To: shane forbes who wrote (18712 ) 6/7/1999 8:46:00 PM From: Jock Hutchinson Read Replies (1) | Respond to
... the fact that there is no god given requirement that LSI should see equal sequential improvement in sales growth. In fact the fact that it is low initially requires a much higher 1999 Q4 over 1998 Q4 rate. We know of only 1 thing. The full year growth rate of 1999 over 1998 is 15% Besides previously you argued with the 1.85 bil as an incorrect 'base' first because of the IPR&D then because of the fact that since Q4 was stronger (first note that I did not say this in the Patrick post - the one you referred to in making all that noise about 1.85 bil., 2nd just by saying it was stronger does not mean it was the strongest! You assumed that it was the strongest of the 4 quarters and so had to be greater than the mean. Ouch again.) it had to be more than the average! any full year's revenue number in '98 is clearly the wrong number to use for purposes of meaningfully comparing revenue growth in '99 to revenue growth in '98, since there is NO revenue figure for the full year 1998 that reflects the reality of LSI post Symbios merger. Both of your assumptions that go into your base of $1.85 billion stink. The pro forma figures stink because they don't reflect LSI revenues post Symbios merger, and your using the partial figures from 3Q stinks, because using 4Q with its full quarter's figures is far superior. Rather, the only meaningful basis of comparison for determining the rate of revenue growth in '99 is that of 4Q '98, which is the only '98 quarter that reflects the reality of LSI post Symbios merger.The wrong part of your current argument is the 9% (it should be higher)
