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

To: ed who wrote (12600)	1/3/1998 11:47:00 AM
From: hpeace	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 97611

the more it sold the more it lost was incorrect. the yeild problems and their rush to get to higher mhz coupled with the expenses to get to .25 caused the loses. not volume. I don't think you looked at their 10q's. amd elected to make 1997 a trash bucket yr so 1998 could be extremely profitable. notice how they would write off all the development cost on projects in 1997 qtrs instead of prorating them over more qtrs of the life of prodcut. this is an acct'ing trick to trash 1997 but, 1998 will get to ship all that product w/o the prorata cost depreciated against it. Please read their 10q's to see their tricks in this area. In some cases they were writing how expenses of futuristic prodcut that isn't even shipped yet I also think they had to rush to much and said hang expenses get to .25 and 266 and 300