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 : The New QLogic (ANCR) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: craig crawford who wrote (11609)	10/21/1997 10:37:00 AM
From: Patrick Sharkey	Respond to of 29386

Craig, regarding HuCom, your point is well taken and a good one. It is still not clear to me why Nelson had to say that he "now" expects that the total package with Hucom for that one, unidentified customer, will exceed the total anticipated ($7.4 million) when the contract first was announced. When you study numbers in press releases for tech products, my eexperience is that most do not refer to specific numbers.

To: craig crawford who wrote (11609)	10/21/1997 11:17:00 AM
From: iceburg	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29386

This is what I'm having trouble with. I don't recall seeing it and I find it interesting that there was no talk about it. Don't you think this is something worth discussing? I remember an antagonist referencing that someone else was selling switches in Japan. I remember discussing Brocade's distributor out there and I remember discussing how having Arxcel's product also distributed by Hucom adds viability to FC in general. You joke about babysitting our stock. Ironically, you act as if you are babysitting a short... Yes I know you claimed to have covered, but when you say "time to short" you usually already have... Personally, I would b very nervous being short with the uncertainty of earnings, related announcements near and Reg-D pressures subsiding.

To: craig crawford who wrote (11609)	10/21/1997 11:25:00 AM
From: Craig Stevenson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29386

Craig C., <<This is what I'm having trouble with. I don't recall seeing it and I find it interesting that there was no talk about it. Don't you think this is something worth discussing?>> Yes, this is certainly something worth discussing. The problem is that nobody seems to be able to find anything more than the original press release. There just isn't much to discuss, because we don't have any additional information. <<I don't understand how they can call these new when they are part of the original $7.4 million deal.> I haven't checked the wording of the original Hucom release, but I suspect it said something like "up to $7.4 million". These are new orders on the original contract. If they had not been placed, the contract value would have been worth LESS than $7.4 million. As it turns out, the value appears to be in excess of $7.4 million. <<The contract, which extends through the end of 1998, calls for significantly increased commitments from Hucom for GigWorks switches and adapters to serve this growing market.>> This statement does NOT say that Hucom 1998 will be worth MORE than $7.4 Million, although I suppose that implication could be drawn. What I think it says is that the MINIMUM commitment from Hucom has been significantly increased over 1997. I don't think we ever knew what that minimum commitment was. Craig