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: geekland who wrote (95434)	1/8/2000 11:41:00 AM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Does anyone know if the so-called "QUIET PERIOD" is mandatory regarding earnings? When LU shocked everyone earnings-wise I noticed that CSCO and a few others scrambled to reaffirm their projections and reassure the investing masses. However, INTC did NOT do so and instead made reference to the "QUIET PERIOD" as the reason. Cisco, for one, reports in February, so they are not in any quiet period yet. Microsoft did come out and say they were NOT changing their guidance (should be fine) when a shortfall rumor was started by shorters, or others that wanted MSFT to go down. They do report in January, so were supposedly in a quiet period. HOWEVER, THAT WAS A DELIBERATELY SET INCORRECT REPORT THAT THEY WOULD NOT MAKE THEIR QUARTER, SO THEY FELT OBLIGED TO SET IT STRAIGHT. I think it was GV Tucker that said that quiet periods are self imposed, so you can do what you want if someone is trying to trash you. Now, you may say that Gateway was trying to trash Intel when they threw up all over the table. However, nothing in the Gateway report said, or implied that Intel would not make their quarter. Intel has said all along that they were meeting committed orders, but not orders above and beyond that. Apparently, GTW wanted above and beyond parts. Intel took the conservative way out, and the quiet period, and said nothing. If it were worse than Intel "just being able to meet orders", they would have changed guidance. Maybe they were conservative in taking the quiet period stance, but if you know Intel, they always err on the side of being conservative. Bottom line to me: the posters here that do the most and best analyzing, and have the most credibility to me, have said they think Intel's Q is going to be fine. I agree with that, find out Thursday. Tony

To: geekland who wrote (95434)	1/9/2000 6:19:00 AM
From: JDN	Respond to of 186894

Dear Geekland: Any accurate info regarding "quiet periods" would be appreciated I am a retired cpa with many years experience dealing in SEC matters. IMHO companies routinely ABUSE the so-called Quiet Period rules. Basically ANY material development is supposed to be reported via form 8-k at any time. There is no exception to this rule that I know of, the problem is NOONE has ever defined the word MATERIAL to a legal justification. So, it boils down to what a company FEELS is material. Personally, I dont think a company chiming in I'M OK would be considered Material so I cant fault INTC reticience in this specific matter. Having owned INTC for a long time I personally feel and bet other long termers agree with me, that knowing INTC as we do they are very unlikely to SURPRISE us on the downside. They are better at warning of problems than issuing hand holding comments IMHO. JDN