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 : THQ,Inc. (THQI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bleeker who wrote (4595)	4/15/1998 12:51:00 AM
From: StaggerLee	Respond to of 14266

>>we have to take a trip back to early 20th century Or at least back to 1988-1990, lol. The economy is really not that different than it was 8 years ago. Business relationships are business relationships. Assets are assets. Intangibles are intangibles. The distribution channel for a steel company is a similar asset to the distribution channel for THQ (which distributes plastic wrapped in cardboard).

To: Bleeker who wrote (4595)	4/15/1998 1:12:00 AM
From: Kory	Respond to of 14266

"Book value has shmuck value in an information/service economy unless if you like oil and the drillers" A little strong for my tastes. While I highly agree that book value should not be used as the predominate factor in many software and technology businesses, it is still a significant piece of what a company is worth. When THQ earns $.42 cents this quarter (my guess), it will change immediately from being future earnings to about $3M in book value (cash, receivables, inventory). I like that $3M (especially if it's cash). It reduces the premium I am paying for future earnings. Especially if THQ can put that money back to work and generate even greater profits, rather than have it simply be a store of value. That said, I like THQ at it's current price even with modest book value. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't like it a lot more with another $100M in the bank.

To: Bleeker who wrote (4595)	4/15/1998 2:33:00 AM
From: Marc Newman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14266

Bleeker, I think you are being conservative. From the last conference call, Farrell indicated that Nitro had as good a release as NWO, despite your observation that it was in a weaker period. Add in big-time NWO reorders and some fairly conservative guesses about the other amounts, and it seems to me that Chris could be in the ballpark. The March PC Data info just confirms that THQ is doing very, very well right now. NWO is unbelievably solid and Nitro managed to stay in the top ten. My guess is still around .50, FWIW. I think that THQ used to be careful and would manage expectations so that they could always beat estimates by a penny or two. And last fall beating it by four cents seemed like a blowout. But the wrestling games are flat out selling like crazy and there's no way Farrell can hide all that cash. Plus, the Fool board has spotted tons of Wrestling product showing up on the shelves at the end of March. So THQ has whatever latitude it wants to count them as having shipped (minus reserves). If THQ has moved into the top five in both units sold and dollar volume, is it really beyond reason to think that the co. can make a hair under $4 million? <<Are those units shipped or estimates based on a survey that the poster conducted?>> His best guess at units shipped, based on past results, with a bit of educated guessing as to Broken Sword, etc. I believe Chris tried to be conservative on reorders in the back catalog, etc. to reflect seasonal weakness. Remember that there is a bigger installed base now and we might be seeing better Q1s than we think, from companies that have the right games out. What do you think the odds of a split are, Bleeker? Btw, good call on the Eidos. I'm still holding half my position as a nod towards diversity in the sector. Remember, it isn't the book value, it's the dividend . . . Regards, Marc