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 : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (80704)	11/16/1998 12:03:00 PM
From: arthur pritchard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

ctc: furthermore, as i'm sure you are acutely aware, i've always thought that the leader in the sharp drops, in in fact goldman sachs? does this bother you? i firmly believe that these ethical issues should be spelled out, if they have any basis in fact. there is absolutely nothing wrong with the competition (i kind of enjoy it--as you have undoubtedly seen) but it would be much nicer for beginning traders, if the trading volumes were even published. since basically, the company is really not "getting away" with anything, it would be better for investors if these things were spelled right out there, in much the same way you are putting forth your own positions regarding company buybacks etc. i find all of this EXTREMELY important, and i make a hard copy of absolutely everything you say here to anyone, on virtually any subject. thx.

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (80704)	11/16/1998 12:06:00 PM
From: jhg_in_kc	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

To All: Phone # for Ashok Kumar, CFA, Senior Research Analyst at Piper Jaffray 612-342-6461 I intend to call and let him know about CTC's posts refuting his allegations of a slow down in Dell lap top sales. Others may want to comment or get a fax number, etc. jhg

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (80704)	11/16/1998 7:41:00 PM
From: BGR	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

CTC, My assumption in deriving average buyback price was that if during a quarter a company improves cash and debt position yet buys back shares, it's average buying price must be less than net earnings for the quarter divided by the number of shares repurchased. Richard explained that profits from selling puts do not show up in earnings statements. In that case that must improve the cash position and whether or not used in share buybacks is clearly value additive. Going by my previous example of a company with 100 shares worth 100 each, 9000 other assets and 1000 cash, if they sell puts (which expire worthless) to collect another 1000 (say), while that will not show up in the earnings statement should increase the per share value to 110 (total assets increased by 1000 to 11000 while number of shares remained same at 100). Alternatively, they could have purchased 20 shares back for 2000, reducing total shares to 80 and total assets to 9000 resulting in share price of 112. Another way to put this is to say that they bought back 20 shares at a price of 5 per share (i.e. less than market value) and forget about the put selling. This is like a 10% boost to the EPS. It is almost like DELL having a side business in insuring a commodity over the risk of which they have unique knowledge and control - their company value - and hence are in a far better position than conventional insurers. I am not sure why you would consider that unethical, however. According to efficient market hypothesis, the fact that DELL is selling puts should result in the stock price going up and the put price going down in a perfect market. Nothing different than insider buy/sale. -Apratim.