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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RealMuLan who wrote (73790)	1/16/2000 12:40:00 PM
From: Knighty Tin	Respond to of 132070

YZ, Hey, long time no hear from. There is no way an honest, competent analyst could come up with any conclusion other than that Intel had a lousy quarter and faked the numbers with a sharp pencil. My main problem is not in reporting the hedge fund, or, probably more appropriately, the sector fund, gains, though they should certainly not be in the headline number. My main problem is the rhetoric in the text of the report where they talked about how great the chip business was, when operating revenues and profits were down year over year. That is just flat out misdirection, and, if we are calling a spade a spade, lying. I know they have to put on a brave facade for the dud Coppermine chips, but that should be in the marketing effort, where stretching or misstating the truth is more acceptable, not in an earnings report. The good news is that the computer sector went up on Intel's report and everything they reported looked extremely sucky for computer cos. So, they gave us some chances to buy puts on stocks where the prices are not in the least representative of the disaster in the business. I wonder about a situation where so many analysts know that Intel scammed the public, but "do not wish to be named." That would be even more scary if these guys were halfway smart in the first place. <g>