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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: yard_man who wrote (36337)	11/15/1998 8:11:00 PM
From: accountclosed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Tippet. Let me admit first of all that I am no expert on cpq. But is it just me or is this one screwed up, confused management? I'll definitely go along with Dell being overvalued and accounting scams, and slick manipulation of analysts and the investor community. But as a company, they have a plan that I can understand. Minimize inventory both for roi purposes, and for not being the one holding the stuff when it goes obsolete. CPQ on the other hand, has an old fashioned channel model, now wants to have a direct model too, but meanwhile buys tandem computer to grab a bigger piece of the enterprise market, and digital. Digital, imo, was another unfocused mess of a company. IBM, only with less controls. So now we have CPQ being like a jack of all trades, but master of none. Do you agree with this portrait?

To: yard_man who wrote (36337)	11/16/1998 10:14:00 AM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

Tip, We have had lots of hints that the direct model is not as perfect as its proponents portray it. Gateway's many eps misses in the past have occasionally been attributed to too much inventory. Also, if you are lean and mean, like Dell, you are highly dependent on both suppliers and delivery cos. I know they did a lot of shucking and jiving during the UPS strike. And, as much as I hate the chip cos, there is no law that states that components have to remain in glut forever. There is no real way to get a handle on it because inventory levels maintained during the quarter, not on snapshot day, after rush shipments to people who didn't order anything <G>, are a closely held secret. But what we know in the Compaq case is that this is an entirely new channel for Compaq and one they expect to be huge. They are certainly not going to wait to order parts as orders come in, at least not at first. So, I think it is fair to assume that they have placed huge orders for their first few operating weeks. My guess is, the impact on components sales would be the same as if a new Gateway suddenly sprang into life out of nothing. But that is conjecture. I know that the new co. increased the amount of components sold. The total impact is just my estimate of what I think Compaq is thinking. The problem is, box sales is not a zero sum game, but it is close to a zero sum game. Compaq will make sales in its direct line and only a small part will be absorbed by growth in pc unit sales. The rest has to come out of somebody else's market share. They hope it is Dell's, Gateway's and Muei's, but it could just as easily be the other side of Compaq that loses sales. Or, more likely, it will probably be a little of all of the above, plus some HP, IBM, Packard-Bell and Toshiba. The point being, somebody out there, if not everybody out there, is going to be flush with product after this shakes out. And the growth in orders for components will disappear. MB