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 (95803)	1/12/2000 2:49:00 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 186894

Thread, here's how Intel will meet 0.63 estimate for Q4'99. Someplace today I read an analyst report saying he expected Intel to meet the 0.63 estimate excluding goodwill. What's interesting is that in Q4'98 Intel earned 0.595 *including goodwill. "Goodwill" is an accountants trick that lets you buy something that is worthless with real cash, but not count it as an immediate cost of doing business. Instead, the accountants let you act as if you bought the worthless goods on a time payment schedule over a long period of time (something like 10 to 40 years). Now what Intel did in Q3, is that they excluded even the piddling 30 year stretchout of acquisition costs from their press release numbers, but kept the charge to earnings in their official 10Q earnings report, because the SEC requires that acquisition costs must be included in earnings reports. The amount of "goodwill" in Q3'99 was exacly three and a half cents per share. It will surely be at least four cents for Q4'99. Know what that means? It means that if Intel reports earnings excluding acquisition costs* of 0.63 tomorrow afternoon, *their true earnings, as required by SEC rules, will be LESS THAN Q4'98!* *Way to go, Intel, FOUR IN A ROW.* Petz

To: Paul Engel who wrote (95803)	1/12/2000 3:07:00 PM
From: GVTucker	Respond to of 186894

Paul, RE: It sounds like your are saying there is "good" manipulation and "bad" manipulation. That is exactly what I am saying. 'Good' manipulation is when management is willing to tell you exactly where the numbers come from, and is willing to answer all questions about the assumptions inherent in those numbers. This 'good' manipulation is necessary because Wall St. unfortunately rewards it. 'Bad' manipulation occurs when management is trying to hide something. Usually in these circumstances, I am given the excuse, "Well, you would need to talk to the CFO (or Controller, Treasurer, President, whoever isn't available at the moment) to get that information. I'll forward you to his voice mail." What is especially comical (and also a good indicator of a good short sale candidate) is when I get forwarded in such a circle that I end up with the person I spoke with in the first place. An even better indicator is when, at that point, the company stops returning my phone calls.