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 : Applied Materials No-Politics Thread (AMAT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (1605)	7/18/2002 10:03:33 AM
From: Jeffrey D	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25522

Is this situation amazing or what? Goldman Sachs says they have a meeting with AMAT and gets updated guidance during that meeting. Stock price drops. AMAT denies the meeting. Then, Goldman says they really didn't have a meeting and just talked to AMAT where AMAT reiterated their earlier guidance. Stock price drops some more. AMAT denies reiterating.The article below says if AMAT did reiterate it could be a violation of the Fair Disclosure Regulation. Whats next? AMAT will deny it even had the phone call? What in the world is going on? Is Goldman telling the truth or AMAT? This is something you would expect from Tyco or Worldcom but not AMAT! Jeff <<<< An Applied Materials spokesman said the company did not reiterate an earnings forecast to the Goldman analyst, but did repeat its previous statements that visibility is limited. The company could have violated Regulation Fair Disclosure if it reiterated its forecast because two months have passed since it last provided earnings projections. Regulation FD, an SEC rule, bars companies from releasing potentially stock-moving tidbits to a select few, such as analysts and other market professionals. Under the rule, a company that intentionally releases material-nonpublic information to a select group must simultaneously release the same information to the public. Theoretically, if a "substantial" amount of time has passed, a reiteration is a new statement, said Edward Fleischman, a former Security and Exchange Commission commissioner who's now senior counsel at New York law firm Linklaters. He said 60 to 75 days would clearly be substantial. Assessing a violation would also mean looking at how much the company probably knows about its performance at this stage in the quarter, which wraps up at the end of the month, and whether it typically provides guidance to the markets at this point in the quarter. If Applied Materials knows what its results will be with some accuracy, then, "they may not be in danger, but they are on unsafe ground," Fleischman said. -Riva Richmond, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-5670; riva.richmond@dowjones.com (END) DOW JONES NEWS 07-17-02 04:18 PM