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 : IFMX - Investment Discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Marq Spencer who wrote (9684)	2/23/1998 4:49:00 PM
From: Dinty	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14631

Some positive press. techweb.com

To: Marq Spencer who wrote (9684)	2/23/1998 5:44:00 PM
From: Robert Graham	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14631

Good, another person has taken up this discussion. I thought my last post would generate more interest than this. Perhaps this is "old" material to many of you. But I certainly tried to generate additional discussion by moving into debatable subject material. Anyone else want to comment here? Thank you for your interesting observation that they have been working the books in terms of more current expenses related to the layoff instead of through their restatement of earnings of past quarters which they have already masterfully done. I do not mind as long as they end up delivering the results. Masterminding a corporate turnaround of a visible company in its industry is complex and challenging. I am concerned of Bob F. staffing his sales department with hardware people. From what I can see, selling hardware and software need to be approached differently. They are really two related but different markets. I am still waiting to write my CCs. I missed on my timing already due to my focus on other matters. Bob Graham

To: Marq Spencer who wrote (9684)	2/23/1998 6:18:00 PM
From: @jim	Respond to of 14631

>>>>>>best that I expect IFMX to do.... .....That surprises me. I agree with most your comments and analysis, however, there is some logic that I seem to be missing... Why would Bob F. and his "brilliant" turn-around team allow the world to see a .5 Q4 profit, knowing that the "street" will be looking hard for continued upward progress in Q1 & Q2? He only needed to show .1 Q4 profit to be smelling like a rose and then maintain or slightly increase Q3 and Q4. I believe the Q4 numbers were quite intentional and that there is accounting room to push the numbers around a bit (not cooking the books). Before the Q4 report I was not looking for a profit till end of Q2, but now that he has shown one, I think there is a strong expectation that he needs to maintain some level of profit Q2 and Q3. I also think that management knows this and has some plans to demonstrate continued success. I think we'll see much stronger upward momentum in this stock at the end of Q1 when another profit is shown. Perhaps 15 by year end. @jim

To: Marq Spencer who wrote (9684)	2/23/1998 6:45:00 PM
From: Mark Finger	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14631

>>In terms of "working the books" (nice phrase, Bob:-), notice that >>IFMX took approx. 100MM in restructuring charges in Q2 and Q3. >>Laying off 1000 people costs between 10mm and 20mm. So, they've >>front-loaded about $80mm of costs into those two quarters. I disagree with your interpretation. Further, if they actually did that, then the two accounting companies would not have signed off on the restatement issued in November, because the kind of things you are suggesting are highly illegal. There might be a small amount of movement between quarters, but not $80M. Some areas can account for a lot. First, accelerate write-off of "good will" to a realistic value for the books can amount for a lot. Informix paid about $150M for their portion of a Japanese distributer about 3-4 years ago. Most of that would be good will, but the current value would be much lower than the remaining depreciable amount, so there could have been $10-50M of write down for this alone. Informix had bought 2 or so other smaller companies in the same timeframe were also bought for cash. Second, products that are discontinued have some capitalized costs that must be immediately recognized. I do not know the details of which products these may be, but I suspect that there may have been some. Third, if some offices are closed, there may be some leases that must be broken, and other expenses associated with those closings.

To: Marq Spencer who wrote (9684)	2/26/1998 10:23:00 PM
From: J Bertrand	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14631

To Bob and All, Can anyone answer this question. When was the last time a Co-CEO situation was successful? Personally, I can't name one. I think this Co-CEO Sybase manuever is more good news for Informix. It is obvious that Sybase is having trouble figuring out what to do. Now the board has gone to desperation moves to jump start the company. I not saying Sybase is going out of business, but what I am saying is that they are definately victims of the lack of focus. They are trying to be a little Informix and a little Oracle and a little who knows what...a jack of all trades and a master of none. Watch Informix continue to pick up market share as Chen and Kertzman try to figure out an occupancy schedule for the CEO's office. It is amazing to me that a board of directors could make such a terrible move. Jeff Bertrand