Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gnuman who wrote (64544)	7/14/1999 9:23:00 AM
From: gnuman	Respond to of 132070

Re: Previous my previous post. Obviously I meant to say 28.5 Billion

To: gnuman who wrote (64544)	7/14/1999 2:21:00 PM
From: PaperChase	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

Very nice post Gene. It at least proves the Intel is not a no growth company as MB infers. Since you have those numbers in front of you, perhaps you could show the EPS improvement over those years. The market is reacting to the EPS improvement on a 6 month Y-O-Y basis. I do realize that this number looks favorable due to weakness in the PC market last summer. But wait, if MB's thesis on the collapsing PC market was correct, Intel rev and eps should have gone down hill further since last summer, not improved. You would expect that if MB's views could be substantiated, Intel's eps would have been at best flat on a 6 month Y-O-Y basis. FYI, MU now up another $2+ . Oh, I hate it when I chicken out and take profits too soon. At least I take profits. Most passive investors refuse to take profits because of "tax implications". Yikes. Who cares about the tax hit in volatile tech stocks?