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: singletree who wrote (89248)	10/2/1999 10:34:00 AM
From: t2	Respond to of 186894

RE: Barron's article. A reporter writing what he thinks of Intel's business. That is interesting. I believe Intel's CEO delivers a keynote address on Tuesday at some conference (i think it was an internet conference). That means we could set up for one hell of a bounce back in the stock, assuming it goes down at all. I sure hopes he gets questioned by reporters of what thinks of Barrons conclusion. Going to be a fun week.

To: singletree who wrote (89248)	10/2/1999 10:40:00 AM
From: DAVID BANISTER	Respond to of 186894

MY take on the Barrons article is simple... The rumors of Intel's demise are once again greatly overexaggerated. End of story Long and Strong since july 95

To: singletree who wrote (89248)	10/2/1999 10:50:00 AM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

John - Thanks for posting the Bearon's article on Intel. Re: "And while Intel seems to have a clear strategy going forward, there is much that could go wrong. " At least they acknowledged Intel has a CLEAR STRATEGY. As far as "there is much that could go wrong. " - I don't regularly read the Bearon's trash rag, but I'll bet this phrase - or a variant thereof - appears in every article on every company they write about. Paul

To: singletree who wrote (89248)	10/2/1999 11:47:00 AM
From: Joseph Pareti	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Re . "Factoring in the current risk, the company's shares should probably trade at a P/E equal to 1.5 times the company's 17% pace of earnings growth. As noted earlier, that's somewhere south of 60. No matter how good Intel management and how bullish the prospects, anything above that is all fluff." i wonder what these guys would say about AMZN, YHOO, AOL if they applied the same formula and reasoning. Without too much maths THAT'S LOTTA FLUFF. My wild guess : Intc $60 Yhoo $5 AMZN $1.5 AOL $10

To: singletree who wrote (89248)	10/2/1999 2:43:00 PM
From: Bill Fischofer	Read Replies (7) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: Barron's Even by the low standards Barron's sets for their "let's help our short friends" mud-throwing efforts, today's INTC cover piece should be an embarrassment for the folks at parent Dow Jones. When vulgar analogies such as "demand for Intel's top-of-the-line Pentium chips faded faster than underwear at an orgy" passes for analysis, you know you're dealing with a rush-job that never saw an editor's desk before soiling the pages of what is supposed to be one of America's leading financial publications. Aside from its crude language, Palmer completely misses the obvious implications of his own reporting. The sub-$1000 PC was for INTC a wake-up call the same way the 1995 arrival of the Internet was for MSFT. And just as MSFT turned on a dime in response to its challenge, so did INTC. So successful was INTC in recapturing the low end of the PC market with its Celeron initiative that AMD's stock, after a brief rise from the mat last year, is back trading at 1983 levels and NSM, after having acquiring upstart Cyrix amid great fanfare, was forced to fold its PC processor tent altogether. Moreover, to ensure its ability to lead the low-end of future markets, INTC has invested significantly in the StrongARM technology it acquired from Digital. And INTC has aggressively established beachheads in the networking chip market through its Level One and related acquisitions making it clear that no high-growth area of chip technology is safe from INTC competition. Having demonstrated its ability to compete and win market share in the toughest of market segments and having built the world's most efficient semiconductor operation, Barron's would now have its readers imagine that it is INTC that should be worried about incumbents SUNW, HWP, and IBM as it trains its guns at the lush margins this trio has long enjoyed in the high-end server market. Indeed, Barron's acknowledges that the server market is growing at a torrid pace and that "...most agree that we are looking at a total chip server market which could quickly eclipse PCs in importance and size." Yet the best caveats Palmer can come up with are straw-man "what ifs" that amount to little more than the sort of boilerplate one expects to find in prospectuses: "Competition may prove stronger than expected", "The market may develop more slowly than anticipated", etc. The culmination of this patchwork of platitudes is an amazingly precise sub-60 target price which is curious given the large open-interest in INTC October 70, 65, and 60 puts. Readers can draw their own conclusions as to whose interest is being served by this piece, but investors would be wise to take advantage of the buying opportunity that Barron's is trying so hard to present this week.