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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Engel who wrote (88826)	9/24/1999 12:11:00 PM
From: GVTucker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul, RE: Isn't the 31M number - assuming it means 31 Million Processors - EXCEPTIONALLY LARGE for ne quarter's worth of processors ? I think you've hit upon the issue that Intel was facing when it's stock price was in the high 80's last week. People were starting to bandy about numbers that were in excess of 30mm processors for the quarter. Although that is still a doable number, it is highly ambitious. And to your credit, you were warning last week that the stock price seemed high in the upper 80's. BTW, I found it strange that Niles would use 'M' for million also.

To: Paul Engel who wrote (88826)	9/24/1999 12:12:00 PM
From: D.J.Smyth	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

"Isn't the 31M number - assuming it means 31 Million Processors - EXCEPTIONALLY LARGE for ne quarter's worth of processors ?" yes. it's all relative isn't it. generally 26 to 27, and still at 29 they're ahead of their game. they just stated that semi's are booming at a conference week and a half ago. Niles says so many things out of context. Why does he do this?

To: Paul Engel who wrote (88826)	9/24/1999 12:47:00 PM
From: Jules B. Garfunkel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul, Yesterday, INTC dropped 5+ points, attributed partially to Drew Peck's, of Cowen and Co. remarks that Intel could be adversely impacted by shortages in parts from Taiwan. In other words, Drew's fears were that Intel would not be able to meet demand, due to a shortage in supply, at a time of strong PC demand. Today, INTC is down another 4 1/2 points, attributed to Dan Niles, of RSBB, reporting a shortfall in demand of some 2M units, because of debookings. In other words not enough demand to meet supply. DOES ANYONE ELSE SEE AN INCONGRUETY HERE? If Dan is right, than Drew should have no concerns. If Drew is right, than Dan should have no concerns. But they both can not be right at the same time, and INTC shouldn't be selling off both days for these conflicting reasons. Consequently, I am buying Calls this morning based on these conflicting and irrational perceptions. Regards, Jules