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 (95555)	2/6/1999 4:13:00 PM
From: Labrador	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 176387

Revenues are all that seem to make the NET stocks fly -- maybe you think irrelevant but the marketplace apparently does not.

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (95555)	2/6/1999 4:30:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

>>First, you need to stop talking about revenues -- they are irrelevant. The relevant issue is economic profit.<< how much profit can a company make with $0 revenues? duh, profits and revenues do have a relationship. going from positive revenue growth to revenue contraction is not something that should be dismissed, imho. to do so would be to practice "head in sand" investing. there are future implications. it was idc or dq. they said units were up 15% (asps were down more and included many more perks) also, gtw reported that units were up about 17% and the consumer market is growing less quickly than the consumer market due to y2k issues. >>Finally, firms are long-term profit maximizers. That means that they may opt to decrease short-run profits with the intention of eventually realizing larger long term profits.<< yes, that is EXACTLY what i said. no need to post it to me like i just didn't post it ;-) >>For example, in the face of an oversupply of DRAMs, Korea continued to build fabs in hopes of increasing their market share, and hence the present value of the stream of free cash generated by those plants.<< actually, they kept building b/c everyone but moi and a few others said dram (read - demand would increase enough to soak up the supply (these terms keep coming up - 'magine dat ;-) would turn and they would making massive profits in 1998. all my extremely negative posts on the dram market are for all to see. just go back to july/aug on the mu thread when everyone was bullish to the extreme. they were wrong and they paid a heavy price. they didn't want to steal market share and lose more money. now that their view of the supply vs demand dynamic (again! ;-) is more realistic they aren't running at full capacity. why? if their goal was solely to gain market share, they would. that wasn't their goal. more market share in that environment means more losses, more debt and a deteriorating balance sheet. also, when you have several billion in sunk costs (another microeconomic concept), it is hard to turn the spiggots off. you may do it, just not quickly. revenues are irrelevant. that was worth a good smile... ;-) man, you'll proof text anything in order to validate your preconceived notion...