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 : Citrix Systems (CTXS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ray Thackeray who wrote (5203)	3/12/1998 9:23:00 AM
From: gmccon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9068

CEO will be interviewed on CNBC in a few minutes. Greg

To: Ray Thackeray who wrote (5203)	3/12/1998 10:19:00 AM
From: Tom Markowski	Respond to of 9068

Ray, it sounds like your a little bitter about the Insignia thing. My condolences. Guess what. MSFT buys their technology too. (See:Spry,Foxpro etc.) I'll say it again. CTXS helps MSFT achieve it's enterprise goals. MSFT is focussed on NT5.0, and Wolfpack right now, not Picasso. As far as CTXS goes its all about time. ICA is being licensed by everybody...so no one's waiting for somehting else. And Winframe/Picasso sales continue to soar. By the time MSFT gets around to the "silver bullets", you mention, CTXS will be well established. But, hey....short the stock if you think CTXS is doomed. You would not be the first. Tom

To: Ray Thackeray who wrote (5203)	3/12/1998 4:13:00 PM
From: MikeM54321	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9068

Ray, Thanks for your views. Because they are not "pro-Citrix" I value them greatly. Here is what I believe to be somewhat accurate. Per a May 12th, 1997 deal, Microsoft is paying (or has paid) Citrix $75 million. For this, Citrix and Microsoft have developed Winframe for NT4.0 use. Microsoft has to promote Citrix as a multi-user NT4.0 solution until year end 1999. Microsoft will have to pay Citrix up to $100 million, depending on how many NT4.0 users want it. Once the $100 million is paid, it's no more royalties to Citrix. As a side note, Microsoft owns 5% of Citrix and has Greg Maffei (of Microsoft) sitting on the Citrix board. Now my take of your views is that Microsoft is going to devote time and money to bring RDP up to speed so they avoid paying Citrix royalties? I guess I'm a little puzzled why they would do this considering the deal and the web they already have weaved. It seems pretty solid to me unless I'm totally missing your point. Maybe the weave they have spun and the hand slapping by the justice department will force Microsoft to have a different attitude about squashing competitors. These two factors may be Citrix's only long-term hope. After year end 1999, it appears to be a free-for-all fight once again. But in the meantime, Citix is going to be going all out to make sure they have agreements with everyone and their brother. They have quite a headstart on Microsoft. But like you said, even though Citrix may have the best product, they can still get squashed if Microsoft decides to do this. Kind of sucks, but I guess you are right. But Citrix has at least a couple of years to prepare and to make money. I doubt the other companies Microsoft squashed had such clear warning. Well that's even debatable (Netscape). This will be an interesting story to follow. MikeM(From Florida)

To: Ray Thackeray who wrote (5203)	3/12/1998 6:56:00 PM
From: NicholasC	Respond to of 9068

Hi Ray, Why do you have it so in for CTXS? I'm puzzled, always puzzled by the stock market. I can't understand why it is assumed that NCD and Wyse feel raped. Why? Citrix, in partnership, as partners, has opened up a whole market with these guys. Their press releases support this. Is the logic that anyone that charges anyone money is to be disliked? Also, Citrix as a company has performed. Their business plan and situation requires that they expand partnership, penetrate the market and grow sales and profits. To date, we have no indication (to the contrary) that they have or will fail to deliver. Is the logic that anyone that performs well, extremely well, is bound to fail? Is this based on some scarcity principle that there is only so much food around and it would be foolish for anyone to not grab every last bit? Microsoft has taken down a number of competitors in the past. Virtually all of these competitors have been threats to Microsoft's growing strength. Citrix is not a threat. To the contrary, Citrix is an ally(yeah, yeah, yeah, evil empire always betrays ally and eats them). I have a few stocks that I've watched for years that I am very interested in shorting. AOL, AMZN, etc. come to mind. But I've figured out that these companies are not being valuated on ordinary fundamentals(dummy-me). Because they occupy an unchartered business space that analysts believe is going to boom overall(the Internet), their getting in play because they want to have investments in this area. I guess that they believe that at least some stars are going to arise out of this group. Therefore, all these companies need to do is perform along business plan lines(not necessarily financial), like growing market share, signing partnerships, finding new revenue streams. Some day I'll have my day with AOL and AMZN but it will be at the right time. The tide and rhythm of the market is clearly not in favor of shorting these guys now. To the contrary, it would be foolish to short them now. Which brings me to the final point in this overly long discourse(sorry). Citrix IS performing, business plan and financially. The publicity behind this whole thing has made Citrix's call(sales/telephone) volume quintuple. As for now, Citrix is going to roll in a lot of sales and income. The tide is vehemently in their favor. Holding a longer term short (as opposed to a trading short) is IMHO more risky than holding the stock long term by far. -N P.S. If you compare Citrix's balance sheet (without fear & hype) to AOL, AMZN, etc., they look like saints - profits, cash, innovative company, all growing.