Gary, <<<I don't think there is such a history unless you count in those better than expected as inaccurate as well.>>>
Yes, of course, that depends on how you define accuracy. Intel likes to play the plus or minus deal. They must think they get style points or that that gives them more credibility for honesty.
I think they are just goofy. I think that when you are a world class company, when you are suppose to be in the top ten in every category of managment, you should be in control of your own destiny. You should be able to forecast your sales and plan your production at least for the next two or three months.
Internally, you are at least prepared for a best case and worst case scenario. This is not to say that you could always satisfy these various scenarios, but at least you aren't totally shocked by it.
Outwardly, however, you are always a penny or two better than expected. Sometimes you can't hide the better than expected results and you have to make some credible excuses.
In recent years, MSFT, CSCO, AOL, and in the old economy Coca Cola under Roberto Gozueta very consistently came in a penny or two better than expectations quarter after quarter.
I just think Intel refuses to play this game for some goofy reasons (if they have any reason for it).
Mary |
