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: Scrumpy who wrote (93481)	2/1/1999 3:15:00 PM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Respond to of 176387

Scrumpy, give it right back to him. Hey Ashok "up the market with a call" Kumar - DELL is up over 8 and I'm not making these numbers up. I wrote a letter to Herb Greenberg and TSC's letters section. FWIW (typos included <g>): Herb, re: Kumar will be shining the spotlight on sequential growth, the appropriate measure of a growth company. He estimates Dell's sequential growth for the quarter ended Jan. 31 was a sluggish 11%, which would trail competitors' growth rates. What's more, according to his comparisons, Dell's market share is dropping. Sequential growth in what? Revenues across all product lines? Unit shipments across all product lines? Unit shipments in desktop PC's? You're a writer. You are aware of the necessity of using precise langauge. Yet, you left his terms ambiguous. Last quarter, the Kumar call focused specifically on the sequential growth rate in unit shipments for desktop PC's RELATIVE to the industry rate (I believe he represetned it as 10% in his post-earnings downgrade...oh, BTW the stock's azppreciated quite nicely since then...and to paraphrase TSC's "unsung hero" himself, I'm not making those numbers up). Do you believe that was a valid comparison? Yes or no? If you do, as was pointed out at the time on SI by a fellow member, you would have to be buying into the fact that the industry's annualized unit growth rate in desktop PC's will be 46.41%. So you, Herb Greenberg believe that? Right? Or perhaps the answer lies in the nature of how these companies actually do business? Specifically the inventory depletion and snapback in the the retail sales channel that would have grossly inflate the sequential unit numbers last quarter, rendering them useles as a basis of comparison. Which is it Herb? Was your "unsung hero" making a valid comparison? If he was, then you would have had to believe that a 46.41% annualized unit growth rate was achievable. If you don't, then the reason you didn't you point this out would be what exactly? Or are you like the rest of the media when it comes to being nice to sell-side analysts who are quotable irregardless of the inanity of their comparisons. More importantly, if Kumar is so concerned about a possible slowdown in PC sales in the 2nd half of the year, why was he making a comparison last quarter on a number that annualized to 46.41%? You asked him about this right? And if you didn't, why not? Because he didn't tell you? Or because you were aware of this, but it didn't fit in with the angle of your piece? Either you're about "the whole truth" or you're not. Based solely on that column, like most in which you and TSC stroke this guy, it seems to be the latter. Respectfully, Tom Busillo Philadelphia