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 : Compaq -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (46393)	1/31/1999 2:29:00 PM
From: Windseye	Respond to of 97611

Jim, Did you or anyone else on thread read the analysis of Dell's company performance style published in the last month or two? I can't recall which paper or mag it was in--- may have been the WSJ. To wit--- Dell grows by identifying which group(s) are performing well within the company, splitting them into smaller groups with focus or objective being a segment of the prior larger group focus, placing one of the prior group leaders in charge of the smaller group and then letting all the groups grow again based on their performance. So, basically a moving, growing hierarchy of small groups rather than a kludgy, bloated hierarchy that adds people in and attempts to redefine its focus. Do you know about this? Is it materially different from CPQ's style? I raise this question because inspite of all the protestations against Dell, and in favor of CPQ over the past year, it seems like Dell manages to find and exploit market share all over the place and maximize bang for the buck--- and even though CPQ seems all over the map with its deals, partnerships, technological improvements and patents, the market and/or big players in the market seem to be unimpressed and Dell just keeps chugging along, seemingly unconcerned about the threat of CPQ! Perhaps what is desirable about Dell versus CPQ is that their strategy and perfomance, product quality and availability, etc., are all apparent and clear to all aspects of the market. Their vision is clearly seen and they perform. Unfortunately we cannot really say this of CPQ--- the evidence being that often the price and volume often move strangely with both good and bad news, about the company and/or the stock. I remain confused, Doug

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (46393)	2/1/1999 12:25:00 AM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 97611

Jim, I am saying that the number of returns to Dell in the refurb channel pale relative to the nimber that Compaq stuffed into the channel this quarter. The only way I know that CPQ did it this time is that all of the distributors and all of their competitors say they did. They also say the same about IBM, and even IDC said it about IBM. True, everyone except CPQ could be lying and all the boxes stacked up at the distributors' warehouses are really empty. I just think that is a bad bet. IMHO, the main reason CPQ gained market share relative to Dell is because Dell sells mainly to the moribund business pc sector. CPQ is also mainly biz boxes, but they are huge in consumer pcs, too, especially at the low end. There was obviously negative growth in all pc sales, but consumer outdistanced business by a bunch, and, on a relative basis, that is better for CPQ than for Dell. Please quote some of my old notes where I said boxes would never go under $1000. I have been wrong many times, but I don't remember saying that. Looking at boxmaker stocks has nothing to do with reality in an asset bubble caused by a mad money printer at the Fed. Looking at their growth does. And growth rates have been straight down in the industry for the past 4 years. Odd that you should mention stellar growth after the first down year in the history of the pc industry. What are you smoking, Jim, and where can I buy some? <G> And that down year took place with Compaq, IBM and probably Hewlett stuffing like crazy. Packard-Bell would have done the same but nobody would take their stuff on an overflow basis. Intel has addressed the low end so well that even the Intel Inside bribes couldn't keep the Gateway account. And, any day now, there will be another defector, if my info is any good at all, and that defector will be located in Austin. Intel is losing market share like their's no tomorrow, which is apropos for them. <G> BTW, this note is being typed using a Celery processor, so it isn't product prejudice on my part. Agreed, Intel didn't get where they are by being stupid. But, they will not get where they want to go because now they are old and in the way. MB