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: PaperChase who wrote (64586)	7/14/1999 6:34:00 PM
From: Lucretius	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

i agree completely. I don't even know why people bother to read earnngs releases anymore.... who cares? if it is in an index and is a four letter symbol.... BUT IT..period. ho ho.. revenues, earnings... who gives a rat's arse

To: PaperChase who wrote (64586)	7/14/1999 7:45:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

>>And when Dell reports we'll again see how you and MB are mistakenly judging the leaders (Dell, GTW, INTC, MU) by the problems of tomorrow's shake-out losers. << pc, you might want to wait until mu makes a buck before calling them a leader. i know, i know, who wants to wait that long! ;-)

To: PaperChase who wrote (64586)	7/15/1999 1:56:00 AM
From: Simba	Respond to of 132070

Mr. PaperChase: See my earlier post. While it is true INTEL is a great tech company and surely makes profits unlike most Internuts the fact is INTC has been having problems in EPS growth lately. When its EPS has grown by 30% from 1996 to 1999 (not year over year), i.e. at 10% per year non-compounded growth its price has gone up by 300 % in the same period. Not great for a tech leader. Dan Niles is correct on this one. INTC has to ramp up EPS growth from here to keep its current price stable leave alone price appreciation.

To: PaperChase who wrote (64586)	7/15/1999 8:21:00 PM
From: Earlie	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 132070

PC: Are we looking at the same numbers? I'm looking at Intel's numbers as we speak, and no matter how you chose to cut them, they are exactly what I called them, a mess. Let's start with inventories,...do you like to see inventories rising (on top of last quarter's rise) even as prices fall? Does this not suggest a small problem to you? AMD has kicked Intel's butt, particularly at the bottom of the PC market (which is where all the action is), and AMD also has a ton of unsold product this quarter. Hmmm,....both major competitors up the ying yang in inventories, even as demand slows dramatically. Nothing to worry about? To me, this is simply unsustainable. Take a look at about twelve quarters worth of Intel's numbers and tell me what trend you see. I can understand the market paying a growth multiple for a growth company, but growth is no longer in Intel's vocabulary. It will surprise you how far back you can go and see similar or better quarterly revenues,...... and those past revenues were micro sales, not internut windfall stock sales. Even the bullish analysts were shocked by the revenue shortfall this quarter (between $150.0 million to $250.0 million below what the analysts expected,.....and guess where the analysts got those expectations from?). Even the unit sales were a disappointment. Unit sales were expected to be up 20%. Not. While Intel brass talk about "seasonality" as the cause of the declining revenues, I posted numbers on this thread several months ago that showed that this so-called seasonality is a very new thing for Intel. It didn't happen in the past. And what is your comment about the $400.0 million "anomaly" in this current quarter's numbers? Is Intel pulling a bit of accounting chicanery? If you think not, please suggest an alternative idea. $400.0 million is not chicken feed, even for so august a company as Intel. I find it interesting that this type of thing shows up just as the declining revenue situation starts to rear its ugly head. And I suppose you do not have any concerns that Intel is already talking the analysts down for Q3 (from $0.58 to $0.52). I wonder where the estimate will be by the time we actually get the numbers? AMD will debut the K7 in the next few weeks. It may well be a "Pentium killer" and, if delivered in quantity, will ravage Intel's high margin server sales. No worries? I note that Intel has been forced to announce delays to the release of certain of its new micros this past year, which does not bode well given the K7 situation. Q3 revs will be "flat". They said the same thing last quarter. I need an update on the meaning of the word "flat". Although the analysts chose to interpret the phrase "we are looking forward to a strong second half" in a positive manner, those words could mean just about anything. What was missing was ANY RATIONALE for such a consideration. If you can illuminate any reasons for such optimism, I'm all ears. I think it is nothing short of outright baloney. Half the year is over and it has been a downhill slide. Absolutely nothing out there suggests anything other than more of the same. In the end, Intel has to SELL those chips to somebody, and there are just not enough buyers around to soak up all the micros being produced. Any concerns about the erosion of assets (and this in a "growth company")? I won't even bother to bring up the fact that Intel was reduced to cannibalizing its top products just to keep from being eaten alive by AMD, but it ought to worry you, particularly given these numbers. I could go on much more, but you get my drift. It gets to me when investors stick their heads in the sand, and then say "everything is still beautiful". Intel is heading for a disaster, and this ought to be moer thasn apparent in these numbers. Earlie