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 : MRV Communications (MRVC) opinions? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robert G. Harrell who wrote (9925)	8/6/1998 4:42:00 PM
From: Saul Feinberg Jr.	Respond to of 42804

Bob, First, I agree with you about the year-over-year growth is very decent anyway. But secondly, you have to realize that Q1'98 EPS actually had 5 million contribution from Xyplex also. I don't know if Q2'98 EPS contribution from Xyplex was ever stated. But so, that will be Q2'98 60 million vs. Q1'98 55 million, using your argument. I am not sure if it is right to assume 5 million from Xyplex this quarter, and I am not sure if it is right to break down Xyplex revenue at all. For example, prior to Xyplex being bought by MRV, they had a line of LAN switches, which is now NBASE. How much revenue that line of Xyplex LAN switches was, I dont know. A year from now, if the WDM products are actually out, and the terabit router is more well defined and described, MRV should be able to go for a billion market cap.

To: Robert G. Harrell who wrote (9925)	8/6/1998 4:48:00 PM
From: Sector Investor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42804

<<So, if the contribution to 2nd Q revs from Xyplex was $5.2 mil, couldn't the bears argue that minus Xyplex, sales were flat from Q1 to Q2 1998?>> MRVC never gave out a Xyplex revenue for Q2. The $5.2 million was for Q1. The question of Xyplex Q2 revenue was asked, but MRVC said they could not break out a number anymore after the streamlining. When pressed for the Q1 number, they repeated the $5.2 million number for Q1. Now, regarding that $5.2 million, I don't think it is fair to extrapolate anything from a single number. I believe the acquisition closed on 2/2/98, so the $5.2 million technically is for 2 months. However, did Whittaker push to get more revenue in before 1/31/98 ( their qtr close), thus artificially lowering MRVC's portion? Or did the chips fall as they were? Also, MRVC eliminated legacy products and thus legacy product revenue. Did any of this occur in Q1, or is it all accounted for starting in Q2?

To: Robert G. Harrell who wrote (9925)	8/11/1998 5:43:00 PM
From: Seth Leyton	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42804

bob, from your post #9925, yes, it looks so. So sales were up only 8% from the quarter before. So, at that rate they will only grow revs at 40% over the next year. But you and I both know that they have always outperformed and they have always grown faster than that. I personally expect the company to completely outperform estimates and hit more like a 1.30 number next year, not the 1.23 that is estimated right now. I also believe that the 1.75 number for 1999 is totally under reality. I belive it will be more like 2.00. This stock has NO INSTITUTIONAL BUYERS. And that is why it will not go up. Plain and simple. I hope you don't think I was mean, or cruel or that I may have hurt your feelings. I find it funny that everyone finds it necessary to be so curteous on the web. Why can't this be a place where people come to let off steam and let management know that they're totally pissed us off and that they let the share price underperform it's potential. There need not be an intellectual conversation about every fact surrounding this or any other company. The Pinks of the world sight non-specifics, lie, plant the seeds of rumour amoung us and that's ok. Get a little ticked and tell the truth and all of a sudden you're an a-hole. Bob, answer me this...the company only grows at 40% next year and the one after that...that means revs and earnings almost double in two years. Does that warrant a 10 p/e??? Of course not. AND IT WILL DOUBLE AGAIN IN TWO YEARS. COUNT ON IT.