Mare, re: It's almost incceivable that INTC has lost almost 20% of its value based on nothing more than opinion (Kumar and AMD thread) and rumor (Bearke thread).
Either way, it doesn't make any sense.
The old 'stock got ahead of itself'?
To add to John's reiteration of the guidance given in the 2Q report and/or the conference call, last week, Intel's Tom Beerman was quoted by the SJ Merc that the quarter remains strong and Intel is not changing their guidance for the quarter.
The disturbing thing about the Montgomery call, as I heard it described by David Faber ("the Brain") on CNBC, was that the analyst said Intel isn't executing. We know that, and now it's getting to be common knowledge. Intel has to correct this. I saw IBM turn it around. Apple and Oracle also come to mind. Barrett probably does need to do some hard appraising, as Paul says.
Intel must have middle - upper management rank people that should be looked at very closely to replace, e.g. Dr. Yu, if he was directly responsible for so many of the foulups. About him, does he go to project reviews, at least monthly or something? Does he ask the tough questions? Or does he sit in his office rich with his Intel stock. I've seen a chairman of the board at another company go to weekly reliability meetings, and ask the best and toughest questions there. Nothing should be beneath the top guys at Intel right now. Get out to the lab and look over a shoulder at a logic analyzer. If they think that would be getting in the way, at least read the log book daily. All these things make the troops more careful and thorough in their engineering development and verification, etc.
How DID the 1.13 GHz PIII get through?
Intel has, or had, the biggest lead since the Yankees, what, 20+ game lead over Boston in 1998? Can they blow it?
Tony |
