Monday, March 25, 1996
MARKET CLOSE
INDEX:
I. Market News: Big NASDAQ Drop---Techs Socked
II. Heroes: Simula, Egghead, WellCare Management
III. Goats: MICROS, Phamis, Solv-Ex, Eagle Point
IV. Investment Perspective: Tech 0: Market Hegemony
V. Another Foolish Thing
VI. FOOL's Take - One Fool's Opinion: Is PC Demand Slowing?
MARKET CLOSE
DJIA: 5643.86 +7.22 (+0.13%)
S&P 500: 650.04 -0.58 (-0.09%)
NASDAQ: 1087.10 -15.12 (-1.37%)
Tech stocks got whacked today, with C-Cube, suddenly threatened by IBM's entry into its arena, falling most prominently. For more details on this development, as well as a Foolish Take, check out our Special Section in the Evening News screen. Today's Investment Perspective is the first in a ten-part series on technology and the stock market---MF Templar's long-awaited "Technophrenia"! Enjoy!
Fools in Denver, prepare! The brothers Gardner will be signing books at The Tattered Cover bookstore from 7:30 to 9:00 pm on Wednesday, March 27.
Arizona-based Simula <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(NYSE: SMU)") else Response.Write("(NYSE: SMU)") end if %> surged $4 to $19 1/4 after the company released news that an unidentified auto manufacturer had chosen its inflatable restraint technology. Simula has pioneered side-impact products that provide head and neck protection which are already in use in helicopters. The products will show up by the 1998 or 1999 model year, according to the company. Simula believes that the potential market for its products is as large as the market for conventional front airbags---which is a pretty big enchilada. MF Yon, who follows the stock as part of his Folly in Arizona portfolio, must be overjoyed with this leap after Arizona-based Three-Five Systems's <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(NYSE: TFS)") else Response.Write("(NYSE: TFS)") end if %> implosion.
Egghead Software <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(NASDAQ: EGGS)") else Response.Write("(NASDAQ: EGGS)") end if %> rose $1 5/8 to $9 1/4 after news was released that the company had sold its troubled corporate, government and education unit to Software Spectrum <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(NASDAQ: SSPE)") else Response.Write("(NASDAQ: SSPE)") end if %> for $45 million plus an additional $45 million from liquidation of the inventory. The Street reportedly rejoiced because the management of Egghead is known as a group of retailers whose attention has been diverted from that strength by problems in this division. Software Spectrum also rose $3 to $22 3/4 on the perception that it got a good deal and that it would be accretive to earnings two year out.
WellCare Management <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(NASDAQ: WELL)") else Response.Write("(NASDAQ: WELL)") end if %> jumped $3/4 to $17 1/4 after getting pummeled all last week following negative coverage in Barron's. Barron's highlighted some questionable transactions that seemed to amount to check-kiting by the company in order to boost reported earnings by moving cash around intra-quarter. The company has hired an investigative agency to find out how this damaging information got out, has blamed it all on short sellers, and promises to explain everything with the upcoming fiscal 1995 results.
QUICK TAKES: GAMING LOTTERY <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(NASDAQ: GLCCF)") else Response.Write("(NASDAQ: GLCCF)") end if %> hit the jackpot, rising $1 3/8 to $5 on better-than-expected quarterly earnings of $0.40 per share Canadian versus $0.21 a year ago. . . ADFLEX SOLUTIONS <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(NASDAQ: AFLX)") else Response.Write("(NASDAQ: AFLX)") end if %> surged $1 1/4 to $11 3/4 on news of a contract with Motorola <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(NYSE: MOT)") else Response.Write("(NYSE: MOT)") end if %> to supply circuit-based interconnects for cellular phones. . . ROBERT HALF <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(NYSE: RHI)") else Response.Write("(NYSE: RHI)") end if %>, up $3 1/4 to $49 3/4, received another boost this weekend in Barron's after news was released on Friday that Fidelity was a big buyer of its shares. . . CAMBRIDGE NEUROSCIENCE <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(NASDAQ: CNSI)") else Response.Write("(NASDAQ: CNSI)") end if %> lifted $3/4 to $11 1/4 after it presented positive clinical data on its drug Cerestat at the annual American Academy of Neurology on Thursday. . . BARNET BUSINESS SERVICES <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(NASDAQ: BBSI)") else Response.Write("(NASDAQ: BBSI)") end if %> was up $1 3/4 to $18 after being profiled in Investor's Business Daily today.
It was not the wretched impending third quarter results that scared investors out of MICROS Systems <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(NASDAQ: MCRS)") else Response.Write("(NASDAQ: MCRS)") end if %> today as much as it was their inability to "predict how long the current market conditions [would] persist." The largest manufacturer of the Point-of-Sale (POS) terminals which have replaced cash registers was eviscerated by $25 3/4 to $25 on more than two times normal volume. MICROS stated that although sales will increase in its fiscal third quarter when compared to last year, earnings will be far lower, due to certain "price concessions" it was forced to make as a result of worldwide market conditions.
Phamis Inc. <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(NASDAQ: PHAM)") else Response.Write("(NASDAQ: PHAM)") end if %> plunged $10 3/4 to $17 1/4 after it reported that it would miss first quarter analyst estimates by about 50%. Systems licensing, service and additional hardware revenue will be all be lower than expected, while costs to bring out its Release 4.0 product have increased. Phamis develops and installs healthcare information systems---a white-hot sector that has been exploding in the past year as evidenced by the price rise of competitors like HBO & Co. <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(NASDAQ: HBOC)") else Response.Write("(NASDAQ: HBOC)") end if %>. With a tiny market and microscopic revenues, companies like Phamis tend to have more bumps along the way than their larger counterparts, creating opportunities for investors when institutions overreact. NatWest Securities and Alex. Brown both cut the stock from "buy" to "hold" or "neutral" today on the news.
Solv-Ex <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(NASDAQ: SOLV)") else Response.Write("(NASDAQ: SOLV)") end if %> has become the focus of a series of negative reports over the past week, driving the stock down $14 3/8 to $7 3/8 today as Dan Dorfman got into the fray. Solv-Ex is a mining company that claims to have found a revolutionary way to get crude oil from tar sands and produce high-grade alumina as a by-product of this process in the bargain. On Friday, the FBI announced that it was proceeding with a criminal investigation of trading in the shares---something that the company welcomed in a press release and which appears to be a non-event for the shares. Although the Fool Newsroom has no information as to whether the oil-extraction process works, the fact that the negative Dorfman report centered completely on a report sponsored by one short-seller, we gotta say the jury is still out, but this company sounds more and more like Arakis Energy <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(NASDAQ: AKSEF)") else Response.Write("(NASDAQ: AKSEF)") end if %>.
Two software houses that develop software used for geographical surveys took it on the chin today. Eagle Point Software <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(NASDAQ: EGPT)") else Response.Write("(NASDAQ: EGPT)") end if %> fell $2 to $11 1/4 while Landmark Graphics <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(NASDAQ: LDMK)") else Response.Write("(NASDAQ: LDMK)") end if %> lost $8 9/16 to $17 1/8 after both said they would not make next quarter's numbers. Eagle Point is going to make $0.05-$0.10 EPS instead of the $0.14-$0.15 EPS that analysts were expecting because of lower-than-expected sales in its CAD and AutoCAD products and the "federal budget situation." Landmark Graphics points to a slow transition to "integrated solutions" from selling its software and oil exploration services piecemeal. (Funny, isn't it, how Eagle Point fell more than $2 on Friday before this morning's release? If I were a shareholder, I would be calling the CEO demanding an explanation for that move. Fool News actually tried to get in touch with Eagle Point late Friday but they were not returning calls.)
Articles in today's Wall Street Journal questioning whether corporate capital spending for personal computers and networking equipment would continue put pressure on a variety of stocks today. Switch manufacturer Sync Research <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(NASDAQ: SYNX)") else Response.Write("(NASDAQ: SYNX)") end if %> short-circuited $2 1/8 to $13 7/8, leading the networking group lower, while Tech Data <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(NASDAQ: TECD)") else Response.Write("(NASDAQ: TECD)") end if %> slumped $1 7/8 to $14 1/4 on the eve of reporting its quarterly earnings. Tech Data is a reseller of technology products to corporations and has reported surprises to the downside two out of the last four quarters. More speculative network Diana Corp. <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(NYSE: DNA)") else Response.Write("(NYSE: DNA)") end if %> fell $2 1/4 to $27 5/8 as well.
QUICK CUTS: PHILIPS ELECTRONICS <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(NYSE: PHG)") else Response.Write("(NYSE: PHG)") end if %> slipped $4 5/8 to $35 3/4 on news that semiconductor sales would not help flagging profits in its consumer electronics this quarter. . . ANIXTER INT'L <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(NYSE: AXE)") else Response.Write("(NYSE: AXE)") end if %> gave back $2 1/4 to $16 1/2 after announcing that its first quarter earnings would not make the grade. . . COLEMAN CORP. <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(NYSE: CLN)") else Response.Write("(NYSE: CLN)") end if %> declined $4 1/2 to $47 1/2 after Alex. Brown cut the stock from a "short term buy" to a "short term sell", claiming it has benefited as much as possible from rumors of a buyout by Brunswick Corp. <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(NYSE: BN)") else Response.Write("(NYSE: BN)") end if %>. . . Entertainment software concern MAXIS INC. <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(NASDAQ: MXIS)") else Response.Write("(NASDAQ: MXIS)") end if %> simulated a $4 1/4 to $20 5/8 drop today after announcing the acquisition of privately-held Cinematronics, taking a $2.3 million charge as a result. . . APOGEE <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(NASDAQ: APGG)") else Response.Write("(NASDAQ: APGG)") end if %> retreated further from its apogee, falling $15/16 to $6 1/2 in spite of a Smith Barney upgrade to "buy". . . Regional railroad WISCONSIN CENTRAL <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(NASDAQ: WCLX)") else Response.Write("(NASDAQ: WCLX)") end if %> dropped $3 3/4 to $67 1/4 on news that its first quarter would be below last year and analysts estimates.
INVESTMENT PERSPECTIVE:
Technophrenia 0: The Hegemony of "Markets"
Is it a "stock market" or a "market of stocks"? While the old school tends to view the market as a monolithic unit, the new school stresses that the market is composed of many different stocks and industries, each moving rather independently. Does this matter much? Well, yes, it does.
Never have two conflicting notions about the world of equities been more at war than in these last few years. A generation of investors, emboldened by their success in the first half of the decade with mutual funds, have become direct shareholders in public companies. These accounts, classified as "retail" by the massive brokerage complex that rules the market, have historically been the refuge of the wealthy and the speculative. Now some are talking about a sea change, with the middle class---and even some of the more intrepid of the under-$25,000 per annum crowd---moving their savings into stocks as the rates on certificates of deposit and savings accounts have plummeted.
A market is never more or less than those who participate in it believe it is at that time---this is the first and only truism of markets. If everyone who invests in equities believes that there is such a thing as a mass market that ebbs and flows of its own accord, they will take this as gospel and act accordingly. The bizarre irony here is that they end up perpetuating the very phenomenon that they have come to believe they cannot affect. Lately things appear to be shifting toward the "market of stocks" camp. With a new influx of investors being grounded in Peter Lynch and Warren Buffett and ignorant of the time-honored practice of "resistance" and "support," these axioms of the cyclical market beast are no longer being blindly accepted as fact.
The battle between the "stock market" and the "market of stocks" is of recent vintage, which tells you how long the despotic "stock market" thesis has ruled. This brave new world of Lynch and Buffett is fairly young, and as many of the old "stock market" school are quick to point out, is pretty untested by adversity. The cliche is heard so often it is almost a chorus---"Whatever will these fresh-faced investors do when the first 'bear' market comes lumbering along?" Snide and secure in their time-honored folkways, these market mavens glance more and more gleefully towards their calendars, eager to circle the date of the next big crash in red and begin their perpetual round of "I told you so's" up and down the lecture circuit for the rest of their lives.
Why has this idea of a "stock market" been so persistent---or, as some would say, so pernicious---that it has become perceived as truth among the vast majority of long-time market participants? First and foremost it is an historically-grounded notion---any glance back toward the historical register finds that capital markets over their relatively short time on this planet have behaved in a herd-like manner. The question of which came first, the belief or the actual event, is one that has been argued in academic circles for decades. The debate has until now focused on an either/or proposition: either the market is a totality with its own set of practices, devoid of any larger context, or the market is a mass phenomenon like a forest, made up of trees and shrubs that have brilliant and unique lives of their own.
Peering back to the dawn of the modern American capital markets, we see a Wall Street preoccupied in the late nineteenth century with one industry---railroads. The expansion of the railroads was of cosmic significance to traders after the Civil War---so pressing that Mr. Dow's original market average was composed of eleven railroad companies and one industrial concern, General Electric. The New York Stock Exchange only had about fifty listed companies up until the early 20th century, making the perception that the market moved on its own pretty much a fact. Imagine if today we had only a handful of companies, so few that a child could memorize them all, concentrated in a single industry. Of course the market would move in a uniform way when confronted with various historical events, whether they be interest rate- or trade-related.
The stock market has always been a proxy for the best and brightest of the economy. In pre-World War II America, our economy was one with stringent international trade restrictions, little or no industry differentiation, and an old-line, tight-money monetarist stance reminiscent of modern day Germany. In this isolated "chamber" economy where the power of inflation was subdued because of the gold and silver standard, there was a certain uniformity to the events that could imperil American industry. The fact that American industry pretty much consisted of capital goods, railroads and utilities, with some significant retail, shipping and financial players, also suggested a certain "sameness" in the prospects for all of these companies. With the majority of their horizons bound by the continent and a single standard for money, issues like inflation, free trade and distinctly different markets did not enter into the vocabulary. Of course all the stocks in the market---still fewer than a couple hundred---acted in unison in reaction to various stimuli.
Today we have a massive influx of new investors at a time of great discontinuity with the world described above. The advent of the consumer, service, information and technology-based capital goods markets, in tandem with an expansion and differentiation of financial services, health-care, retail and durable goods concerns, has created an explosion of public companies---9,000 and growing the last time I counted. Rather than being confronted with one fairly limited market (the Eastern United States) and uniform financial conditions (a single gold or silver standard, low interest rates, periods of deflation due to the aforementioned precious metal standards), companies today operate instead in distinct international markets and face a plethora of monetary policies. Additionally, there is the benefit that many barriers to international trade have come down over the past 100 years.
Does the stock market as a whole still serve as a proxy for the economy of the United States? With the vast majority of the Standard & Poors 500 now classified as "multinationals", and with many of them doing the majority of their business overseas, I do not believe this to be the case. More and more American markets have become a proxy for the *world*, with extreme differentiation among various industries and their respective prospects. This is more than the game of "sector rotation" played by Wall Street wizards---this is reality. Witness the expansion of capital-intensive cyclical and durable goods companies at the beginning of an economic cycle and the transition toward hurried growth by consumer and financial companies toward the end, with the makers of non-durable goods holding the line and in fact growing during times of economic distress. Contemporaneously with the cycles of the North American market, all of the companies are serving growing overseas companies moving directly from the agrarian age to the post-industrial information economy.
Where is the logical case to be made for the market acting as a single unified entity divorced from the individual companies that make it up? No longer is there uniformity among public companies and a domination by certain industries. Even the Standard & Poors 500, created in the last half of this century, is far overweighted in financials and utilities (100 of the 400 slots) and is drastically underweighted in any market that has opened in the last 30 years (including so-called "technology" companies as well as concept retail, services and entertainment companies). Certainly the technicians have a stake in making the public believe that the market still acts en masse, in a uniform manner---otherwise they are out of their jobs and their collective wisdom amounts to nothing. But how long will it be before their attitudes start resembling historical oddities like the "gold standard"---a fixture that invokes the Luddite "flat earth" for many of the new school?
What emerges here is an argument for historical development that shatters the either/or psychology undergirding the current debate. A glance at emerging markets in Central America or Southeast Asia reveals markets that have that same herd-like texture the United States lost a few decades back. As the North American economy has developed into a more and more differentiated organism, whose health depends on the world as much as it does on its ancestral home, one sector can suffer cataclysm without detriment to the whole, much like a person can lose a limb and function normally. Market watchers who look overseas for verification of the "stock market" hypothesis are simply looking backwards in time---the verification by historical proof and concurrent international proof amount to the same proof if one accepts a developmental model.
To wit, there is no stock market like the American stock market. None. Nada. Zip. Not even the German or Japanese markets compare. The decided lack of entrepreneurial companies that exemplify the American experience proves this. Germany and Japan are as dominated by a few big companies as Wall Street in the 1920s. As go Hitachi, Toyota, Seimens and Volkswagen, so go those markets. By contrast, a huge concern like Westinghouse can disappear from the industrial complex overnight with one giant media acquisition and a subsequent series of divestitures, and no one even notices. Imagine for a moment what would happen if Sony tried such a feat (the divestiture part, as we know they made a miserable attempt at the media giant a few years back with the acquisition of MCA).
Wall Street has a vested interest in making you believe the market behaves in a unified way. From this springs a complex industry of stock and bond allocations, sector rotation and empty-headed economic prognostication. The core assumption that holds together technical analysis is that investor psychology is the glue that holds together the mass market---a premise which disappears once investors stop believing in it.
The crux here is whether the old-line beliefs will prevail, with a massive influx of new investors behaving as in prior eras, swayed by the "stock market" hypothesis to the detriment of the "market of stocks" approach. The story goes that this event will be predicated by some seminal break in the market reminiscent of the 1930s or the early 1970s and then we will have a giant "bear" that will swallow all of the "bull" gains of the '80s. In my opinion, though, a more international, increasingly more diversified group of public companies will deny these "positivists" their victory. Given the low American savings rate and increasing anxiety about retirement, there is plenty of buying power to support companies executing well in a time of global expansion. Thus, a river of capital will flow into the markets from investors who have been inculcated with a long-term outlook by the patron saints of investing, Buffett and Lynch, and do not easily see the road back to 2.5% savings account. When faced with the prospect of either watching their dollars die slowly over time in inflation's abattoir or seeing the ebb and tide of their own funds or portfolio, I think that enough will chose the latter path to make a market break like 1929 almost constitutionally impossible. Much like a flu can kill an infant but will only weaken an adult, so are recessions to today's stock market.
The dire congregation of opinion-sellers and market timers who would like you to believe otherwise have a great deal at stake---the newsletter cottage-industry that has grown into a multi-billion dollar affair will not go gently into that good night. Even now, entrenched "bears" rage against the dying of bull/bear market light, drowned out by the torrent of new funds from all classes of Americans. The era of bull and bear markets and of a monolithic "stock market" moving as a unified creation has ended, killed by the inevitable evolution of history and its own growth and differentiation. A species once hanging near the edge of perpetual extinction is now much harder to wipe out, like the early days of an infestation. Are things really "different" this time? Yes, but in a way none to date have fully considered. It is not that the "bull" market can go on forever, but that the very idea of a "bull" market is now an historical anachronism, like "fainting spells" or "the vapors".
Tomorrow---Technophrenia 1: Micron: A Moral Fable
ANOTHER FOOLISH THING: The Weekly Fool on Paper
For those among you who prefer paper and staples to chips and bytes, The Weekly Fool is now available in a paper format. Ideal for Fools on the run, The Weekly Fool is a compilation of the week's happenings. If you don't have time to scour every corner of Fooldom, yet you want to stay in the loop---sign up! This paper version is also an ideal gift for your friends or relatives who have Foolish inclinations but no Foolish technology. Share this unique newsletter with them, and help them learn about sound investing principles and strategies as well as potential stock picks. To subscribe, for more information, or for a sample copy, contact MF Numbers ([email protected] or 800-717-0701).
Byline: Randy Befumo (MF Templar)
FOOL's TAKE - ONE FOOL'S OPINION
**NOTE: A Fool Take represents the opinion of one Fool and in no way should be taken as the opinion of either the Motley Fool, Inc., the company in question or representative of anyone or anything else other than that specific Fool's thoughts.
(FOOL EQUITY RESEARCH)
By Randy Befumo (MF Templar)
ALEXANDRIA, Va., Mar. 25/FOOLWIRE/ --- Investors became wary of so-called "technology" stocks today after published reports in a number of sources questioned whether or not corporations would accelerate buying personal computers and related equipment as the year matured. Some economists and commentators are now beginning to suggest that the sluggishness we have seen in the past few months may be more than an inventory correction but actual presage a dramatic slowdown in these markets. There as never been a question about whether or not computer sales would slow down this year -- the only queries on the mouths of bulls and bears alike has been "How much?" and "How soon?"
Computer Intelligence InfoCorp. came out with numbers that suggested only a 12% increase in unit sales in 1996, compared to 22% in 1995, on a 9.3% increase in revenues compared with a 27.5% last year. These numbers alone highlight the dramaticly reversed situation that the computer industry confronts -- slowing sales and falling margins after a year of booming sales and exploding margins. Much of this was driven by corporate buyers, the core market for PC sales that supports the razor-thin margins on highly competitive consumer PCs. This market, however, has been holding back: Trade publication Computer Reseller News is only looking for a 5% to 7% expansion in corporate buying in the first half of 1996, compared to 33% in 1995.
Gloomy forecasts from Digital Equipment <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(NYSE: DEC)") else Response.Write("(NYSE: DEC)") end if %> and Compaq Computer <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(NYSE: CPQ)") else Response.Write("(NYSE: CPQ)") end if %> support the anecdotal evidence of weakness that the Journal reported on today. The tone of the corporate market has changed from buy indiscriminately situation to a "Let's find an application for this first" scenario. Perhaps all those machines sitting on desks in company enclaves gathering dust have brought a new sobriety to chief information officers who now look at the global capital spending budget for their business before buying more PCs. Richard Rippe of Prudential Securities sees a 4.8% increase in overall capital spending in the first half of 1996, down from 9.8% and 9.9% in 1994 and 1995 -- with gains in both those years driven by huge expenditures for computers.
The consensus opinion up until recently has been that the operating system transition from Microsoft has thrown off the normal capital spending cycle. Companies are typically the last to adopt any new standard and the conventional wisdom has been that once WindowsNT 4.0 (which has the same look and feel of Windows95) is released, corporate buyers will decide which OS they want to use and start buying PCs again. The ebb of the capital spending budget contravenes this notion, suggesting that corporate buyers will not be returning in force for the third year in a row.
The performance edge offered by a Pentium to the average desktop user over the x486 is simply not of the same degree as what could be gained in the leap from the x386 to the x486. Add to this that Windows95 remains in many ways a facelift for Windows 3.1 for the end user (despite the inherent advantage of a 32 bit OS) and that they can get all the word processing and spreadsheet performance they want from Windows 3.1 and you can see why there is no great rush to replace computers bought last year.
After bashing the prospects for corporate computer buying, however, I do see a few rays of hope. First and foremost, the Digital World changes the dynamic. The "killer application" that will drive users towards NT and '95 that many fail to appreciate, however, are that both operating systems inherent enable the user to get digital. From the fact that TCP-IP staking is built in to the presence of preloaded online services and internet access software, the speed of processing the Pentium offers will be quite helpful to companies looking to build out Intranets. Of course, x486 units with Windows 3.1 are more that sufficient, but '95/NT 4.0 make this seemless. A killer application is always required to drive corporate information officers to replace computers. Finally, the expansion of networking and application specific semiconductors to the telcommunications industry in addition to the healthcare and medical equipment sectors also expands the range for many of the companies that got whacked today.
Although personal computer companies may see some rough quarters ahead, many of the networking equipment and specific semiconductor and semiconductor equipment stocks that have gotten beaten up have a decent chance of recovering in the coming weeks and months when they post solid earnings. As to which ones these are right now, I am not quite so sure, but I do think that Cisco Systems <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(NASDAQ: CSCO)") else Response.Write("(NASDAQ: CSCO)") end if %> and Cabletron <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(NYSE: CS)") else Response.Write("(NYSE: CS)") end if %> have better days ahead.
* A Fool Take represents the opinion of one Fool and in no way should be taken as the opinion of either the Motley Fool, Inc., the company in question or representative of anyone or anything else other than that specific Fool's thoughts.