| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 3363.1 | interesting but.. | OZROCK::FARAGO | What about the Infobahn have nots? | Wed Aug 31 1994 13:00 | 2 |
| any idea how the recent ~25% increase in the DEC stock price changes
things along with the record Dow Jones (since Feb?) levels?
|
| 3363.2 | | BROKE::BERRY | sleep is for parents who eat quiche | Wed Aug 31 1994 16:21 | 9 |
| Yes, that was me, thanks. It was in response to a (presumably
sarcastic) suggestion that perhaps Digital should buy Oracle.
From your list Oracle is thought to be worth nearly 4x what
Digital is at the moment.
Actually, the most amazing thing about this is the Microsoft
vs. IBM comparison.
Boy, I'm glad we're not emphasizing software.
|
| 3363.3 | JP, a software terrorist ! | BROKE::SERRA | You got it, we JOIN it....DBI | Wed Aug 31 1994 16:38 | 13 |
| JP,
So it takes this topic to get you 'noting' !!!
btw...it's time to change your personal name..
hope all is well
steve
|
| 3363.4 | | BABAGI::CRESSEY | | Wed Aug 31 1994 16:46 | 11 |
| Re: .1
If I understand what .0 was talking about, it shouldn't change things a bit.
If by "capitalization" what's meant is "Net Worth", that is not affected
by stock price, unless the company starts buying and selling its stock.
I don't think Digital has been buying or selling DEC stock in any large
quantities for a long time.
Dave
|
| 3363.5 | stock price and shares outstanding | CIM2NI::ASHLEY | | Wed Aug 31 1994 18:22 | 5 |
|
re .4 , try again
market capitalization = shares X share price
|
| 3363.6 | So what's book value | MPGS::STANLEY | I'd rather be fishing | Wed Aug 31 1994 19:45 | 4 |
| re: -1
I thought that was book value, or are they the same ?
Also, wouldn't net worth be assets - liabilities ?
|
| 3363.7 | | MRKTNG::BROCK | Son of a Beech | Wed Aug 31 1994 20:35 | 5 |
| Book value is net worth divided by shares outstanding
Market cap is shares outstanding times price
net worth is net assets minus liabilities
|
| 3363.8 | Ooops.. Which way to the future? | BABAGI::CRESSEY | | Thu Sep 01 1994 17:30 | 12 |
| Re: .5, .7
There I go again, mixing up the windshield with the rear-view mirror!
Must be some kind of mental block. Thanks for the correction.
BTW, wasn't DEC's market capitalization usually much higher than its net worth
thoughout it's early years? Hasn't it been much lower during the last year
of KO and the first year of BP? Where do they stand in relation ship to each
other now?
Dave
|
| 3363.9 | | BROKE::BERRY | sleep is for parents who eat quiche | Thu Sep 01 1994 19:51 | 9 |
| Boy, I am getting so sick of people who seem to think that you
can make a correlation between KO's and BP's performance based
on Digital's results since the change and in particular right
after the change. In my opinion, KO *buried* Digital before
he was fired. He was a decade behind the world and didn't see
it right to the end. BP is the janitor trying to cleanup the
incredible mess KO made. I would be the last one to say I'm
happy with what I see around me these days and I do hold BP
to blame for some of it but please give up this old song.
|
| 3363.10 | | MSDOA::SCRIVEN | | Thu Sep 01 1994 20:08 | 4 |
| 'here 'here!!!
Toodles.....JP
|
| 3363.11 | | BABAGI::CRESSEY | | Thu Sep 01 1994 20:54 | 6 |
| Re: .9
Is .9 in reference to .8? If so, you are reading something into what I wrote
that is definitely not what I intended.
Dave
|
| 3363.12 | | DPDMAI::SODERSTROM | Bring on the Competition! | Thu Sep 01 1994 21:02 | 4 |
| I would like toi be the janitor making 900K per year after a 20% raise.
BTW, I think BP is asleep at the wheel!
|
| 3363.13 | | VIA::HAMNQVIST | | Thu Sep 01 1994 22:15 | 3 |
| | I would like toi be the janitor making 900K per year after a 20% raise.
Me too. I could even fall asleep at the wheel for another 20%
|
| 3363.14 | | MRKTNG::BROCK | Son of a Beech | Fri Sep 02 1994 12:29 | 13 |
| To the question posed in .8
It is fairly normal for a publicly traded corporation to have a market
cap fairly far in excess of net worth. The book value per share is
usually seen as the floor under the stock price. The price the market
sets on a share of stock makes certain assumptions about the growth in
book value, as most companies have earnings which increase book value.
I think digital's book value is now in the $17-18 range - not sure.
Every quarterly loss reduces directly net worth. In a speech about a
year ago Palmer noted that in the previous 6-8 quarters, digital had
wiped out the previous 10-12 years of earnings (not sure of exact
numbers, but clearly dramatic).
|
| 3363.15 | | FORTY2::DALLAS | Paul Dallas, DEC/EDI @REO2-F/F2 | Fri Sep 02 1994 12:55 | 7 |
| For a successful company, yes. The market value takes into account
intangibles like product quality, company image, market leadership,
market potential. The market value reflects people's expectations of a
company rather than its actual worth. If a company's market worth is
the same or lower than its book value, it's in trouble. If the market
value is much lower than the book value, assest strippers are likely to
purchase the company to sell off the assets and reap a profit.
|
| 3363.16 | | GEMGRP::gemnt3.zko.dec.com::Winalski | Careful with that AXP, Eugene | Fri Sep 02 1994 17:46 | 8 |
| The way I've heard it put is that the difference between book value
and market value is the value that the market puts on the company's
management as an asset to the company. If the market value is much
higher than book value, the market views the company's management as
a valuable asset. If the market value is at or below book value, the
market views the company's management as a liability.
--PSW
|