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: Mary Cluney who wrote (109798)	9/13/2000 10:22:15 AM
From: GVTucker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Mary, RE: It's almost incceivable that INTC has lost almost 20% of its value based on nothing more than opinion (Kumar and AMD thread) and rumor (Bearke thread). Either way, it doesn't make any sense. It does if you buy my contention that at 75, the market was discounting better than expected results for both the 3Q and the 4Q. Under 65, the market is probably guessing an in line 3Q and a possible weak 4Q.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (109798)	9/13/2000 10:28:59 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Mary, Borrowed from the AMD thread: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 BofA downgrades INTC, AMD --9:54 am - By Tomi Kilgore Shares of Intel (INTC: news, msgs) are sliding $2.19 to $62.75 and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD: news, msgs) is giving up $1.13 to $29.38. Banc of America analyst Rick Whittington downgraded both chip makers to "market perform" ratings from "strong buys," citing supply issues. Nevertheless, the Phlx Semiconductor Index ($SOX: news, msgs) is gaining 1.1 percent, boosted by Rambus's (RMBS: news, msgs) 9.4 percent surge to 84 (see 9:24 item). I sure would like to see the details of this downgrade. All the recent reports have suggested that Intel's production of P3's has been good, and I haven't heard anything about microprocessor supply constraints for a while. There is more contrary information around right now than I ever remember. John

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (109798)	9/13/2000 10:44:23 AM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 186894

Mare, re: It's almost incceivable that INTC has lost almost 20% of its value based on nothing more than opinion (Kumar and AMD thread) and rumor (Bearke thread). Either way, it doesn't make any sense. The old 'stock got ahead of itself'? To add to John's reiteration of the guidance given in the 2Q report and/or the conference call, last week, Intel's Tom Beerman was quoted by the SJ Merc that the quarter remains strong and Intel is not changing their guidance for the quarter. The disturbing thing about the Montgomery call, as I heard it described by David Faber ("the Brain") on CNBC, was that the analyst said Intel isn't executing. We know that, and now it's getting to be common knowledge. Intel has to correct this. I saw IBM turn it around. Apple and Oracle also come to mind. Barrett probably does need to do some hard appraising, as Paul says. Intel must have middle - upper management rank people that should be looked at very closely to replace, e.g. Dr. Yu, if he was directly responsible for so many of the foulups. About him, does he go to project reviews, at least monthly or something? Does he ask the tough questions? Or does he sit in his office rich with his Intel stock. I've seen a chairman of the board at another company go to weekly reliability meetings, and ask the best and toughest questions there. Nothing should be beneath the top guys at Intel right now. Get out to the lab and look over a shoulder at a logic analyzer. If they think that would be getting in the way, at least read the log book daily. All these things make the troops more careful and thorough in their engineering development and verification, etc. How DID the 1.13 GHz PIII get through? Intel has, or had, the biggest lead since the Yankees, what, 20+ game lead over Boston in 1998? Can they blow it? Tony