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 : IFMX - Investment Discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Marq Spencer who wrote (13216)	4/21/1999 5:00:00 PM
From: SKIP PAUL	Respond to of 14631

Need to review what you are saying. However given that Oracle, PSFT and most ERP vendors are showing no/little growth because of Y2K preoccupation this is pretty good and more than expected.

To: Marq Spencer who wrote (13216)	4/21/1999 5:13:00 PM
From: tbevan	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 14631

A good point, Marq. But wouldn't Red Brick have also brought an increase in expenses?

To: Marq Spencer who wrote (13216)	4/21/1999 5:53:00 PM
From: Dinesh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14631

It's not that IFMX got REDB for free, was it ? So, it is still apples to apples. Marq, there are two kinds of revenue growths - organic and acquired. What we got here is the latter. I am sure a lot of people will try to put a lots of different kinds of spin on it. So what. Regards Dinesh

To: Marq Spencer who wrote (13216)	4/21/1999 5:55:00 PM
From: Toni Wheeler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14631

Speaking 'apples to oranges', does number of shares outstanding have an impact on per share amount?? (as a comparison year over year) <<Shares used in per share calculations Basic 188,819 160,172 Diluted 195,208 160,172 Seems to me that more shares out this year would lessen the per share $$ when comparing the two...BWDIK!!

To: Marq Spencer who wrote (13216)	4/21/1999 6:39:00 PM
From: uu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14631

Marq: You state: > I don't think that revenue growth was "solid" ... They say beauty is in the eyes of the beholder! Therefore depending on whether you are short or long, and/or the number of shares you are holding, revenue growth may be interpreted differenly by different people. Like I said beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. One thing, however, I point out, within the past few months a lot of people from Oracle have joined Informix. Now how one interprets this again is based on how you want to believe in the future of the company. Obviously the people with real cushy jobs at Oracle did not leave their cushy jobs (which incidently were mostly in marketing, sales and R&D) for Informix if they did not think in the future of Informix!

To: Marq Spencer who wrote (13216)	4/27/1999 2:38:00 PM
From: Anaxagoras	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14631

Marq- When you wrote this you took some grief for it on this thread- I agreed with it, BTW, and sold shortly after at $8 and a teenie partly on this basis. I thought you might enjoy a quoted analyst (First Albany's Mark Murphy) in the TSC piece. He makes almost the identical point. Do you think he read your post? ;-) <<The Red Brick acquisition also had another potentially misleading effect on Informix's balance sheet, analysts said. Informix's total first-quarter revenue of $197 million grew 22% from a year ago. But Murphy estimated that if incremental Red Brick license revenue were excluded, "organic license revenue would have grown 12% on an apples-to-apples basis." That would mean growth was in line with or slightly below the midteens growth rate at which Murphy believes the database industry is growing. Murphy estimated that Red Brick contributed to Informix more than $8 million in total revenue in the March quarter and will contribute more than $38 million in 1999. >> There's some other good comments about the fact that their use of purchase accounting instead of pooling was responsible for this appearance. FWIW, Anaxagoras