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: Investor A who wrote (46783)	1/30/1998 11:01:00 PM
From: Patrick E.McDaniel	Respond to of 186894

You think Intel cooked the books. Forbes stated they did some accounting tricks. Buying back shares is an accounting trick? Getting a lower effective tax rate is VOODOO? The company reported that its income from businesses other than microprocessor sales was about $50 million higher than expected. This is called performance. "Cooked the books" was out of line. Forbes calling share buybacks and higher sales as accounting tricks was as irresponsible as your comments. Pat, who thinks Cyrix will always be a third rate company. :o)

To: Investor A who wrote (46783)	1/30/1998 11:03:00 PM
From: Mark Pritikin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

<<Wondering if you have read this article. Forbes believed that Intel cooked the 4Q/97 earning result>> Interesting how the good news comes out (TIME mag) when the stock is at an all time high of 100 and the negative stuff comes out when the stock is beaten down. We have heard all the negatives over and over. In about six-nine months, the market will focus on the Merced opportunities and $80/share will be a distant memory. I'll stay for the long term capital gain.

To: Investor A who wrote (46783)	1/31/1998 12:38:00 AM
From: Ian Davidson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Here's one for you Fuchi: news.com Doesn't mention anything about Cyrix in here.....strange huh??? Do you realize since you showed up on this thread a couple of weeks ago Intel has done nothing but go up?!! Please.....continue to enjoy your stay here. Ian

To: Investor A who wrote (46783)	1/31/1998 6:26:00 AM
From: Fred Fahmy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

<Forbes believed that Intel cooked the 4Q/97 earning result.> ....and I'm sure that those that are financially challenged will reach the same conclusion. Fortunately, we know better. INTC turned in another solid quarter making more money in three months than Cyrix could in three years. Some people (likes the Forbes author) just don't get it....they never did and they never will. But hey, we can't all be successful with our investment picks. There has to be some Fuchi's out there. FF ...who loves the way Cyrix was beaten into submission by Intel

To: Investor A who wrote (46783)	1/31/1998 9:14:00 AM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Here's the Forbes article for those who couldn't find it...some scathing words for Intel...especially the part about Intel clearly not being able to move chips thus the price cuts...which is a questionable remark. ------ Tainted earnings Take a peek at Intel's fourth-quarter (ended Dec. 30, 1997) earnings' report. Wall Street was expecting the company to post earnings of around 90 cents a share. But Intel surprised the Street on January 14 with earnings of 98 cents a share. Look closer and you'll see that accounting tricks are responsible for those better-than-expected results. Intel's effective tax rate for 1997 was 34.8%, lower than the estimated 35.5%. This translated to roughly 4 cents a share for the fourth quarter. In addition, the company reported that its income from businesses other than microprocessor sales was about $50 million higher than expected. That's another 2 cents a share. Finally, the company bought back about 12 million shares, tacking an extra penny per share onto its earnings. What you are looking at is 91 cents in earnings. Go down a wee bit more, and you find that total net inventories jumped to $1.7 billion in the fourth quarter, versus $1.5 billion in the third quarter. And, more telling, is the fact that the company's finished goods inventories were up 28%, to $514 million, in the fourth quarter, from $401 million in the third quarter ending Sept. 27, 1997. Look closer and you'll see that accounting tricks are responsible for those better-than-expected results. Intel is clearly having trouble moving its product. Which goes a long way towards explaining the early January price cuts announced by the company. Maybe this explains some insider sales at Intel. If an insider sells near highs, it is called profit taking, but when insiders sell their stock after the shares have backed off from earlier highs, that usually spells trouble. And that's exactly what some Intel insiders have been doing, according to CDA Investnet, an insider-trades tracking service. From July to early October, when Intel was trading at its alltime highs of between $90 and $100, insiders sold just 142,500 shares. But between October 20 and 31, five Intel insiders got rid of a total of 679,236 shares priced from $81 to $86. The insiders were led by CEO Andy Grove, who exercised options totaling 648,000 shares, selling 520,000 of them in the open market and transferring another 126,690 to a trust. The stock hit an alltime high of $102 a share last August before settling in the mid-$70s. Intel will continue to churn out a profit and, perhaps in the next millennium, will see surging earnings after the release of its 64-bit Merced chip by the turn of the century. (See The 64-bit question.) But in the near term, the great times are over. Maybe that is why the stock posted only a minuscule gain of 7.7% in 1997, a year which saw the S&P 500 shoot up by more than 31%. ----- Jim