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: GVTucker who wrote (156520)	1/22/2002 2:33:50 PM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

GV, thanks for the analysts' updates on Intel, capex related and other. Nevertheless, I believe there is still an overhang of negativity about Intel whenever their lowered capex comes out. Call it guilt by association if you want, but whenever they start talking about the equips and capex spending, Intel, or INTC, gets nailed right along with them. I'm not saying Intel is "without sin", far from it, it's just, what is it called, the inefficiency of the market or something like that? Go negative on a stock, like happened with Microsoft and Intel on uncertain or lowered guidance, or because of lower earnings or revs than expected, like IBM with revs, but the capex story is a good one for Intel now. And, seems to me they did exceed consensus revs and earnings on operations last quarter. Regarding capex, Edelstons says, "Finally, Intel's capital spending budget of $5.5 billion is expected to decline 25% in 2002 (versus our estimate for a 20% decline), and this sharp decline suggests that Intel's depreciation expense (30% of COGS) will begin to decline as a percentage of sales during the next couple of years." This is noted in the positives. Good for Edelstone, but he's obviously pretty much a lone wolf on that take. Bottom line is that the lower capex story has impacted Intel stock as much as the equips themselves, right from the night of earnings release, but it should be looked at as a positive, as Edelstone said. Tony

To: GVTucker who wrote (156520)	1/22/2002 6:48:06 PM
From: John F. Dowd	Respond to of 186894

Good Post. CNBC's accuracy and quality is abysmal but they have the eyes and ears of the world. I will bet that every technician in the world watches this program and feeds this program. Unfortunately these lame brains have become a force that has to be dealt with. It is a shame but it is a fact of life. Too many idiots including fund managers listen and respond to their drivel as they know that 70% of the retail investors accept their word as gospel. JFD

To: GVTucker who wrote (156520)	1/22/2002 8:58:27 PM
From: Tony Viola	Respond to of 186894

GV, I think that we can all agree that the quality and accuracy of CNBC's reporting is consistently low. Not just CNBC. Every business show I had on for the 2 or 3 days after earnings said it was a major weakness for Intel that they had to cut capex. Cut to 5.5 billion; I wonder if any three other companies will spend that much. If the business shows are that bad, throw them all off the air and replace them with Hispanic or Asian channels like the trend is in the SF Bay Area. At least some people must enjoy those. Tony