GV,
re: "Using inappropriate accounting is against the law... Yes, that would be libelous and it would be within my rights to legally challenge your statement."
Reread the definition of libel. A libelous statement isn't about legal, it's about defamation of character. I think the accusation of lying to the public might qualify.
re: And I think that it is entirely plausible that Osha thinks that Intel management is mistaken in its belief that it has gained market share.
Nothing to do with market share. It has to do with the accusation of stuffing the channel, a inefficient and deceptive business practice, which Intel has specifically denied.
re: Here's the closest that I can get to your implication that Osha believes that Intel is stuffing the channel: "..."
Another quote from the same report:
"Our analysis published prior to Intel's mid-quarter update suggested that Intel may be allowing inventory levels at its customers and contract manufacturers to build."
"May be allowing" is a euphemism for promoting the build of inventory. What is Intel supposed to do, take a physical inventory at a distributor, and say "sorry, we won't ship" because they have too much product?
Bottom line, GV, I think Osha's comments were very inappropriate at best, accusing a company of a deceptive business practice and lying about it. He could have easily said "I think the distributors have over-ordered, and Intel may be over-estimating end demand, and Intel's business will suffer going forward", the same effect but not malicious. Instead he chose to attack the credibility of the company and it's CFO.
Proving libel in court is notoriously difficult, it's not going to happen. It would be nice if analysts had someone to answer to for their irresponsible statements.
John |
