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: Mary Cluney who wrote (38351)	10/29/1997 9:47:00 PM
From: Nuni	Respond to of 186894

Mary, Fantastic post.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (38351)	10/29/1997 10:11:00 PM
From: Jeff Mills	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Mary, I agree. To Tom Kerlak it is "his" game. Unbelievable how one person, who doesn't know an integral from a derivative (no, not the stock kind), runs this show.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (38351)	10/29/1997 10:16:00 PM
From: Gary Ng	Respond to of 186894

Mary, Re: up to Craig Barrett to step up to the plate and protect sharehorder interests If high P/E is what you mean to proect shareholder's interest, I have to disagree. IMO, shareholder's interest reflects in the book not on the market. Gary

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (38351)	10/29/1997 10:38:00 PM
From: Davd S. Carson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Mary, there was a recent interview with Andy on the local stock show here in the NW. Interesting because until the debacle with the pentium chip calculation problem Intel simply talked with the engineers and took care of problems of this sort on the engineering level. That worked for a long time. But now Andy has figured out that he cannot leave the public out of the equation. So now we have all of these goofy Intel commercials. Rumor has it that there will be Intel fun guys available for Christmas this year. I think that we are just now seeing a marketing side of Intel and that there will now be product differentiation which will further propel Intel. Think about this - Who really cared about "Intel in the Inside" years ago? Who cares now? IMHO as usual. David

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (38351)	10/30/1997 8:28:00 AM
From: William Hunt	Respond to of 186894

MARY The above post is direct and to the point . You did an a much better effort of explaining one of the issues from my post last night . The analogy between COCA COLA & INTEL was superb . INTEL is to big a company to ignore this area any longer and as you so said " MR BARRETT needs to step up to the plate " and address this area of concern by shareolders BEST WISHES BILL P.S. I just hope JOHN HULL from INTEL investors relations read your post

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (38351)	10/30/1997 9:25:00 AM
From: Reginald Middleton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

<Valuations, I am convinced, are not completely empirical processes. Much of it is irrational and a lot of it is subjective. Why should MSFT be valued at 46X earnings, QCOM 59X earnings, QUAL 233x earnings and INTC at 21X earnings? > MSFT has a larger economic spread than INTC, meaning that they make more "economic profit" per dollar invested than INTC. On the other hand, INTC invests more money than MSFT, but not to the same level of efficiency. Contrary to popular beleif, there is an empirical formula to evaluating the differences in valuation. The higher the spread, the higher the valuation. I also must caution you that accounting earnings are not an ingredient in the aforementioned formula due to their ease of manipulation. For more info, see the valuation primer under the papers link at rcmfinancial.com . There is also an economic model of Intel available under the valuation link from the same menu. Feel free to ask questions if you have any. RCM rcmfinancial.com

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (38351)	10/30/1997 11:27:00 AM
From: mauser96	Respond to of 186894

Intel is not the only tech company with this problem, in fact Intel does a better job of dealing with analysts than most. Check out the Cymer thread. I think you have hit the nail on the head when you discuss the mind set (or better yet Zeitgeist) of engineer types. They work in a rational world where you can get consistant answers if you get the formula right. Alas, the stock market is an auction market, and seldom rational for very long. Even if analysts did have a super analytical formula, it would not work during the periods of mass self hypnosis that seem to afflict the stock market when big price moves are underway. Most analysts understand this and use part analysis, part hunch, part guess just like you and me. It's messy, it's not scientific, it doesn't produce consistant results , and it's far from an engineers mind set. In the long run this is like water spilt upon the sand, but for our short term portfolio status, it would be nice if management would try to uderstand men like Mr. K better.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (38351)	10/30/1997 5:47:00 PM
From: Joe NYC	Respond to of 186894

Mary, Why should MSFT be valued at 46X earnings, QCOM 59X earnings, QUAL 233x earnings and INTC at 21X earnings Lower expected growth? But anyway, if you, as many here, claim to be a long term investor, why do you care about PE ratio? If you were planning to sell tomorrow, PE of 40 would be nice, but if you are not planning to sell for next 1o years, it is irrelevant what the market price of your shares happens to be on any particular day. What matters are revenues, earnings, growth of revenuea and earnings. Most Intel investors believe that these are in place, so why do you wish that Andy tries to con the analysts into recomanding higher PE? Joe