SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Skeeter Bug who wrote (73394)1/12/2000 8:44:00 PM
From: Knighty Tin  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 132070
 
Skeets, Here is the source for the numbers: siliconinvestor.com Ultimately, the numbers came from Intel's reports, though not from the headlines on those reports. <g>



To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (73394)1/12/2000 8:47:00 PM
From: Fred Fahmy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 132070
 
Skeete,

For the record, my revenue figures are from S&P. My EPS figures are from Zack's (which exclude acquisition charges last year). Had I used S&P's EPS figures the growth rate would have been even higher.

Look for INTC's margins to once again be solid if not stellar, given the pricing environment. And this is despite all the hype over $1.99 PC's, a weak server market, and the mighty AMD <g>. These are the same margins that were suppose to come crashing down 4 or 5 quarters ago.

Of course the argument will be made that Intel stuffed the channels. Yup, I heard Gateway got stuck with tons of inventory <gg>.

FF



To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (73394)1/12/2000 9:02:00 PM
From: Knighty Tin  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 132070
 
Skeets, My numbers were the last year to year numbers. If Intel hits its 63 cents estimate this time, that means they will have growth eps by a little over 6%, not 6% a year, but 6% total, since 1997. I think that puts it in more perspective. However, the stock is a quadruple since then. <g>