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: StockHawk who wrote (109448)	9/7/2000 4:02:25 PM
From: Burt Masnick	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re"Where there is smoke..." The problem is who lit the match to make the smoke. Analysts are not always unbiased scientific detached viewers of the scene. They are individuals who "work for a living". In practical terms that means that the analyst who is regarded as the "axe" on any of the top 500 securities earn much more than those who are not. An axe can move a security up or down merely with his/her pronouncements. Kurlak was the Merrill Lynch axe on Intel until it became obvious that he was dead wrong. Not slightly wrong or moderately wrong. Dead wrong. If you followed his advice you lost money. Big money. When his wrongness became the stuff of public laughter (effectively being called a dunderhead on Louis Rukeyser, public dressing down by Barrett at stockholders meeting) then his days at Merrill were numbered. The vacuum created by Kurlak's departure opened up the way to Drew Peck, Joe Osha, Niles, Edelstone and Kurlak to become the next axe. Kurlak has siezed the moment and maximized the visibility of his pronouncement. He will undoubtably do this again because it pays (him) to be visible with his comments. Kurlak did manage to make people a lot of money though. If they bought when he pole-axed intel's share prices, you did great if you held on for the ride. Trouble is still possible however. First of all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. He may have called attention to a real slowdown in the growth of the PC market. BUT if he is wrong a few times in a row, he'll wind up being publicly ridiculed (which always has consequences)because he will become another Joe Granville or Elaine Garzirelli. However, my observation is that analysts sometimes fail up, so they win in the end anyway. Do your own research, reach your own conclusion. Good investing to all, Burt

To: StockHawk who wrote (109448)	9/7/2000 4:08:46 PM
From: Bob Kim	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

>>In building a model you must start with what you know.<< You are making the assumption that there is a model. One of the analysts whose name used to be frequently referenced in this thread had pretty limited computer skills, much less spreadsheet skills.

To: StockHawk who wrote (109448)	9/8/2000 6:25:09 AM
From: Amy J	Respond to of 186894

Hi StockHawk, RE: "even if it seem to react to the short term. If the market is efficient, it should value a company based on its discounted future cash flows." A very valid, basic point. Btw, in my story, I was not talking about a one-time event being discounted into future CFs, but rather, about analysts who incorrectly assumed a one-time event was not a one-time event, but rather a permanent change in the market. i.e. faulty vision. Side note: how does the author discount emotions, incorrect assumptions, faulty logic/vision, or herd-mentality from future CFs? RE: "That is one explanation why the market reacts so violently to ...a downward earnings revision." The other explanation is faulty vision. RE: "Why does the market listen to an analyst like Kumar when he makes a downward revision? ...They are going against the grain, and investors should take notice." My story goes a bit deeper than that: it talked about how analysts can be 180 degrees incorrect, regardless of the grain. RE: "The market hates uncertainty and a negative pronostication breeds uncertainty." Very true, and that's where opportunity could be. Regards, Amy J