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: vc21 who wrote (97994)	2/12/1999 2:09:00 PM
From: Jon Stept	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

Hi vc21, re:"Dell warning..." Regarding this Niles Revenue Fiasco, my research on the Web has turned up CBS MarketWatch as saying that Dell themselves reported revenue that did not match Niles expectation. I did not see anything in the news, like Reuters, so I thought, "Hmmm... must be another one of these special company insiders the analyst knows or something like that." Then I go back to get the story when I saw your post, and lo and behold what do you know, CBS MarketWatch got the story wrong: "On Feb. 12, CBS MarketWatch.com said Dell Computer (DELL) warned its sales and earnings would be below expectations. The company didn't issue a warning. Robertson Stephens analyst Dan Niles said he believes the company's growth is slowing." If CBS MarketWatch.com can't get it right, imagine how confused everyone else is. It reminds of this Kumar analyst who said that Dell's Q498 showed less quarter-to-quarter growth than a year ago. At least he provided the data to TRY to prove it. "In a statement, Compaq focused on its sequential gains in the fourth-quarter versus the third-quarter of 1998. Compaq's global market share grew to 15.4 percent, up from the third quarter's 14.4 percent. Compaq's U.S. market share grew to 18.1 percent from 15.8 percent in the third-quarter, while Dell's share slipped to 12.8 percent from 14.1 percent." Share prices did not move at all that day in response to Kumar's analysis because anybody who can reason saw that Kumar's own was fallacious. Dan Niles is more shrewd. He does not back up his pronouncements with any shareable data, we are supposed to assume he knows what he is talking about and his unbiased reasoning and analysis is better for us all. C'mon Dan, how in the hell did you get to these conclusions. Afraid if you share the data you used you might be proven wrong, like Kumar? Of course he and all the other analysts know better than we do if we can all look at the same data. They can just reason better than us little guys. And of course the continuing democratization of information, technology and power which the PC is allowing so we can all do for free what Niles is paid for doing, will slowly come to a halt and this entire technology thing which is so overblown will finally come to an end. NOT!!! Jon :)