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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Petz who wrote (88057)	1/19/2000 12:25:00 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576465

Petz, I thought you might like to see this article from thestreet.com....its plays to your argument last week re Intel's earnings ____________________________________________________________ Intel: Can't Have It Both Ways By Herb Greenberg Senior Columnist 1/18/00 1:29 PM ET Terrible Tuesday Intel Intrigue: "All last week," Cramer wrote this morning, "I found myself defending the quality of Intel's (INTC:Nasdaq - news) earnings to various naysaying analysts and journalists." That would be me! In a column on Friday, and on "TheStreet.com" on Fox News Channel over the weekend, I questioned the "quality" of Intel's earnings because much of the amount over Wall Street's expectation came from Intel's sale of shares in other tech companies. This led to a heated exchange on the show between Cramer and me on whether an Intel investor is investing in a hedge fund or a chipmaking company. See Also Saluting Intel's Foresight Cramer's column today, Saluting Intel's Foresight, responded by saying: "Most of the journalists out there are too lazy to read the fine print, but Intel has been coining money selling puts against its stock for years and nobody these days seems too perturbed about counting that income." Maybe so, but the money Intel was coining from selling puts against its stock was more like a rounding error (the tens of millions in any given quarter) when compared with the $327 million Intel reaped last quarter from its investment profits. Herb's Latest: Join the discussion on TSC Message Boards . The point, according to those flying the cautionary flag, is that Intel can't have it both ways. Nobody is disputing that Intel isn't pouring tons of money into research and development in an effort to make a great company even greater. (That is, if all goes well.) What is being disputed is the quality of the earnings Intel used to beat estimates. Sure, Intel gets credit for the company it's trying to build. But the issue here is that Wall Street has created a game of quarterly expectations, and when you break down the numbers, the quality of Intel's earnings -- by that I mean the amount by which it beat the Street's expectations -- was mediocre, at best. What's more, if Intel is now as much an investment fund as it is a chip company, then investors had better brace themselves for the possibility of the flip side: If tech stocks ever tumble, there may not be enough gains (apropos to Intel's guidance) to help out Intel's earnings. And that could result in an earnings miss! And the lower Intel's earnings go -- well, it's the bellwether, so you figure it out.