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: Andreas who wrote (59405)	4/22/1999 2:40:00 PM
From: Captain Jack	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 97611

Andreas--- I doubt anyone could have done better. The stock indicates there was nothing good to say---PERIOD! Not a good sign for the long term holders and the short term people probably made a 3 month mistake by not bailing it this morning while the writing was on the wall. Maybe they said they sold their cpq and bought dell the way the stock is acting... it looks as if there only is negative since it was going up on no news--- possibly the only news is ugly..

To: Andreas who wrote (59405)	4/22/1999 2:58:00 PM
From: Kenya AA	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 97611

Andreas: IMO, WS isn't going to cut Rosen any slack - right or wrong as that may be. Rosen came out and said that the board had been tinkering with the idea of dumping EP for quite a while. It doesn't appear from EP's statements that this was "telegraphed" to him. The course of events leading up to and surrounding EP's departure are sketchy and suspect, IMO. If it happened as Rosen said, at the very least, Rosen should have really been on top of what was happening in Q1 - yet, from what we've heard, he has been short on explanations of just what went wrong there. If they didn't have plans to dump EP, then Rosen has started off on the wrong foot with little fib #1. Same thing with Mason, only that one is even more suspect. If they knew he was leaving, they should have been openly looking for his replacement. What was supposed to be the big secret there? I don't believe they knew - little fib #2. CPQ is a company with a big credibility problem. I thought I would feel a lot better with the butt bandits gone - I only feel slightly better. Rosen may not have a grasp on the future, but he sure should have one on the past. As you said - a good manager/acting ceo has got to understand the facts, before any decisions can be made. I assume that includes the decision to can your CEO? K

To: Andreas who wrote (59405)	4/22/1999 4:28:00 PM
From: Loki	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 97611

Andreas...I read the negativity not necessarily directed at Rosen but at CPQ in general. As an investor I make choices of asset allocation based on visibilty in different equity vehicles. CPQ has not provided this and it is frustrating for me to obtain an understanding on how I should handle the CPQ part of my financial portfolio going forward. It is understandable that institutions, responsible for their client's money, would react the same way. If Rosen was not in a position to give answers today then he should have set a firm date when all questions would be answered. Without deadlines and accountability time becomes elastic. Performance measures should be set! If this was not done at the shareholder meeting one cannot be blamed for taking the answers given, as more "lip service", .......until proven by fact. So as you can see, Andreas, I personally feel justified in my opinion about CPQ's present credibility. Loki PS...How is your personal lawsuit against CPQ progressing?