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 : THREE FIVE SYSTEM (TFS) - up from here? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Franklin M. Humphreys who wrote (1569)	5/30/1998 1:23:00 PM
From: Noblesse Oblige	Respond to of 3247

Franklin notes to me: "You have already seen my assessment of the profit picture but I will iterate it for you. They are going to lose a little on every gadget they make for MOT, but with their added capacity they will make it up on volume. And when MOT finds nobody to buy their products because of continued Asian monetary problems, TFS will have lots of gadgets they can't dump." __________________________________________________________________ Well Franklin, it won't take long to find out if you are right. It is hard for me to "debate" your analysis because I don't see any. You have posted a conclusion without offering your thought process. You have even guessed that TFS hasn't priced in any margin on the MOT business. That is a stretch, sir, particularly for shipments that will begin in a month. You would have to conclude that management is profoundly inept to think that it doesn't know basic cost structure on something that will ship in the next quarter. IF, after the MOT business starts regular shipments, and TFS begins its standard vendor performance for the cellphone maker, the company loses money on those orders...you will prove correct. But, you should know that you are starting out with a fallacious premise: that TFS isn't "protected" by Motorola on its inventory and that management didn't learn from the last time. (Also, if you had taken the trouble to read the 10Q, you will find that the recent inventory buildup is virtually all in raw materials, the "stuff" that goes into all cellphones. Accordingly, it could be used in markets other than in Asia, and totally limits the associated inventory risk. You should do more homework, Frank. Of course, perhaps that isn't necessary, when you can find "competence" for free on the "net.") In addition, your assumption that all of the TFS buildup is for Asian distribution is (and I am being polite!) somewhat wide of the mark. You will please note that the MOT production contract already announced is for domestic digital phones, and demand here is only marginally associated with "Asian monetary problems." Perhaps you have some particular insight (or even inside information) on the three additional cellular contracts scheduled to ship this month, and your assumption is that all three are for the Asian market. That is about the only thing that would give your conclusions any potential credence...but it is clear that MOT is far behind in the US digital market, and my guess is that at least for the moment...they will be sent here. So, Asian demand is less of a factor in the immediate picture, right? Moreover, the company has already announced that it will be capacity constrained without the China addition by the end of this year, and at this moment, that is without a dime's worth of sales to the Far East. Can you say "domestic demand", Franklin? The Far East is totally additive to TFS, as it produces nothing now that will be sold there. It is a giant market opportunity that like all market opportunities, comes with exposure that can be managed. The "tea leaves" are indeed difficult to read, aren't they Frank? Best get yourself a new set. Those you have don't support your "guess" for the future. In time we will tell. Have a good day.

To: Franklin M. Humphreys who wrote (1569)	5/30/1998 2:54:00 PM
From: Noblesse Oblige	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3247

Franklin also notes: Wrong! I asked no such question, merely restated your position from an earlier post to which I had directed newer readers of the thread. But thanks for the mistake, you have done much to clarify your position. Even so, the following statement by you is particularly troubling in its revelations: >>>I can't think of a single thing that I owe you. All my efforts are directed toward the benefit of my clients....<<< Forgive me if my quaint impression of what you owe me rings an unfamiliar ring. And please bear in mind that my contributions are not intended for your benefit at any rate, but for the unsophisticated investor holding a few hundred shares who might be blinded by your light and the volumes you post. It may refresh your memory to be reminded that you owe me and the other readers no more and no less than we owe you; that is your honesty and full disclosure of your actions! You are mistaken if you think that because you make your living as an advisor or portfolio manager that you are relieved of such mundane responsibilities as honesty and forthrightness. Your claim to be a professional implies that you will conduct your business with integrity. By posting to these public fora you place yourself increasingly in a position of conflicting interests whenever your bad judgement compels you to protect your fiduciary interests at the expense of your moral obligations. It is only slightly mitigating if you find yourself in that unfortunate position because of your propensity to prostrate yourself at the Altar of The God of Fortunate Chance instead of believing or reassessing in a timely fashion the fruits of your own research. __________________________________________________________________ You know Franklin, some times you step over the boundaries of "funny" right into ludicrous. I have never indicated anywhere that I believe I owe you or anyone else...other than my clients...my ultimate fealty. Even the most unsophisticated readers of this space have to recognize that each of us brings our own agenda here, whether it be professional, entertainment, enlightenment, or mere muckraking. To think differently is to misunderstand all of human experience. As for your references to my being misleading to the "thread" vis-a-vis my professional obligations to my clients, you should know (particularly since you so frequently spout from the perspective of ignorance) that a professional (licensed, BTW!) that "hustles" others to buy stock that he is unloading has not only breached the canons of ethics, but is subject to professional censure, litigation, and conviction in a court of law. Go and educate yourself...it is my recollection that a monumental brouhaha took place a couple of years ago regarding Jeff Vinik, fund manager, that was unloading shares of something while he was talking it up. If that isn't enough "proof" for you, my recollection is that George Hamilton (yep...the actor!) was similarly nabbed for acting that way. Franklin, I am sorry to say that you don't have a clue about TFS, you don't have a clue about the law, and you don't have a clue about me. Ignorance is occasionally "cute" in 3 or 4 year olds, but not in people our age. Get a clue. PS: BTW, what quaint code of conduct allows you to decide that every thread participant owes all the others (and the lurkers, too!)"honesty and full disclosure of your actions"? We all "owe" each other nothing at all. I have made friends on this "thread", and to those people I owe total transparency...that is, they understand all my motives. You are deluded to think that everyone is entitled to the same benefit simply for switching on their computer and double clicking on the "Silicon Investor." You are indeed a funny man for someone that has reached your age, Franklin.