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: John F. Dowd who wrote (167270)	7/1/2002 10:42:08 PM
From: Hawk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

In addition to the media, you have the hedge funds who do not care about fundamentals or the economy and just keep piling on stocks to drive them lower.

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (167270)	7/2/2002 12:12:37 AM
From: bacchus_ii	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

RE:"There are professional $ mgrs. sitting on 2 trillion in cash equivalents at 2-3%- this cannot last for long. It doesn't balance John. To raise these trillions $ cash they had to sell to who? Those sellers are now less in cash by the same trillions $. It don't add up... The reality is a lot of wealth have been destroyed, gone, disappeared… Gottfried

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (167270)	7/2/2002 2:35:47 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Hi John and Thread, there's a push to allow only those to be Board Directors that have no previous 5 year relationship with a company. Wouldn't that mean people like Andy Grove would have to be excluded from Intel's board by this proposed rule? He's exactly the kind of person boards need. Knowing Grove is on Intel's board makes me feel a lot more comfortable with my investment. He's got the personality that doesn't allow for BS and goes after anything that's wrong and sees that it's fixed. I don't like this proposal. BODs need to have at least one person that's got the know-how on the operations of the company's business that's sitting on the board, otherwise a board could make some really huge unintentional strategic mistakes that could hurt investors. The proposal should change, at a maximum, to "...no board directors that had a relationship with the company in the past 5 years, unless the person was a former CEO of the company." A former CEO has incredibly valuable knowledge and that type of internal knowledge should be encouraged to be on every company's board. Only a former CEO of the company, would have the know-how on the internals of their company to watch things carefully as a director. Anyone know the status of the push of that particular proposed rule? I think it's a really, really bad proposal. This proposal rule is essentially like saying, "American corporations will be enforced by police officers that have blinders on there eyes." That operational knowledge is critical to have. One former CEO needs to be on the board. RE: "I have never seen such a persistent bear market." Really? Wasn't the 70's a lot worse? In my investment course, I learned the real rate of return was negative over a 10 year period, slow and painful. Not fast and quick. Regards, Amy J

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (167270)	7/2/2002 2:55:32 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Hi John and Thread, there's a push to allow only those to be Board Directors that have no previous 5 year relationship with a company. Wouldn't that mean people like Andy Grove would have to be excluded from Intel's board by this proposed rule? As a former CEO of Intel he has the know-how on Intel - he's exactly the kind of person that needs to be on Intel's board. Knowing Grove is on Intel's board makes me feel a lot more comfortable with my investment. He has the know-how to detect if there's something wrong, which is critically important for my investment. He also has the personality that doesn't allow for BS and goes after anything that's wrong and sees that it's fixed. I don't like this proposal. BODs need to have at least one person that's got the know-how on the operations of their company's business that's sitting on the board, otherwise a board could make some really huge unintentional strategic mistakes that could hurt investors. The proposal should change, at a maximum, to "...no board directors that had a relationship with the company in the past 5 years, unless the person was a former CEO of the company." A former CEO of the company s/he is a board member of, would have incredibly valuable knowledge on the company they were in charge of, and that type of internal operational knowledge should be encouraged to reside on the company's board. Only a former CEO of the same company, would have the know-how on the internals of their company in order to watch things carefully as a director and catch anything. Anyone know the status of the push of that particular proposed rule? I think it's a really, really bad proposal. This proposal rule is essentially like saying, "American corporations will be enforced by police officers that have blinders on there eyes." That operational knowledge is critical to have. One former CEO of the company needs to be on the board of a company they were in charge of. This proposal is really concerning. Anyone have any information on it? The status? Is it really going to be passed? SJMN had a blurb on it, but I can't find any more information on it. What's going on? RE: "I have never seen such a persistent bear market." Really? Wasn't the 70's a lot worse? In my investment course, I learned the real rate of return was negative over a 10 year period, slow and painful. Not fast and quick. Regards, Amy

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (167270)	7/2/2002 12:29:43 PM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

I have been investing since the late 70's and I have never seen anything like this - we are in uncharted waters. This will be the 3rd calendar year of decreasing stock prices - hasn't happened since WWII. What makes this all the more unusual is that we have a nicely recovering economy with low rates and no inflation. Main Street for the first time ever is ahead of Wall Street unless WS is sensing big time deflation in which the value of all assets heads downward with respect to cash. This is not a good condition John: The only difference is the repeal of the Glass Stegal Act. When banks are allowed to be in the real estate busines and the stock business they RIP the cash out of other's businesses from bad to good without thought, and put it in their own controlled deals. From Enron to Intel, they stop the money flow (creating a credit crunch) and stick it (in this case) single family dwellings. All that cash channeled into non-productive activity at first creates inflation, and when the daisey chain runs out of gas, deflation.

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (167270)	7/2/2002 10:55:21 PM
From: Amy J	Respond to of 186894

Hi John and Thread, "Stocks tumbled on Tuesday, with the Standard & Poor's 500 index sinking to 4-1/2 year lows" Another lovely day in the market. Everyone seems to be packing up their stocks for the July 4th holiday. INTC $16.57 -5.53% [52 week range: $17.45 - $36.78] $110.8B market cap finance.yahoo.com SBC's market cap is almost as big as Intel's market cap. Regards, Amy J

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (167270)	7/3/2002 1:55:27 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Hi John, Re: "But I must admit I have taken a terrible beating waiting for the tide to turn as I said I have never seen such a persistent bear market." I must admit I took a terrible beating waiting for the tide to turn...except that back in '98 & '99 and spring of '00 I had never seen such a persistent bull market. I knew that everyone else knew that stock prices were disconnected from reality and had become the world's largest casino. And yet, I was losing money since I was mostly putting my money on the short side. Suffice to say that I decided that I would not put any more money in stocks or stock funds until the market was back in sync with what was happening in the business world. This means realistic valuations. Of course each company's situation will be valued a little differently. Anyway, it's interesting to see INTC at a five-year low, and ditto for the Nasdaq. My "market strategy" since April 2000 has been to focus on living comfortably, vacationing when and where I want to, living in the house I want to, and keeping my life savings (less what the stock market took) tied up in real estate and just in an old-fashioned no-frills checking account. Eventually I'll get back in the market, but I'm not in a hurry, since after the market goes nuts, it is bound to take awhile for things to return to "normal".