Kurlak has an upper hand over Edelstone
Kurlak dryly notes that paying customers get the first word when Intel has become
''cheap.'' But in a published report last week on the overall semiconductor industry
-- of which Intel is the undisputed leader -- Kurlak made it fairly clear he's not
ready to call the turn.
''Growing dissatisfaction with (semiconductor) investments during downturns can
produce periods of undervaluation,'' he wrote. ''The cycle has not yet progressed to
that stage, in our opinion.''
For his part, San Francisco-based Edelstone isn't backing down. Even though he's
been recommending Intel since he arrived at Morgan Stanley last year, about $30
ago, he's maintaining his ''strong buy'' recommendation and $110 price target.
''We try not to jerk our ratings around if we can help it,'' he says, calling Tuesday
from Boston.
Edelstone acknowledges that the second quarter for Intel isn't working out as
planned and even allows that the company could pre-announce a disappointing
quarter. Noting that Intel told investors to expect second-quarter revenues to be
flat or slightly down from the first quarter, he says his ''channel checks'' suggest
that ''quarter-to-date sales clearly are not flat to down slightly.''
Edelstone still says the introduction of Windows98 software by Microsoft Corp.
(Nasdaq, MSFT) could spark demand for PCs. Ditto for price cuts Intel will
institute next week on two product lines.
''It's always darkest before dawn, and I think we're there,'' Edelstone says. ''I
think (the second quarter) is going to be the trough.''
STAFF URGES ANTITRUST COMPLAINT AGAINST INTEL
Mercury News Staff and Wire Reports
Intel Corp. on Tuesday said it will use every opportunity to persuade the U.S.
Federal Trade Commission to reject a staff recommendation for an antitrust
complaint.
The FTC's Bureau of Competition has notified the company that it is recommending
the five-member commission bring an administrative complaint, charging the
company with using its monopoly control over microprocessors and the informations
needed to use them to coerce its customers by illegally threatening to cut off the
flow of products and technical information to companies that would not share their
intellectual property. |
