| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1347.1 | GOOD NEWS | CSCOAC::MARSH_E | | Thu Jan 17 1991 15:46 | 4 |
| GOOD NEWS
DEC'S STOCK OPENED THIS MORNING AT 62 5/8 LETS HOPE IT KEEPS GOING
UP!!!
|
| 1347.2 | | BLUMON::QUODLING | Aussie Licensing Devo | Thu Jan 17 1991 17:45 | 5 |
| right, we are making money again. Now can we stop all of the doom and
gloom, and get back to making damn good computers and software....
q
|
| 1347.3 | It ain't over till its over | CANYON::NEVEU | SWA EIS Consultant | Thu Jan 17 1991 19:14 | 29 |
| RE: .2
We are making money again, but we are not out of the woods
Q4 Fy90 Q1 Fy91 Q2Fy91
earning/Share <-$2.11> $0.21 $0.92
Trend line on three data points looks good, but these are after
restructing charges of $150 million in Q3 and $400 million in Q4
which really represenmt money spent this year but accounted for
earlier....
There is also the question of how it compared to previous trend
when DEC was going into the hole.
Q4 Fy89 Q1 Fy90 Q2 Fy90
Earning/share $2.51 $1.20 $1.25
So are we 28% worst than last year or 338% better than last quarter.
I don't think we are out of the woods, and we will have to continue
to take harsh measures to control costs. When we begin to see earn-
ings consistently above $2.00 per share we might begin to see DEC
willing to risk spending money to grow business. But do lets get
back to making damn good computers and delivering solutions....
Paul N.
|
| 1347.4 | Getting better, but it isn't good yet | GVA02::HAKANSSON | Rock the boat... | Fri Jan 18 1991 04:26 | 22 |
| Re .3
You are absolutely right. There are many indicators on how we are doing
financially, and we are nowhere near our targets on for example
DSO, target 57 days, presently we are at 91 (!) days
Pretax margin, target about 17.5 %, presently we are at 4.6 %
Generally speaking we are far from the targets on ROA and ROE that we
have set up and in a sense promised the shareholders. I have not seen
the numbers on Inventory turns and consequently on Asset performance,
but with DSO still being VERY bad I can not imagine we are really
managing our company optimally.
An interesting number (at least intellectually) is also our Book Value,
which is presently $67.59 per share. The market does not even put a
price on our shares right now to equal that!
So, again, you are right. Let's keep working on building insanely great
computers and providing the best solutions. There is light at the end
of the tunnel, but it could still be a train coming at us.
|
| 1347.5 | In the SUBWAY::INVESTING Conference, ... | YUPPIE::COLE | Profitability is never having to say you're sorry! | Fri Jan 18 1991 09:05 | 9 |
| ... unfortunately I can't remember WHERE exactly, is a like discus-
sion of Q2, with the addition of more data, ie, balance sheet, income and
expenses, etc. It is a fairly new note, of course!
One thing that struck me was the comparison of GROSS margin with
pretax margin. It was almost 48% last quarter, and has been in the 50%
vicinity for years. However, after adding R&D AND G&A expenses, that's where
we get 4.6% pretax margin, and it used to be 15-20%. So, anyone care to
guess where to look for the profit sinkhole?? :>)
|
| 1347.6 | make and sell!!!! | BAGELS::CARROLL | | Fri Jan 18 1991 11:30 | 14 |
| re all.
Instead of "making great computers" (which we do), we should be
"selling great computers". Gone are the days when products sell
themselves, regardless of what KO thinks. This may sound rather
picky. Digital emphasizes making great stuff, IBM emphasizes
SELLING great stuff. While we both may have "great stuff" and
ours may be better than theirs, it is the selling, not the making,
that brings in the bucks.
We place a great deal of emphasis on the engineering of our products
and the engineers are doing a great job. We need an equal emphasis
placed on the marketing and sale of these products, from KO's level.
Selling is not an easy job, even with the best of products.
|
| 1347.7 | All they want is an application platform!! | COOKIE::LENNARD | | Fri Jan 18 1991 12:07 | 5 |
| We aren't gonna get out of this hole until our customers agree that we
are building "insanely" great computers, which doesn't seem to be
the case at this time. Some of the responses I read here are really
scary...it's the same old "ain't we great engineers" crap. This is
really depressing.
|
| 1347.8 | | BRAT::ALLEN | | Fri Jan 18 1991 21:14 | 7 |
| .6 you can't sell what the market doesn't want. And you get in a lot
of trouble trying to educate the market. And you can't jam down their
throats what you think they need.
Find out what the market wants and sell it. If we had marketing
managers instead of sales people we call marketing we might do it.
and be very profitable.
|
| 1347.9 | Let's All Do Our Part | TRCO01::BCOCHRANE | | Wed Jan 23 1991 08:12 | 9 |
| As a Field Sales Manager, may I contribute the following:
Our engineers should "get back to" making really great computers, and
the sales organization should "get back to" really great selling of
those really great computers. All of us have a role in keeping Digital
great, and there is no one answer.
And all of us need to play our own roles in identifying and solving
customer's business needs and problems. Then this will pass.
|
| 1347.10 | Yes we need to do our jobs, but so does management | DECWIN::MESSENGER | Bob Messenger | Wed Jan 23 1991 11:46 | 36 |
| Re: .9
> And all of us need to play our own roles in identifying and solving
> customer's business needs and problems. Then this will pass.
I agree that all of us need to work hard and do our jobs, but unless the
work that we're doing as individuals is coordinated by a corporate-wide
vision, so that we're all pushing in the right direction, all that hard work
could be wasted.
There are four problems in Digital that worry me the most. These are:
(a) The threat/opportunity of open systems (VMS is a proprietary
operating system that is becoming harder and harder to sell).
(b) The price/performance threat/opportunity of RISC.
(c) Digital's low revenue per employee compared with our
competitors.
(d) A growing quality problem. As a software engineer I see this
most in the software area.
(c) is being addressed by cost-cutting, including layoffs. Of course,
revenue enhancement would be nice. :-) (a) and (b) are being addressed
by new products. (d) is being addressed by things like "Six Sigma".
I'm reasonably comfortable with the fact that Digital's management is at
least aware of the problems and is trying to solve them. It remains to be
seen whether the solutions will actually work. Meanwhile, you're right: we
all need to play our own roles in identifying and solving customer's needs
and problems. At a local level for me, this means trying to give customers
the kinds of features and the level of quality that they expect from the
software that I'm working on.
-- Bob
|
| 1347.11 | | PSW::WINALSKI | Watch my MIPS - no new VAXes | Wed Jan 23 1991 19:04 | 26 |
| RE: .9
> Our engineers should "get back to" making really great computers, and
> the sales organization should "get back to" really great selling of
> those really great computers. All of us have a role in keeping Digital
> great, and there is no one answer.
All well and good, except for two things:
(1) "Making really great computers" isn't good enough any more. Today's
customer doesn't just want iron that they will program themselves. You can't
get anywhere today unless you have the applications, and all the important ones
are done by ISVs, not by hardware vendors.
(2) The sales organization can't "get back to" really great selling of those
computers, because they never did any "really great selling" in DEC's salad
days. The sales force in that era had a well-deserved reputation as mere
order takers. In my opinion, the quality of DEC's sales force as salesmen
vs. order takers has never been higher than it is today. I point to the great
success that we have had in the past couple of years selling VAXstations and
VAX 6000 systems. We were able to sell lots of those, despite the obsolescence
of the VAX architecture and all the while bucking the Unix/Open Systems trend.
Now THAT takes salesmanship! The last thing we need is for sales to "return
to its roots."
--PSW
|
| 1347.12 | U*NIX! | HERCUL::MOSER | St. Louis DCC guy... | Wed Jan 23 1991 19:16 | 28 |
| >2) The sales organization can't "get back to" really great selling of those
>computers, because they never did any "really great selling" in DEC's salad
>days. The sales force in that era had a well-deserved reputation as mere
>order takers. In my opinion, the quality of DEC's sales force as salesmen
>vs. order takers has never been higher than it is today. I point to the great
>success that we have had in the past couple of years selling VAXstations and
>VAX 6000 systems. We were able to sell lots of those, despite the obsolescence
>of the VAX architecture and all the while bucking the Unix/Open Systems trend.
>Now THAT takes salesmanship! The last thing we need is for sales to "return
>to its roots."
* ggggrrrrr *
VAX 6000s are great products. The entire Networking vision and software
architecture that is defined by VMS and DECNET is great. I would hardly call
the VAX architecture obsolete. For many customers with real world problems,
UNIX is *not* an answer.
I heard the following and this is unverified, but I can buy into it...
A noted consultant (riefer??) stated when asked the question, (I paraphrase),
'How will going to ADA technology impact my development process?'
answer: 'not even a 10th the impact of trying to use UNIX'
(note, this was in a negative context...)
Anyway... Selling VMS is not as hard as one might think...
/mike
|
| 1347.13 | | PSW::WINALSKI | Watch my MIPS - no new VAXes | Wed Jan 23 1991 19:35 | 36 |
| RE: .12
>I would hardly call
>the VAX architecture obsolete. For many customers with real world problems,
>UNIX is *not* an answer.
I never called the VAX Architecture "obsolete". I called it "obsolescent" (in
the process of becoming obsolete). The VAX Architecture was designed with
the premise that main memory is expensive. The minimum memory size for the
11/780 was 256K, which was a lot in those days. Nowadays, we have run into
performance problems and restrictions resulting from the 512-byte VAX page
size. There are some maximally-configured VAX 9000 systems that are not
capable of running the full user load that the CPU speed could support because
the page tables won't fit into the 1GB of S0 space limit of the VAX
architecture on the total size of the resident portion of the operating system.
An even bigger problem is the variable-length, highly complex instruction
format. Once again, this was designed to conserve memory, and it works. VAX
programs tend to be much smaller than the same program for a RISC machine.
However, the complexity of the instruction set, especially operand decoding,
complicates the hardware design and slows it down. At any particular
performance level, VAX CPUs lag the rest of the industry by 2-4 years. Why?
Because given a particular level of chip technology, one can build a RISC
processor that runs twice as fast (or more) than an equivalent VAX processor.
The VAX must waste a lot of time and circuitry just figuring out where its
instruction operands are.
VAX was designed as the "architecture of the 80s" and it admirably fulfulled
that role. But these are the 90s, and the VAX is reaching its limits as
an architecture on several fronts. Obsolete? Maybe not quite yet.
Obsolesecent? Most definitely.
Unix is an operating system, not a hardware architecture. In .11, I was not
talking about operating systems. Yes, there are a lot of things that VMS can
do that Unix cannot do as well (or at all). The inverse is also true.
--PSW
|
| 1347.14 | Maybe everyone's right | FASDER::AHERB | | Wed Jan 23 1991 22:43 | 29 |
| All of you are correct in my opinion but the road to (back to?)
profitability in not in hardware excellence or operation system
excellent. It's in SOLUTIONS excellence. Customers no longer purchase
computing systems based on snazzy hardware features. They're more
educated in purchase on the abilit to best satisfy their needs at the
leas possible costs. Currently, everyone thinks in terms of operating
system portability as the way to ensure investment protection.
Eventuall, I feel, they will realize that applications portability is
most important. In the meantime, VMS is the "bad guy" and UNIX is the
"good guy".
The winner though will be the one with the "solutions" meaning a well
coordinated team of software/haredare engineers bringing products that
the customers want now.
I ask:
1. Why so long to deliver TCP/IP?
2. Why so long to deliver VME?
3. Why so long to support MOTIF on SUN?
In other words, whether we philosophically agree that any or all of
this is the appropriate suite of products our customers should
purchase, if that's what they want and have a purse for, that's what we
should be offering.
Uh, been in this business since '62 with employers that were on the
forefront of technology so I think I've seen a lot. I'm nowhere near as
old as Ken though and can't compete with his experience of course.
|
| 1347.15 | | SDSVAX::SWEENEY | God is their co-pilot | Wed Jan 23 1991 23:15 | 7 |
| re: .-1 With one breath you say "solutions", with another you list
TCP/IP, VME, and MOTIF. What on earth are you talking about?
As for "solutions", page one of Computer Systems News (Jan 21 1991)
"Solutions Selling Still Befuddles DEC". The article isn't as blunt as
I am: Digital is first, last, and always a hardware company.
|
| 1347.16 | | BLUMON::QUODLING | Who's the nut in the bag,dad? | Thu Jan 24 1991 00:36 | 7 |
| I noticed on the news tonight, that the Federal Dept of Budgetting or some
such says that the "recession" will be over by the middle of the year, even
in spite of the massive military spending... So stop the doom and gloom and
get back to work...
q
|
| 1347.17 | fuel for the fire | SHIRE::GOLDBLATT | | Thu Jan 24 1991 02:41 | 9 |
| Digital currently has about 5% of today's total services market. With the
potential of 95% growth there, "complete solutions" is clearly the way to
go to increase revenues. But there's plenty of competition, and Digital's
5% share will most likely be reduced to zero in a few years if we continue
"business as usual". If Digital is "first, last and always a hw company",
the required change in corporate mentality to win in the solutions market
may be too slow to make the "window of opportunity". What to do?
David Goldblatt - Europe I.M.
|
| 1347.18 | VAX <> VMS... | HERCUL::MOSER | St. Louis DCC guy... | Thu Jan 24 1991 05:21 | 19 |
| re: <<< Note 1347.13 by PSW::WINALSKI "Watch my MIPS - no new VAXes" >>>
>RE: .12
>
>>I would hardly call
>>the VAX architecture obsolete. For many customers with real world problems,
>>UNIX is *not* an answer.
>
>I never called the VAX Architecture "obsolete". I called it "obsolescent" (in
>the process of becoming obsolete).
You're right of course and I should know better... I have a nasty habit of
equating VAX and VMS in my thinking...
Question... The 512 page size is deeply imbedded in VMS as well as the
hardware, is it not? Wouldn't changing the fundemental page size impact a
lot more that just some memory management chip in a VAX processor??
/mike trying_to_think_through_all_the_implications!
|
| 1347.19 | | MU::PORTER | paradise and lunch | Thu Jan 24 1991 13:43 | 9 |
| >Question... The 512 page size is deeply imbedded in VMS as well as the
>hardware, is it not? Wouldn't changing the fundemental page size impact a
>lot more that just some memory management chip in a VAX processor??
Yes - it's a lot of work.
But that doesn't mean it's impossible.
|
| 1347.20 | Trying hard not to say anything | STAR::DIPIRRO | | Fri Jan 25 1991 09:26 | 1 |
| Oh, it wasn't THAT much work...Nyuk nyuk nyuk.
|
| 1347.21 | Read my What?!?!?!? | COOKIE::LENNARD | | Mon Jan 28 1991 11:44 | 5 |
| re .16 You're joking, right?? You actually believe what an agency
of the U.S. government says? These are the people that brought the
"trickle-down" theory to economic growth, and a near-4-frigging
TRILLION total deficit. Very dangerous.
|
| 1347.22 | Q3 earnings ???? | BOOVX2::FARHADI | | Wed Apr 17 1991 14:03 | 2 |
| Did we announce our Q3 earningss this morning ?? Is that why our
stock went up ???
|
| 1347.23 | On April 19th?? | USWRSL::BARBER_RO | | Wed Apr 17 1991 15:07 | 4 |
| I didn't think that our earnings would be announced until April 19th
but I could be wrong. It IS nice to see the stock up though!
Bob
|
| 1347.24 | Third Wed. or Thursday | BOOVX2::FARHADI | | Wed Apr 17 1991 15:22 | 3 |
| I guess we don't have exact date of when we announce our earnings..
Base on my experience I thought that we announce the Third Wed.
or Thursday of each Quarter...
|
| 1347.25 | Heard it here first | DSM::CRAIG | Nice computers don't go down :-) | Wed Apr 17 1991 21:12 | 2 |
| The rumor is that we may declare an operational loss on Q3, or be very
close to one.
|
| 1347.26 | | DATABS::HETRICK | PedalShiftPedalPedalShiftPedalBrakePedalPedal... | Wed Apr 17 1991 21:18 | 9 |
| > <<< Note 1347.25 by DSM::CRAIG "Nice computers don't go down :-)" >>>
> -< Heard it here first >-
>
> The rumor is that we may declare an operational loss on Q3, or be very
> close to one.
Gosh, and the rumor I heard was that we would do better than expected. Of,
course, given the highly skilled and totally aware senior management that we are
blessed with, both rumors could well be true.
|
| 1347.27 | | DEMON3::CLEVELAND | Notes - fun or satanic cult? | Thu Apr 18 1991 11:31 | 4 |
| See 1439.0. "Better than expected" -- at least, the street thinks so,
DEC is up 7 points this morning.
Tim
|
| 1347.28 | better | CARTUN::MISTOVICH | | Thu Apr 18 1991 11:51 | 2 |
| Definitely better than expected...8% increase in earnings over either
this quarter last year or this 9 months last year.
|
| 1347.29 | | BSS::D_BANKS | David Banks -- N�ION | Thu Apr 18 1991 12:45 | 3 |
| See LIVE WIRE (International News) on VTX for details.
- David
|
| 1347.30 | Mary, you must come from a Sales background, you confuse ... | YUPPIE::COLE | Somedays the bug, somedays the windshield! | Thu Apr 18 1991 12:55 | 14 |
| revenue with earnings! :>) :>)
Revenue up 8% compared to Q3FY90
Net Income WAY up compared to Q3FY90 (no charges!)
Earnings per share WAY up compared to Q3FY90 (same reason)
Revenue up 4% compared to Q1-Q3FY90
Net Income DOWN about 20% compared to Q1-Q3FY90
Earnings per share also DOWN compared to Q1-Q3FY90
|
| 1347.31 | Shouldn't listen to rumors... | DSM::CRAIG | Nice computers don't go down :-) | Thu Apr 18 1991 18:02 | 2 |
| Re: .25
*Glad* to have been proven wrong! :-)
|
| 1347.32 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Just do it? But I just DID it! | Thu Apr 18 1991 18:56 | 17 |
| re .31
> -< Shouldn't listen to rumors... >-
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Re: .25
> *Glad* to have been proven wrong! :-)
********************************
*** Tell that to 1362.159! ****
********************************
Note 1362.159 Note 1361.0/Instant layoffs 159 of 159
-< No more TFSO3. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rumor from personnel here is that TSFO4 is 2 weeks pay. PERIOD!
|
| 1347.33 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Apr 19 1991 09:22 | 8 |
| Don't feel bad about believing the rumors of poor earnings. The earnings were
at the low end of analysts' estimates, and the stock shot up to the level it
was at before IBM's earnings warning. Clearly Wall Street didn't believe
the analysts.
The other explanation that's been mentioned is that earnings were worse
than expected for Digital-Kienzle and better than expected for the rest
of the company, but I don't think that holds much water.
|
| 1347.34 | Wish I knew what to expect with the stock... | LYCEUM::CURTIS | Christos voskrese iz mertvych! | Fri Apr 26 1991 11:14 | 8 |
| .27:
And now, eight whole days later, it's pretty well lost those gains.
I can't help but wonder why: subsequent depressing news, or people
jumping to the next "seven-day wonder", or stock-market-people
rereading the Q3 results, and changing their minds?
Dick
|