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: Paul Fiondella who wrote (42476)	12/16/1997 10:58:00 PM
From: Dale J.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

<<re: It will not be Intel's fault. It will simply be a shrinking market for goods.>> Paul: It's always good to see a contrarian viewpoint on these stock threads. But IMO, the internet is still expanding and the PC is still the primary means to access it. Not all of Asia is in trouble. China represents a huge and growing market. Also other parts of the world are increasing the demand for PC's, how about Latin Am, India, So Am. etc. Dale

To: Paul Fiondella who wrote (42476)	12/16/1997 11:16:00 PM
From: Fred Fahmy	Respond to of 186894

<Well my crystal ball shows a recession > I am very well aware of what your crystal ball shows.....and I think you should return it for a refund <gggg>....must be AMD or CYRIX inside. My crystal ball shows technology and health care stocks outperforming all other sectors over my life time. It shows more than one recession in the next 20 years all of which will have little affect on the long term stock prices of quality stocks in these sectors. Just like previous recessions have had little affect on Intel's long term price. Technology will continue to become more and more prevalent in our global economy and society. Intel is and will continue to be at the heart of this technology explosion. There is nothing in any of your arguments that makes me believe that Intel won't outperform just about every other potential investment over my life time. Of course things can always change but thus far the only change I see is Intel getting stronger with fundamentals and future prospects looking better than ever. FF

To: Paul Fiondella who wrote (42476)	12/16/1997 11:40:00 PM
From: Jay	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul Re "IBM in the 70's" IMHO IBM's mode of operation at that time (I'm guessing) was to keep the cost of computing sky-high to rake in huge profits. Anything that is too expensive by definition cannot have a very large market. Intel's mode is keep reducing the cost of computing - making the market ever bigger Andy is a master - he has proved it so far, we are all betting on him not on TK or some moron on WS looking to make his quarter. IMHO

To: Paul Fiondella who wrote (42476)	12/17/1997 8:11:00 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul, re: " Well my crystal ball shows a recession as a result of the Asian market collapse. I see stagnating growth prospects for everyone without any escape for the techs." So you are raising your last weekend's expectations from a 1929-like crash and depression? You must have had a good day to be so optimistic. John

To: Paul Fiondella who wrote (42476)	12/17/1997 9:25:00 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Respond to of 186894

Paul, >>>In some respects Intel is positioned to be like IBM in the 70's. It was without peer yet its stock wouldn't go up.<<< In many ways, the analogy between Intel in 1997 and IBM in 1967 is a good one. In 1967 IBM was dominating the computer industry with the 360 series mainframe computers and getting ready to launch the IBM 370. The main competition at the time was Univac and Honeywell in Mainframes; and DEC in Minis, if I recall properly. IBM did not really get out of favor until after the personal computer was established in late 1970s and early 1980s. The same people that ran IBM in the 60s and early 70s ran IBM in the late 70s and 80s. The success of the PC really came out of left field. For anyone with knowledge of the computer business, it was really impossible to forecast that PC's were going to replace the mainframe. In retrospect, it was the MIS people who turned away from supporting the bean counters (who started the interest in the computer industry with applications in accounting) and turned to the more natural concerns in transaction processing and that started the decline in sentiment against IBM. The bean counters, having control of company budgets, got a hold of VisiCalc and IBM PCs and started to do their own thing - proving again that the little guy could always get things done more quickly than the big guy. This proliferated the use of personal computers. The departments that couldn't get MIS departments to design applications for them got PCs and ran VisiCalc for sales, marketing, purchasing, and personnel departments. However, IBM was and still dominant in hardware, software, and systems integration - yet, it fell out of favor with Wall Street. It has very little to do with real fundamentals. It has all to do with the yappings of people like Tom Kurlak. The same thing can and may happen again , this time, to Intel. Something out of left field will come along that the Kurlaks will use to change sentiment - regardless of fundamentals. BTW, the same has happened to my beloved national past time. Baseball is an elegant sport - requiring, skill, grace, and athleticism to master. The statistics are pure and comparable for all times. Instead, it is being replaced by this made for TV sport called football. Football has nothing to do with the foot or sports. Every team is a contender. Elimination is almost by way of coin toss. Witness Jets, Dolphins, and Patriots and how the outcome is decided. Two of these teams will go into the play offs (there are only five teams in the division - all five could have been in contention up to the last week). The team that is eliminated will have the same win loss record as one of the teams that makes it to the playoffs. And you have a bunch of ex-footballers shilling for the game - Bradshaw, Long, Theisman, et al, - and manipulating sentiment.(and talk about cliches - "they have destiny in their own hands") You figure it out, Mary