greg - Re: "What do you think Intel did to make Kurlack turn on Intel"
Intel did nothing - but after Kurlak predicted Intel's stock would tumble from the low $70s/high $60s, Intel's stock zoomed to the high $80s.
I'm sure this was an absolute embarrassment to Kurlak in the eyes of his colleagues and employer.
He re-iterated his doomsday scenario on Intel a few days ago in order to move the stock lower, in an attempt to regain respectability as the guru of semiconductor stocks. Intel has dropped back only slightly to the mid-$80s.
By the way - when Micron's stock reached the low $30s a few weeks ago, Kurlak trashed MU saying the stock wasn't worth $20. Micron's stock proceeded into the high $30s, dropping back to the mid $30s today.
So what you have with Kurlak is a person who states his opinions in the hope sof moving the stock in the direction he indicates. When these stocks move in the opposite directions, it becomes clear that his opinion is largely ignored by the great majority of investors.
Once the earnings growth of Intel is self-evident (after Q2 98), Kurlak will adjust his opinion. As noted in the AMD/yield article, if the PC business keeps growing, PC manufactures will have to buy from whoever can make the product. Hence, Intel will be selling more CPUs than anticipated.
The basic problem with most analysts these days is that they don't analyze - they try to be PREDICTORS of stock performance over a very near/short term.
Have you ever seen or heard Kurlak talk about Intel's product portfolio, astounding yields, rapid ramp up of new fabs and new processes, new technology development plans including the 0.18 micron process, STrataFlash and 0.25 micron Flash processes, new product designs in R & D, additional market segment penetration such as networking and now graphics, the burgeoning high end SERVER business, the impending implications of KATMAI/MMX2 and the ultimate effect of MERCED/IA 64 architecture on the computing industry and Intel in particular?
No - Kurlak is focused only on simple, short term issues such as low end CPU pricing - ignoring Intel's consistent behavior which is to lower prices on existing basis while creating and producing higher performance devices with higher ASPs to offset lower prices on older products.
Did Kurlak acknowledge that Intel was DOMINANT in CPUs for sub $1000 PCs and that of AMD and Cyrix, the two champions of cheap COUs and Cheap PCS, only Intel was profitable the last two quarters and in Q4 profits and sales were EXPANDING?
Further, did Kurlak mention Intel's 0.25 micron process conversion which has allowed them to maintain profit margins while simultaneously lower prices? And do this WITHOUT stumbling into yield problems?
Answer - NO. Kurlak doesn't have the interest to address a large organization as Intel - he merely thinks they are "chip maker".
Re: "Paul have you read The Future of Capitalism by Lester Threau?"
No.
Paul |
