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: John Koligman who wrote (53069)	3/12/1999 2:46:00 PM
From: Elwood P. Dowd	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 97611

John... I agree. IR could just have a recorded message saying that "we haven't changed our guidance and still intend to meet original estimates." Would put a lot of ladies out of work, but would save CPQ some $$$ El

To: John Koligman who wrote (53069)	3/12/1999 2:50:00 PM
From: rupert1	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 97611

John: Things are bad when everybody gets nervous because the CFO is going to speak. However, I would think he is going to have a tight script this time. If you accept the CPQ version of the "phantom warning" story, Mason would have been better advised to have spoken to Credit Suisse on the record with tapes and pictures - as he probably intends talking to Bear Stearns. This will give him a chance to get it right. If it were a warning - it would be very formal with everybody present. It would be a written announcement. She_x on the CPQ Club Thread made the interesting point that Intel always give a date for the return of chips, that chips are always returned and then go into the grey market: that there is nothing extraordinary about it. It is away of closing the door on refunds.