SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Hightechhooper who wrote (120953)12/6/2000 5:47:08 PM
From: The Duke of URLĀ©  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 186894
 
Nice Find. Thanks.

Gravamen?

"...What happens next month is more difficult for me to forecast and that's quite often an impact of what the analysts say and what people like yourself say and what the newspapers say about our prospects. But long term, we're still very bullish about the future for our company. ..."



To: Hightechhooper who wrote (120953)12/6/2000 5:49:13 PM
From: Hightechhooper  Respond to of 186894
 
CRAIG BARRETT: Well, actually, our stock has dropped even more than that. It's at about a 52-week low and it's probably down about 50% from where it was. And I actually think it's a buy at that price. What we're doing to insure our investors of our future is what we've always done, which is to introduce great new products, show that we're a growth company and be a technology leader. I don't know what else to do besides that.

This is a typcially operations guy response. If INTC can create perceived value through branding of its products why can't it create similar value by marketing the company? I think Craig's view comes from an efficient market hypothesis view which implies there is nothing he can control. All I can tell him is look at SUNW....



To: Hightechhooper who wrote (120953)12/6/2000 11:10:51 PM
From: Amy J  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 186894
 
Hi Hightechhooper, regarding Barrett's comment, "What happens next month is more difficult for me to forecast", too bad Barrett did not admit that back in July.

He shouldn't have gone around loosely saying "strong demand" back then, without clarifying he meant "long-term" demand.

But I'm glad Barrett is finally beginning to articulate this distinction between LT and ST demand, and now makes it clear he's talking about LT demand.

Regards,
Amy J