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 : IBM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: art slott who wrote (4844)	3/24/1999 12:36:00 PM
From: Jules B. Garfunkel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8218

Hello Art, I don't know who laughed at you, perhaps you can tell us. However, I do remember stating on this thread 2 years ago, that IBM would be reduced to a distributor of Hardware and that their Gross Profit Margins (GPM) would suffer. In early 1997, IBM had GPMs of 72% on their Mainframe Hardware sales. Today, GPMs for Services Div. (which is replacing the declining Hardware sales) is only about 28%. It was therefore very predictable, 2 years ago, that if IBM adopted this strategy, (becoming a distributor of OEM products, rather than remaining a Hardware Vendor of only their own manufactured products) it would result in decreased margins. While I recognize that IBM may not have had any other choice, else they might loose the business entirely over time, I don't think they should have been rewarded by having their P/E multiple double while they made this transition. I still maintain that the true impact of this transition strategy has been disguised by IBM's stock buy-back and their significant reduction in tax rates. While the rest of the Street may give IBM high marks for this, I don't. I still believe that a good company to invest in is one where Shareholders Equity is increasing, not one who shows declines quarter after quarter. I have been posting on this thread for 2 years now, and on only a few occasions have most of the IBM longs who post here, directly addressed the issues I raise. The reason I respond to Arrow and Scott is that their comments are most often direct responses to my comments. It is not done with name calling. If we are to have a dialogue here, let's stay with the facts and issues raised. Jules