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 : Network Associates (NET) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (4336)	3/18/1999 8:52:00 PM
From: TraderGreg	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6021

Give me a break. No, Robbie Stephens didn't hold a gun to their heads, but don't tell me they didn't know the effects of their actions.Using your logic, the dude that yells fire in a crowded theory is without sin because he didn't stomp on any of the people leaving the theater. I'm not calling this a conspiracy theory cause these SOBs are totally overt in their actions, they don't do anything on the sly. On the contrary, they openly flaunt their power. These scumballs love to get flat, then downgrade, watch the carnage, and then bring their people in. Similarly, they use upgrades to enable their people to sell into the sheep who are buying. Sure, Chuzz, it's all perfectly legal, and I guess you feel the fools that bail have only themselves to blame. In the movie "Family Business", Sean Connery responded to a person who was turning profits by buying the leases on rent controlled units from terminal cancer patients. This guy saw nothing wrong with it cause it was all legal. Connery(who played a traditional thief) gave a response that is so appropriate here: 'The difference is... You're mucking around in other people's misery. When you rob someone, legally, without risk, without sticking your neck out...That's immoral. You become nothing more than a f*cking parasite. Like most people, you confuse what's moral with what's legal.'" I know, you're gonna tell me there's nothing moral about the stock market...until one of them gets screwed over. TG

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (4336)	3/18/1999 8:58:00 PM
From: Edwarda	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6021

Chuzz, as always, thank you for the voice of sweet reason. A sensible stance that does not waste its time looking for the "evil forces," aka, the boogeyman in the closet, is always appreciated. Having said this, I am perplexed a bit. The downgrade appeared in the morning--no problem there; It has to do with timing and the mechanics of firsr Call. The text on First Call, which is a source for institutions, did not appear unti the afternoon. Now this is typical of Robbie Stephens's sloppiness. However, it does raise some issues. If the major third-party vendors--EDS, Ernst, Cap Gemini, et al.--say that they are not seeing a difference in demand, we have to wonder and to question. Is there anyone on this thread with anything tangible?

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (4336)	3/18/1999 10:56:00 PM
From: kendall harmon	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 6021

Here is a summary of the key research report from the Bancboston Robbie Stephens analyst who led to the carnage. NETA: LOW FIRST QUARTER VISIBILITY; DOWNGRADING TO BUY March 18, 1999 SYMBOL(S): NETA ANALYST(S): POWERS, JOHN RATING: BUY Synopsis: The following synopsis is qualified in its entirety by the more detailed information contained in the full research report, including the discussion of certain risks associated with an investment in this security contained in "Investment Risks." Research dated prior to September 1, 1998 was prepared by an entity that was acquired by BancBoston Robertson Stephens Inc. Key Points: Downgrading NETA to BUY. We believe business through February was on track, but that through the middle of the all important third month of the quarter, the closure rate is lagging. The greater risk in the quarter may be reflected in a marked increase in Days Sales Outstanding (DSOs), or even reported total revenues lower than our estimate of $285 million. Currently, we believe the typical quarter is 25%, 25%, 50% on a monthly progression. SEC concerns are overblown, in our view. Our concern for the company's first quarter results stems not from any SEC issues, but from a general slowdown in the deal closure rate. Given the company is in the process of rearchitecting its new fully-integrated product line, customers could be postponing purchases to wait for the new product suites in Q2 and Q3. We do not sense any Y2K related secular slowdown. Summary and valuation. At its current price of $35.06, Network Associates is trading at a P/E of 16.4x our expected 1999 EPS estimate of $2.14 and at 4.0x expected 1999 revenues. Given our uncertainty about the current quarter, we are downgrading the stock to BUY.

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (4336)	3/18/1999 11:13:00 PM
From: mrknowitall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6021

Chuzz . . . after some checking around, once again, I find turmoil reigns in the all-important (IMHO) realm of making sure customers are happy. The revolving door that Larson has used to keep vestings reasonably low seems to be having some deleterious affect on large customer satisfaction - that's what I hear is holding up this quarter's bookings: Large, savvy customer's unhappiness has percolated up the user's management chain to the degree that they are holding new/add-on orders hostage, knowing full well what this month means to the company in expectation that it should get their attention. Your's and other's opinions on this? Mr. K.