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: Fred Fahmy who wrote (46816)	1/31/1998 11:12:00 AM
From: Mohan Marette	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Fred: What a nincompooph this Forbes guy ! It looks like this guy went through great pains trying to establish the Q4 result was cooked-up by 7 cents or so.And he spoke 'thusly' (is that a word?):- 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.....blah,blah, blah..on and on.. [ Courtsey: Jim McMannis for posting the Forbes article.] 1.Effective tax rate from 35.5 to 34.8% - I dont get it so what? I thought effective tax rate is a function of effective taxable income and I dont think IRS let Intel come up with their own tax rate at will. 2.Income from other than microprocessor sales was about $50 mil,higher than expected.- So? Just because they had an extra few mil in additonal income,this is dreamnt up?? Get real dude. 3.Company bought back 12 mil shares providing an extra penny- So sue me. What an idiot. Hey Fred my comments above are directed at the guy over at Forbes not at you <gg> I am,however,with you on this one.