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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (36142)	4/17/2001 6:38:21 PM
From: AK2004	Respond to of 275872

John I am not taking 16 cents away from intel. I was just a bit shocked when I saw operating profits for this year vs last. Sure looked like a steady growth of at least 20% per year.... Regards -Albert

To: Road Walker who wrote (36142)	4/17/2001 7:57:20 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

JF, and you seem to have missed the facts that 1)Intel's book value per share actually dropped in Q1 - how do you do that if you have a profit?, 2)Intel would not have beat estimates without higher "miscellaneous income" achieved by: ** Gains on equity investments and interest and other were $264 million in the first quarter, higher than previous expectations of $180 million. Interest and other includes a $45 million pre-tax gain from adopting the Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 133 on accounting for derivatives and hedging. This gain is primarily due to the mark-to-market of Intel Capital equity derivatives. With the adoption, approximately $1.4 billion of investments were reclassified to trading assets, primarily from short-term investments. In other words, to "beat the street," Intel found FAS Rule #133 could serve their purpose admirably. Do you think this rule did not exist when Intel warned? Or is it something they kept under their sleeve in case they needed it to meet earnings estimates? Petz