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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (174497)	5/11/2003 2:27:43 PM
From: hueyone	Respond to of 186894

Since when do Larry and company care about the rest of the tech industry? I thought I was supposed to be the Oracle basher and your were supposed to the Oracle defender. How did we end with our roles reversed? Lol. I agree with you, but I certainly don't fault Oracle management for looking after Oracle's interests. It isn't management's job to look after the alleged interests of the entire Silicon Valley, and I can't put enough emphasis on that word alleged. Imo, the important thing is that CFO Jeff Henley is bright enough to recognize that stock options have an economic cost, regardless of whether or not he is reporting that cost as zero on the Oracle income statements. The recognition of that economic reality at Oracle seems to be influencing Oracle's management of overall compensation expense in a positive way in comparison to software companies like SEBL, who act as though they really do believe that stock option compensation is free. JMO, Huey P.S. I edited my last post to you to acknowledge the fact, that I, like you, have seen JS' work on Cisco with regard to expensing stock options at date of exercise, and it isn't pretty.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (174497)	5/12/2003 11:55:24 AM
From: William F. Wager, Jr.	Respond to of 186894

Best of the Street-Semiconductors (Wall St Journal)... This year's top stock picker in the semiconductor sector has an unusual perspective. John Lau at RBC Capital Markets, a unit of Canada's Royal Bank Financial Group, has actually designed chips, and also helped sell them to customers in the U.S. and Asia. John Lau But Mr. Lau, who become an analyst in 1998, doesn't let himself get dazzled by the technology. Because makers of even the coolest products routinely build up excess production capacity -- and soon face imitators that do the same -- most wind up with inventories that must be reduced by slashing prices. That's what hurt chip stocks in 2002. "The capacity continued to overhang the market so nobody could make any money," he says. Mr. Lau credits part of his performance in 2002 to his move to RBC in May, from SoundView Technology Corp., which made it easier to start a new set of ratings. He temporarily dropped coverage of most companies; those stocks that he picked up again, he rated "hold" or "sell." The 41-year-old analyst issued a "buy" on Intel Corp., the bellwether for the sector, in October -- realizing a return of nearly 10% on a stock that registered a minus 50% return for the year. For 2003, Intel remains a "buy," Mr. Lau says, because the company has built up a competitive position that will allow it to hold the line on pricing. The No. 2 stock picker, Daniel Niles of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., is unusual in another respect: He follows not only the fast-moving chip makers, but also big computer makers. The arrangement gives him insight into demand for the products that consume millions of chips, he says, but he adds that "I don't get much sleep." Mr. Niles, 35, says his double-duty perspective helped send him into a negative stance on semiconductor stocks in 2000, which continued into last year. He kept "hold" or "sell" ratings on some of the biggest losers, such as Advanced Micro Devices Inc., Cypress Semiconductor Corp. and Texas Instruments Inc. But he scored with a "buy" rating on Conexant Systems Inc. from late June until early August, when the stock returned 44%, although the full-year return was minus 68%. Mr. Niles upgraded Intel from "sell" to "hold" in September, as he became convinced the industry was poised for a turnaround. In December, he raised his rating to a "buy." Although the stock declined for the rest of the year, Intel remains a recommendation for 2003, based on his belief that companies will soon begin spending on computer upgrades. The No. 3 analyst, Brian Alger of Pacific Growth Equities Inc., tries to focus on specialized chip makers that aren't widely covered. Among his best calls was putting "sell" ratings in February on Genesis Microchip Inc. and Pixelworks Inc., which make chips for flat-panel displays. Their stocks had surged on the belief that many desktop PCs would shift to the thinner monitors. But Mr. Alger, 31, believed production problems would delay making displays and buying chips. Pixelworks fell 64% for the full year; investors who followed his "sell" signal in February would have seen a drop of 14%. Genesis dropped 80% for the full year, but Mr. Alger had a 46% return when he upgraded to "buy" in October, after the sell-off. For 2003, those two companies are now his primary picks, inspired by the addition of factories in Asia and the prospect that the flat design will become inexpensive enough for digital televisions as well as computer monitors. "We are just now starting the growth curve in digital TV," he says. Write to Don Clark at don.clark@wsj.com