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 : Read-Rite -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Stitch who wrote (4544)	1/26/1999 11:42:00 PM
From: Mark Oliver	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5058

<Fair observation and I will go a step further. I think to be truly healthy they need a relationship with virtually every drive company. > This is something that has always confused me. If a head vendor has a good product, you would think they would have an option to provide heads even if they would be a secondary supplier to every buyer. The cost of qualifying a head for a program that doesn't have great demand might stop them, but you would think they'd have the option. You would think that even IBM would second source heads for programs in the event that something should happen to their internal supply. In actual fact, it seems that many HDD companies have a closed competition for programs or am I mistaken? Is there a reason why RDRT is not selling to Fujitsu? Is the reason because they haven't got good enough product, or that Fujitsu won't consider non-Japanese suppliers? If the field is fair and open, and RDRT is still only able to supply WDC and Maxtor, it is a real worry. Regards, MMark

To: Stitch who wrote (4544)	1/29/1999 3:09:00 PM
From: Alain Dubreuil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5058

The new analysis from Value Line is very positive and it upgrade RDRT from 3 to 2 on a scale of 1 to 5 and the Prudent Speculator have a target of $30 for a time scale of 3 to 5 years. Alain SUPPLEMENT 1/29/99 Read-Rite returned to profitability sooner than we had expected, posting earnings of $0.02 a share in the December quarter (year ends September 30, 1999) versus a $0.61 loss in the fourth fiscal period of 1998 and the $0.15 loss we had estimated. The better-than-expected showing stemmed from a strong gain in unit shipments, partially offset by price erosion. The company's cost-cutting efforts also helped to widen margins. Balancing off the good results in the year's opening period, and the company's planned transition to a new head technology later in the year, which could cause some sales weakness, we've upped our full-year share-net estimate by $0.20, to $0.25. These shares are now ranked 2 (Above Average) for relative year-ahead price performance, but they still are too risky for more conservative portfolios (Safety: 5, Lowest). G.A.N