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 : BORL: Time to BUY! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: shane forbes who wrote (10001)	4/21/1998 2:57:00 PM
From: shane forbes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

Confusion re: earnings estimates: Briefing.com says 0.05 Yahoo says 0.04 from 2 analysts - 0.03 and 0.05 First Call says 0.04 from 1 analyst for June 1998 (their system is screwed up because of the FY change I think.) Can't double check Yahoo's number because of a problem with my internet trading account. This 0.05 looks uncomfortably too high. My fear is that BORL won't meet this number and the stock will (might) lose some of its momentum. It is ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL that BORL continue to beat estimates even by 1 penny. I think the bogey is 0.03 (this is the "official" analyst estimate number) this quarter (and I double checked with IR for this). The problem is that since BORL is barely profitable, a small increase in expenses (such as that related to merger activity or integrating the new people) will in a heartbeat reduce earnings by a comparatively large number. To beat the 0.05, 6 cents means 3.1 million in earnings. Which certainly may be possible but nevertheless (to me at least) seems uncomfortably high. Come to think of it last q BORL made I think 6 cents on a lower number of shares or 2.4 million. To go from 2.4 to 3.1 million in 1 q with a lot of late q product intros and merger related activity seems a tad too high for me.This merger related stuff takes a lot of mgt. time and easily a few hundred thousand dollars in expenses that may not be a part of the one-time charge. I think we have a "developing situation" and it is not good in my opinion. Shane.