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: LK2 who wrote (11057)	12/17/1997 1:48:00 PM
From: Jonathan Bird	Respond to of 12298

Jon, are you guessing when you say that Crisman gives private guidance to Wall Street, without making any public statements? No I don't think so. See this thing: NEW YORK, Oct 24 (Reuters) - Salomon Brothers on Friday it cut its rating on shares of Applied Magnetics to buy from strong buy. -- The company reported fourth-quarter results that fell well short of Salomon's expectations. -- Applied Magnetics gave more conservative guidance for the coming years, reducing earnings estimates for 1998 to $2.15 per share and to $3.41 per share in 1999. -- The shares were down 1-7/16 to 25-7/8 late Fridayafternoon. It says "gave more concervative guidence" but he didn't give it to us. And the guidence was given on a full year basis, just as I am suggesting now. Supposedly, Crisman and APM are being unfairly punished by Wall Street because of a lack of guidance. Yes, this was a rare move by Cremlin. But estimtes were up in the 4 dolar range at the time I think. And APM had just been punished for having a good QTR, just not an .80 cent Qtr as expected. But it does seem strange that APM made one of its rare public statements on Dec 8, and you are saying the First Call estimate revision is dated Dec 9. And notice that the above PR is dated the day after earnings release last QTR. It seems that news is released, then the analyst call up APM and gets the real skinny. Jon Bird

To: LK2 who wrote (11057)	12/17/1997 5:18:00 PM
From: Zakrosian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12298

>>soft evidence would be that the analysts are able to come up with 'estimates' that later prove surpisingly accurate, when everyone on the SI threads is blindsided by the reported results).<< Larry - if you are interested in soft evidence, I think you would find that for the past two quarters, virtually everyone on the SI threads who predicted APM's quarterly earnings were way high. The only estimate that proved to be on the money was that of Paul Fox (I think that's his name - the MonSec analyst who follows APM). Either he got guidance from APM or he's very, very good.