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: dmf who wrote (109290)	9/5/2000 11:02:24 AM
From: kash johal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

dmf, re: intel guidance I suspect intels guidance had some expectations such as 1.13Ghz PIII's and 1GHZ PIII yields. As well as PIV for Q4. Intels yields at 1GHZ are sub 5% - let alone the 0.1% for 1.13Ghz. PIV looks like a dog. And there competitor is outproducing hi MHZ chips by 10:1. Bad execution coupled with AMDs stellar execution results in problems. But the facts don't matter. Time to load up on Intel. regards, Kash

To: dmf who wrote (109290)	9/5/2000 11:13:47 AM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 186894

dmf, re: If Intel's guidance is credible, how can Intel management let contrary statements go by without some comment? Hard to understand. Intel is probably selling puts today, which if exercised they will use to buy back shares. On one level at least it's in their best interest to see brief declines in the stock price. I suppose you could argue that it's ultimately good for the long term shareholder, though it's counter-intuitive. John

To: dmf who wrote (109290)	9/5/2000 11:19:28 AM
From: GVTucker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

dmf, RE: If Intel's guidance is credible, how can Intel management let contrary statements go by without some comment? Hard to understand. People have opinions that differ with Intel management all the time. If Intel responded to everyone with a contrary opinion, they'd be constantly responding. If Intel chose to respond only when someone else's comments only when they had a market impact, this would also open a can of worms. If Intel didn't comment when someone else had negative words, would they be tacitly endorsing those comments? The long standing Intel policy of giving detailed guidance, and then giving an update when actual operations deviated from that guidance, is a sound policy, and is the best policy for long term shareholders. As far as short term shareholders are concerned, there is no reason why they should be given any consideration, particularly at the expense of long term shareholders.