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 (60408)	5/3/1999 9:43:00 PM
From: Loki	Respond to of 97611

Andreas...Please look below...... compaq.com compaq.com My comments yesterday: 1. Concerning analysts estimates..."You are correct" (This actually means I am of the same opinion) 2. Concerning SGA..."I believe that your conclusion has incorrect %'s SGA to REV. (???)" (This means that the numbers from CPQ do not support the basis and justification for your argument in your SGA conclusion) Q4 98 - 14.4% and Q1 99 - 15.7% (Actual) 3. Concerning COGS..."it surprisingly didn't look that bad." (This means I agree to some degree...(on Q4 98 vs Q1 99) that it was "not that bad") (Q4 COGS are $7,988 mil not $7,650 mil) source: CPQ Also, if you compare Q1 98 to Q1 99 it looks good! Did you get your numbers from ML? Were numbers revised after CPQ release? NOW LET'S LOOK COGS ARGUMENT FROM THESE NUMBERS: (#'s in mil) ........Prod Rev...ProdCOGS....% 98 Q4....9,145......6,807....74.4% 99 Q1....7,819......6,007....76.8% Difference of 2.4%...likely due to price cutting, product mix, and economies of scale... As I and many others have postulated..we believe there are multiple factors for the earnings shortfall. Loki PS...The "we" means us on the thread....... Message 9272177