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 : Applied Magnetics Corp -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Earl who wrote (11033)	12/16/1997 10:06:00 PM
From: Mark Adams	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12298

I haven't seen anything to confirm the rumoured revised estimates, so I've held back on commenting. But I would prefer to see published data which is widely available. I'm willing to wait a few days and see if the rumoured numbers are confirmed. Can you confirm first call released these numbers?

To: Don Earl who wrote (11033)	12/17/1997 5:33:00 AM
From: Jonathan Bird	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12298

An estimate of (.78) is ridiculous and of course it's timed just right to kill a technical rebound. Looks like it's time for some e-mail to the SEC. Don, I just pulled the First Call report and apparently these numbers have been out since Dec 9. So I guess this means that it is already factored into the price and shouldn't hurt the technical rebound you speak of. And since there was no PR release from the analyts on the day they downgraded is it safe to say they weren't simply hopeing to drive down the price by shock value? All, Some things about the report that I find wierd. One anal gives (.83) for FY98 and the other (.82). They both give .40 for FY99. Seems odd that they give the same numbers. What are odds? And yet for Q1 one gives (.84) and the other (.72). Not so close now. It looks as though APM has given guidence for FY98 and FY99 and simply left it to the analysts to fill in the numbers for the QTRs however they choose. Crispin has done this before and didn't make a public statement. So its posible that the (.78) is really just a guess and may be quite out of line with reality if all the analysts had was full year guidence to go on. So with this rationale, maybe Don is right. This Qtr can't be THAT(.78) bad. I can't justify it myself. The analysts should have spread the losses out more over the year. I have always thought that Q2 would be worse then Q1 anyway. Obviously im just speculating but does anyone see what im getting at? Jon Bird