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: Maurice S. Green who wrote (2414)	9/23/1998 2:29:00 PM
From: Noblesse Oblige	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3247

Hi Maurice... It isn't my reasoning. I passed on company commentary. By the way, delays in plant construction reduce the cash requirement for building the plant in the short run though it has no impact over the long run. That helps cash flows. Perhaps it is cash flow concerns that have clearly reduced management's willingness to purchase more common shares in the open market. Certainly, the absence of TFS repurchases at prices 2-3 points below some significant earlier acquisitions tells you something is different. As for "damning the torpedos", I think that has already been done. TFS made the decision to build China without (apparently) the certainty that the plant would have adequate business flowing through it to earn a reasonable rate of return on the invested capital. Undoubtedly, part of this comes as a result of the constant Motorola pushouts, but one can arguably ask who is to blame for that. Is it MOT, because its business isn't under adequate control? Or is it TFS, whose inadequate diversification (and excessive reliance on MOT) exposes them to price risk and timing shocks? You can choose. Far be it from me to have an opinion now. My assumptions to date were that management couldn't possibly have made a really "bonehead" decision to expand production without the certainty of adequate sales. Up until recently, I thought we were dealing with a somewhat different team than the one we have. Mea culpa. Have a good day.

To: Maurice S. Green who wrote (2414)	9/23/1998 4:52:00 PM
From: Franklin M. Humphreys	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3247

Hi, Maurice. Your amazement at N.O.'s reasoning (see below) may be tempered somewhat if you can imagine yourself sitting near him recently on a short flight which went something like this: When the first engine of his tri-jet became silent for unknown reasons, the Co-pilot reassured everybody over the PA that it was no cause for concern: It would mean only that the normal flight time of 1 hour would be extended by 30 minutes due to the slower speed to be maintained on the remaining two engines. A few moments later, the second engine followed the first by abruptly falling silent. As before, the copilot reassured everybody that all was well: there would simply be another extension of the flight time of about 45 minutes. Then, as the third and final engine gave up the "ghost", even before the Co-pilot could get to the PA system to calm everybody, N.O. plainly could be heard complaining irritably above the screaming of the other passengers who obviously had no difficulty in grasping the "gravity" of their predicament: "Great! I suppose that means we will be up here all night!" --------------------------------------------------------------------- You had noted: N.O.----sometimes your reasoning eludes me. Slowing construction means delaying expenses. Carried further --stopping construction would stop expenses.