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: Jason W. France who wrote (21782)	3/14/1998 2:29:00 PM
From: nlam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 97611

Jason, Thanks for the reply. So far, you defended your argument by stating that CPQ is becoming to vertically intergrated and will not "undersatnd their customers and competing in slow growth dying markets (mainframes. unix, mid-ranges, etc etc etc." However, the only problem Compaq has admitted to is a clog of inventory. That is not a vertical intergration problem but a supply and demand problem. While I believe that vertical intergration can be a problem, ( I would never dream of vertically intergrating my business) due to alienating customers, I has seen other businesses in my field vertically intergrate and have been successful. nlam

To: Jason W. France who wrote (21782)	3/14/1998 2:55:00 PM
From: robbie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 97611

Jason, re:<<I sold my cpq shares when theyu announced tandem.>> Too bad you missed that 92% gain in CPQ stock for '97. Even worse, you are making the same mistake again. Robbie P.S. You post way too much.

To: Jason W. France who wrote (21782)	3/14/1998 6:10:00 PM
From: ed	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 97611

So, to summarize, 1) You do not know what CPQ will be fie years down the road if CPQ do not merger with DEC 2) You guess ( I do not think you know that either) that CPQ ' merger with DEC will not add value to CPQ's stock holders, because the vertical integration do not work, you use IBM, HP, UNISYS, TANDEM as examples, and the problem of fat. 3) You think MSFT, INTL, CSCO are more successful due to their focus . So, IF you do not know what CPQ will be five years down the road without merger with DEC now, that means you do not know what CPQ will be if CPQ continue to follow its old path to concentrate or focus (in your words) on its what you called high growing business five years down the road, then how can you claim that the merger with DEC will not add value to stock holders' value, while the old path will ? So, from your response to my first question, I know you do not know what you are talking about, because it is just contrary to itself logically. Secondly about the vertical intergation and fats. Fats is not a consequence of vertical integration, it is just the corp culture and the way the top managers managing the companies. Even SUNW, DELL is now looking for vertical integration, and no exception with MSFT and INTEL, they are all looking for vertical integration those days. I do not think top managers in those big corp are stupid. The reason for INTEL's past successful story is because there is no competition, and the fundamentals were changed now. The same for MSFT, not because they focus. I can show you many companies which focus and did not succeed, examples, NSCP....etc. So, it is always the competion which change the rules of the game, if the company can not change accordingly, they will always end up with loosers in the game. Forcus or not forcus has nothing to do with the success of the companies. The merger of CPQ with DEC prove the farsight of the CPQ's top managers, if you can not answer my question about what CPQ will be five years down the road if not merger with DEC now, then pls do not tell me the merger will not add value to CPQ's share holders' value, because you do not know at all.