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 : Newbridge Networks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Serge Collins who wrote (11712)	6/2/1999 11:51:00 AM
From: Ian@SI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18016

I don't want to get into a semantic argument about what constitutes Operating Earnings This is a very good idea. Because you haven't a clue how the whole financial world defines operational earnings. And I'm not going to waste one keystroke attempting to educate one who repeatedly demonstrates either an unwillingness or inability to learn. <vbg> Ian.

To: Serge Collins who wrote (11712)	6/2/1999 12:00:00 PM
From: zbyslaw owczarczyk	Respond to of 18016

Do you think $74 million is a trivial sum of money? How many more such restructuring charges can be expected this fiscal year? without charges only part of 74 millions could be recognized as an profit, b/c NN would have to pay taxes. Also NN has offset the gains from Tundra. And finally, NN will saved 40+ millions Cnd in FY2000 and 40 millions in the following years. 4 millions Cnd in saving = 0.01 eps us. Zbyslaw

To: Serge Collins who wrote (11712)	6/2/1999 11:54:00 PM
From: Doug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18016

Serge: You may recall that at the time of the pre-announcement, I had raised an alert about the Restructuring costs. At that time, I was very surprised that except for you no believed there were any. Now that it has become public, its face saving for some to discard that issue.

To: Serge Collins who wrote (11712)	6/3/1999 3:02:00 AM
From: nick cash	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18016

insofar as fundamentals, i agree with much of what the detractors have said regarding nn's horrid execution. further, i am stunned that they are guiding down already lowered #'s for q1. with C$115mm inadvertently sandbagged <g> from q4, if they can't work with that to meet reduced #'s, then i don't know what the hell they are doing. i have not had time to talk with the company yet; but i have plenty of questions that need answers. the most puzzling question for me is fy2000 revenues. current guidance for fy200 revenue growth is roughly a 23% gain over the year that jsut ended. ok.... wan packet now represents 70% of revenues, tdm 30%. order intake for wan packet over the past 2 quarters has trended well in excess of 100% annualized growth. tdm comps should be easy this year as 3 of 4 quarters were horrendous for tdm in fy99. so..... lets be conservative and assume that despite >100% order growth rates, these wan packet orders only result in a 60% revenue growth rate for the year (well within expectations). lets be pessimistic and just peg tdm as flat for the year despite easy comps. do the math and this would equate to 42% revenue growth for the year. both analysts and the company are guiding to less than 23% revenue growth for the year. huh? company has stated that 'orders' are for immediate shipment ($115mm in missed q4 orders will be all shipped by the end of this week per alan on the call). so....... what's wrong with this picture? am i missing something or is this the new math i heard so much about growing up? either there's a couple of hundred million dollars worth of upside to the numbers (granted, these are canadien monopoly money dollars <g>, but still, that's a lot of hotels on boardwalk) or something is really wrong. ok, it's late. all imo only.....nick