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: pgerassi who wrote (145039)	10/11/2001 2:43:00 PM
From: fingolfen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Take calling acquisitions one time events when they do it dozens of times over the last 3 years. 12 times in 3 years is not a one time event. Also why call only expenses one time events and not revenues? Pete, it's really very simple... Earnings are not viewed in a vacuum. They are viewed in light of analyst expectations. Analysts do not take the cost of acquisitions into account when they project earnings. If you want an apples to apples comparison you have to look at the numbers sans acquisition costs... Not rocket science...

To: pgerassi who wrote (145039)	10/12/2001 12:58:49 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Peter Principle - Re: "It is if they always have one time events! When was the last time they did not have a one time event? The bar is too low for Intel's one time events. Given their history, many of those so called "one time events" has happened more than once, " Just like AMD's LOSSES have a habit of re-occurring !!! From AMD's annual report: 1996 - Net Loss - -$69 Million 1997 - Net Loss - -$21 Million 1998 - Net Loss - -$104 Million 1999 - Net Loss - -$89 Million

To: pgerassi who wrote (145039)	10/12/2001 5:39:08 PM
From: Robert O	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Pea: You have the uncanniest ability to make my point for me (and I notice you do this kind deed for others as well). You never refute my central thesis which is simply that investors may, on their own and with rel. little skill, determine if they want to agree or disagree with mgnt's presentation of financial info. If you do not think certain pro forma qtrs. are at all 'fair' so be it you vote with your trades. Same is true from top to bottom traders (e.g., your big 50 shares compared to Fidelity's 500,000 share block trade). See how there is nothing to 'get' or not 'get.' This is pretty simple stuff I think it's back to the point of not needing to waste much more space here, as I hope your naiveté play is just filibustering. Is this on? RO P.s. Let me make a cogent argument FOR you that I can't believe you have not put forth as it's really the only legitimate beef. One could argue that pro forma numbers in articles w/o GAAP as well helps the big houses and their analysts to continue to hype stocks and talk them up to dumb newbies in a huge conspiracy of silence as to a GAAP comparison as greenhorns hold or better yet buy more and only then does big money dump their shares at a rel. inflated price. Of course this is not likely since greed runs the street and it's not clear if houses would act in concert with nobody looking to squeak in before others. At least present this conspiracy theory it's much harder to disprove than non-sensical musings. TIA