To: nord who wrote (2061 ) 12/18/1998 2:15:00 AM From: Brian Cunningham Read Replies (2) | Respond to
Thanks for posting Barry's response to the thread! I basically agree with his comments regarding TXN whose stock price nearly doubled recently in spite of mediocre earnings performance over the last year. However, they are a relatively stable large domestic company with an actual PE ratio. In my view they have a much greater ability to attract institutional investors, whom drive most of the moves in stock prices. Clearly the market disagrees with Barry.
My earlier comments were certainly partly emotional, having lost substantial $$ on SSPIF. Let me also say that I certainly didn't mean them to be derisive as I greatly appreciate you as the primary and most informed contributor to this thread. Still, I can't help but think there is a bit more to this than Barry communicates. Could the difference relate to the conference calls last quarter? I recall SSPIF disappointed, with management's prediction of growth negated by losses in products reaching obsolescence. In essence management only hyped the positive stuff. Perhaps this is key to the stock's price performance. SSPIF has no earnings and flat revenues; it's a story stock, and the guy telling the story, like it or not, mislead investors last quarter. Do you think TXN conference call was as bad?
In reading Barry's email I am a bit concerned he is still prone to hyperbole. He comments "Our slower revenue growth is due to the drop in c4x-product revenue in the year, and is being quickly made up by c6x and SHARC -- our new products. In fact, in spite of a drop off in older product revenue we have experienced a 500% growth rate in revenue from new products". If you read between the lines it sounds as if the revenue drop (500% + ?) is greater than the growth in new product. I hope Barry will try to do a better job modeling the bottom line by factoring in the negative as well as the positive.
