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: Xpiderman who wrote (96409)	1/15/2000 11:29:00 AM
From: Process Boy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

X - The squeeze got your shorts in a bind there buddy? :-) It was a good solid Q operationally X. Operational earnings range between .061 and 0.65. You and Peck should go console yourselves over a beer somewhere. Message 12573971 A Tale of Intel By James J. Cramer 1/14/00 12:08 PM ET Click here for the latest filings from James J. Cramer. So Intel (INTC:Nasdaq - news) went to 100. How did it happen? Was it the earnings? Was it the psychology behind it? Was it some new catalyst? First, it turns out that despite how much we talk about it, Intel was "underowned." That means funds did not have enough Intel relative to other stocks, notably stocks in the S&P 500. They had to come in and buy after this quarter, simply because it was pretty darn good and the stuff that they own is more expensive than Intel, but may not be better! Second, the stock was heavily shorted, as people simply didn't believe that Intel could put it together so huge that it could really run. Intel, until this year, has always been hampered by its lack of a huge multiple. But in an era where many stocks sell at a higher multiple to revenues than Intel sells as a multiple to earnings, the conventional wisdom coalesced to say Intel should be revalued upward. That revaluation is happening before our eyes. The revaluation also squeezed the shorts who thought the only thing that would matter would be the earnings number that printed. Some of them are still fighting a rear-guard action to minimize the posted earnings, claiming that it was inflated by Intel's brilliant cash management and its gains on investments. But in an era where CMGI (CMGI:Nadaq - news) trades at a $50 billion market cap because of those kinds of investments, it seems a little silly to expect that Intel will be penalized for its incubation profits. Finally, Intel trades on expectations and the guidance from this company was extraordinarily bullish this time around. These folks see their stock as beginning to reflect the investments made in communications and understand that the growth for Intel will no longer be bound by personal computer growth. Their enthusiasm infected the marketplace the way Jeff Berkowitz's flu infected me! Like lightening. That's how Intel traded to 100. And more. PB

To: Xpiderman who wrote (96409)	1/15/2000 5:48:00 PM
From: Process Boy	Respond to of 186894

X - ref: My earlier post; uh oh. Your profile says you are very long INTC. If you are, I apologize for the short comment. It might help to put a little commentary with articles that you post, so folks know what your position is. Do you think Intel did anything wrong with the way it reported its earnings? PB

To: Xpiderman who wrote (96409)	1/16/2000 10:15:00 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

-X,>>>About four pennies of that 69 cents came from a much-larger-than-expected gain on the sale of securities during the quarter. <<< That is one side of the equation, but on the other side of the equation according to Jules Garfunkel, Message 12566552 There are the "High cost for amortization of acquisition's Good Will taken this quarter as an expense. This would have made earning's numbers for Q4 even better than reported... However, best of all, R & D was up almost 30% for the quarter vs a year ago Q4. If R & D remained as a constant percentage increase, earnings numbers would be even much higher. Also forward looking statement for this year's margins are going to be up 1 to 2 points for 2000 over 1999.<<< That is the complexity of modern accounting. There are debits and there are credits. You have to look at both sides of the equation to get a full picture. Any shill can come along and look at only one side of the equation and paint the picture they would like you to see. You have to look at the complete picture to get any accurate view of the situation. Mary