re: Ciena Shows More Revenue, More LossI think the idea is that products from new acquisition (catena, wavesmith, etc..) have margins much better than 26%. Thus, it should take less revenue increase to break even.
re: Ciena Shows More Revenue, More LossIt is amusing to read, yet again, on the subject of imaginary revenu from this company.
When losses and revenues increase in tandem, it is usually an indication that these sales are the product of some form of give away. A "program" they are usually called. The result is the same, no real revenue.
In regard to their acquisitions again allegedly contributing to the bottom line, with revenues coming "on-stream", maybe these folks should just say no.
Higher margin products? This is another joke.
What would be interesting is to find out what the nature of that write down was last quarter. Did Ciena finally confess that those real winners they bought are write-offs? $370M in write downs, and everything is fine in this company? HelloooOOOOoooo?
The last piece of humor came in the form of the Goldman Sachs endorsement. Didn't these folks invest in the recent acquisitions? Are US regulators asleep again?
What are you not articulating? The inventory has proven to be convertible to loss. There is potential for a couple of jokes, that's about it.
Whatever money they are not burning through at a prodigious rate, works out to be worth one last major acquisition. Given the historical trend, this would only hasten the inevitable. Have they run out of "old boys" that need a golden parachute yet?
Although it is optimistic to expect that regulators sporting seeing eye dogs will land on this, somebody is attempting to show that they have a clue, that reality has not passed them by:
Given these elements, a possible best scenario for shareholders is liquidation. The alternative is this sad downward spiral that only fattens the retirement fund for management.
The only strategy this company seems to have is divine intervention.
re: Ciena Shows More Revenue, More LossI think the $64,000 question here ($640m question?) is, how much of this quarter's business was from the DISA contract, and how low were the margins on that. The point of having the answer to that being, then we could factor that revenue out -- we've known for over two years that Ciena discounted around 90% in the futile hope of landing the crossconnect deal too -- and have a better idea of what their margins are running with everyone else. TO me it is clear from the timing & the conference call commentary about product mix that DISA long haul sales represent one of the two > 10% customers. Does anyone know any finer rev breakdowns, or have any ideas on how to make an educated guess at this? I don't.
I can't say anything muc on the plant closure rumour, except that it would seem odd to announce that any time soon after they just did an investment conference presentation friday (on the other hand, maybe it was feedback there that spurred it).
Since their inception in 1992, they have lost more than 4 Billion dollars (retained earnings). Do you need any more than that?
IronCCIE
When losses and revenues increase in tandem, it is usually an indication that these sales are the product of some form of give away. A "program" they are usually called. The result is the same, no real revenue.
In regard to their acquisitions again allegedly contributing to the bottom line, with revenues coming "on-stream", maybe these folks should just say no.
Higher margin products? This is another joke.
What would be interesting is to find out what the nature of that write down was last quarter. Did Ciena finally confess that those real winners they bought are write-offs? $370M in write downs, and everything is fine in this company? HelloooOOOOoooo?
The last piece of humor came in the form of the Goldman Sachs endorsement. Didn't these folks invest in the recent acquisitions? Are US regulators asleep again?
What are you not articulating? The inventory has proven to be convertible to loss. There is potential for a couple of jokes, that's about it.
Whatever money they are not burning through at a prodigious rate, works out to be worth one last major acquisition. Given the historical trend, this would only hasten the inevitable. Have they run out of "old boys" that need a golden parachute yet?
Although it is optimistic to expect that regulators sporting seeing eye dogs will land on this, somebody is attempting to show that they have a clue, that reality has not passed them by:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne...
Too bad they are four years late.
Given these elements, a possible best scenario for shareholders is liquidation. The alternative is this sad downward spiral that only fattens the retirement fund for management.
The only strategy this company seems to have is divine intervention.
I can't say anything muc on the plant closure rumour, except that it would seem odd to announce that any time soon after they just did an investment conference presentation friday (on the other hand, maybe it was feedback there that spurred it).