Jan, here you go.
Wrong! Rear Echelon
Revelations: Cramer on Why
Kurlak Got It Right
By James J. Cramer
5/21/98 7:57 AM ET
People who believe that semiconductor stocks are
icons worth worshipping should not read another
word of this column. I cannot guarantee you
cardiac unit reservations. People who believe that
Intel (INTC:Nasdaq) can only go up, click on
another article. People who insist that saying
something negative about tech is sacrilegious -- I
am talking true believers -- this is your last
exit before Armageddon. Enough warnings?
Okay, here it is: Tom Kurlak is right.
I told you to click elsewhere, didn't I!!!!?????
Although I have neither written about Tom nor
talked to him lately, I receive about three emails
a day, everyday, asking me to assassinate this
guy, if not in reality than in effigy.
No can do. I save the high explosive for guys who
lose me money, not make me money. Yesterday, when
Intel broke decisively below 80 -- at a time when
the Dow is near hitting a new high -- I had Tom to
thank for not letting me ride this one down. I
have owned a small position in Intel until May
option expiration, and have now even exited that.
But I had the big kahuna position on when Tom
downgraded the stock in the 90s, and while I
cursed and cursed that I left five points on the
table, I feel like he saved me 20.
Here I stick the boilerplate nod in: Intel is a
great company. It will come back. Even Tom thinks
that. But semiconductors have been terrible
performers ever since Tom underweighted them and I
am very glad I listened to him.
I've praised Tom before, as all of you who hate
hate hate him know. That's not the point of this
article. The point is that Tom didn't do this to
the stocks. He didn't cause the shortfall in
Analog Devices (ADI:NYSE) yesterday. He didn't put
the cautionary words in Intel's mouth. He's not
the reason why Micron (MU:NYSE) and Texan
(TXN:NYSE) are hurting. He just extrapolates and
predicts.
So before you press on my byline and start
hassling me about Kurlak, could you just remember
for once that he got it Right! And we need more
analysts who get it right and fewer who get it
wrong. Do you think it is easier for Tom to be
bearish than bullish? He happens to be a guy given
to optimism and enthusiasm, and, get this, the
only analyst besides two ex-Goldman tech guys that
my wife ever thought was any good. And she hated
everybody when she worked in the biz! Do you think
his investment bankers are happy he went negative
so all of those luscious deals could go the way of
the other firms? Tom went negative because, in
retrospect, it was time to get negative. He went
negative because it was Wrong to be positive.
That's good enough for me. |
