) Claims that man-made pollution is causing "unprecedented" global warming have been seriously undermined by new research which shows that the Earth was warmer during the Middle Ages. From the outset of the global warming debate in the late 1980s, environmentalists have said that temperatures are rising higher and faster than ever before, leading some scientists to conclude that greenhouse gases from cars and power stations are causing these "record-breaking" global temperatures. Last year, scientists working for the UK Climate Impacts Programme said that global temperatures were "the hottest since records began" and added: "We are pretty sure that climate change due to human activity is here and it's accelerating." This announcement followed research published in 1998, when scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia declared that the 1990s had been hotter than any other period for 1,000 years. Such claims have now been sharply contradicted by the most comprehensive study yet of global temperature over the past 1,000 years. A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists. The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the findings of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures prevailing at sites around the world. The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than today. They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during which the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up again - but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages. The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is especially significant, as it implies that the records used by climate scientists date from a time when the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today's temperature rise. According to the researchers, the evidence confirms suspicions that today's "unprecedented" temperatures are simply the result of examining temperature change over too short a period of time. The study, about to be published in the journal Energy and Environment, has been welcomed by sceptics of global warming, who say it puts the claims of environmentalists in proper context. Until now, suggestions that the Middle Ages were as warm as the 21st century had been largely anecdotal and were often challenged by believers in man-made global warming. Dr Philip Stott, the professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University of London, told The Telegraph: "What has been forgotten in all the discussion about global warming is a proper sense of history." According to Prof Stott, the evidence also undermines doom-laden predictions about the effect of higher global temperatures. "During the Medieval Warm Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a wonderful period of plenty for everyone." In contrast, said Prof Stott, severe famines and economic collapse followed the onset of the Little Ice Age around 1300. He said: "When the temperature started to drop, harvests failed and England's vine industry died. It makes one wonder why there is so much fear of warmth." The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the official voice of global warming research, has conceded the possibility that today's "record-breaking" temperatures may be at least partly caused by the Earth recovering from a relatively cold period in recent history. While the evidence for entirely natural changes in the Earth's temperature continues to grow, its causes still remain mysterious. Dr Simon Brown, the climate extremes research manager at the Meteorological Office at Bracknell, said that the present consensus among scientists on the IPCC was that the Medieval Warm Period could not be used to judge the significance of existing warming. Dr Brown said: "The conclusion that 20th century warming is not unusual relies on the assertion that the Medieval Warm Period was a global phenomenon. This is not the conclusion of IPCC." He added that there were also doubts about the reliability of temperature proxies such as tree rings: "They are not able to capture the recent warming of the last 50 years," he said. portal.telegraph.co.uk