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 : SYQUEST -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale who wrote (4853)	11/28/1997 12:59:00 AM
From: Dale Stempson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7685

I enjoyed reviewing your post Dale. There are certainly many ways of comparing and analyzing a stock, and It's always interesting to me to see the factors and variables others consider important. I believe that you have taken a seemingly logical approach by comparing Syquest to Iomega. After all, they're mostly competitors in the same removable market place. However... I believe this is a big mistake for two important reasons: 1) Iomega makes the majority of its money on product sales where unit volumes are huge and resulting manufacturing costs are low. In addition, a large R&D budget allows for continued improvements to manufacturing efficiences and further cost reductions. Thus, Iomega has been able to grow net profit margins to the 6%+ range even as selling prices have been decreasing. 2) It is also widely acknowledged that Iomega makes the majority of its profits as a result of disk sales and margins. With SparQ disks priced at an incredible $33 each, I would have to assume that margins would be significantly lower. To do a straight comparison of Syquest based on Iomega's numbers, one could simply apply their net profit margins percentage to estimated Syquest revenues: If we use the $250 million in revenues estimate for Syquest and take the 7% net profit margin number from Iomega's last quarter (BTW, the highest % they've reported in six quarters), then resulting EPS (based on 150 million shares) would be $0.1167. You would have to assign a 58 PE to get to the $6.74 number you referenced. Critical in any analysis IMO is estimating the net profit margin. In my crude review, I suggested 3%. This is probably high when you take into account the factors I mentioned above. I'll stick with my $2 valuation for next year. Regards - Dale