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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Roger's 1997 Short Picks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Roger A. Babb who wrote (7016)	11/14/1997 6:37:00 PM
From: stockvalinvestor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9285

What do you think of AMAT as a short. They have a very high presence in Asia by looking at last 10-K Three Months Ended Nine Months Ended July 27, July 28, July 27, July 28, 1997 1996 1997 1996 -------------- ------------- -------------- --------------- North America 42% 29% 39% 33% Europe 12% 9% 16% 15% Japan 18% 26% 16% 23% Korea 7% 21% 8% 15% Asia-Pacific 21% 15% 21% 14%

To: Roger A. Babb who wrote (7016)	11/14/1997 10:37:00 PM
From: Pancho Villa	Respond to of 9285

Roger, RE: CTXS. I did some work in a previous post in which I discussed revenue recognition for the MSFT deal. It didn't look good. I did not need to see the 10Q for this quarter to see this was not the key factor in their revenue. They you read that post? if you didn't run a search with the words Pancho CTXS Pancho

To: Roger A. Babb who wrote (7016)	11/15/1997 1:50:00 AM
From: Shoe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9285

Roger, CTXS's treatment of the $75 million MSFT payment is clear, isn't it: "The initial fee of $75 million relating to the Development Agreement is being recognized ratably over the term of the contract, which is five years." So $3,750,000 per quarter or roughly .13 per share is what you would call just collecting payments on an asset sale completed in 1997 (although purportedly there are engineering and support services to be performed connected to the "nonrefundable" payment). They would not have recognized any of the up to $100 million additional payments based on Hydrix yet, would they? -- Shoe