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: lanac who wrote (53281)	4/15/1998 10:06:00 AM
From: Patsy Collins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

From $9.00 last year to $2.90 a share in annual earnings forecast. Yeah, he's good alright.

To: lanac who wrote (53281)	4/15/1998 10:13:00 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

lanac, >>>Hey Kurlak is a dam good analyst like it or not <<< Kurlak, IMO, is the Joe Granville of the 90's. He has made several lucky big time sweeping sector calls - none of which was backed up with detailed analysis. Joe Granville used to do the same thing in the late 60's and early 70's until his luck ran out. Mary

To: lanac who wrote (53281)	4/15/1998 10:28:00 AM
From: Burt Masnick	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

lanac - Kurlak's record is spotty. A while back (pre-split) he emphatically downgraded intel when it was 50 then belatedly issued a buy at around 75 (a few weeks later). He was roundly criticized for that sequence of calls by Louis Rukeyser on Wall Street Week, at the time. This is not an isolated case of error. He has been goofy about Micron too. That doesn't mean that he is right or wrong today (even a stopped watch is correct twice a day). It does mean that he is more than capable of error. He has been a better predicter lately. His problem is that he uses one measure of current shipments very extensively (from article on him in Fortune a while back) which is simply blind to future events. He is also what I call a straight line analyst. He takes the last two data points, draws a straight line and extrapolates. In technical terms he uses the two most recent data points to predict the future. Unfortunately, such crude methods are useless in volatile situations (or when exogenous events such as when Micron got whomped by Asian memory chip capacity coming on line or the Pentium became REAL popular or Windows 95 forced a lot of upgrades or Win NT 4.0 came out). I always listen to what he says and then do my own analysis. In stable situations, his methods are useful, but he had a fairly low batting average on certain stocks (Intel, a highly volatile issue, among them). IF, on the other hand, you are an Intel bear, than anything he says is gospel, destined to be 100% accurate. But you wouldn't be so foolish as to take Kurlak as gospel. If you were, you are poorer than you could have been. (I may be wrong but I think he was poor on AMD too). In baseball it's great when a .350 hitter is at the plate. In investing, it's less thrilling. Thanks for posting about Kurlak. One more data point. Best regards and good investing, Burt

To: lanac who wrote (53281)	4/15/1998 10:33:00 AM
From: mp	Respond to of 186894

Intel is going to turn Kurlak into Joe Granville in the next 6 months. Kurlak is a legend in his own mind, and too impressed with his own imagined ability to hold Intel under $80. Well, dream on, Kurlak. You are in front of a fast moving Juggernaut!

To: lanac who wrote (53281)	4/15/1998 10:36:00 AM
From: Burt Masnick	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

lanac - Kurlak's record is spotty. A while back (pre-split) he emphatically downgraded intel when it was 50 then belatedly issued a buy at around 75 (a few weeks later). He was roundly criticized for that sequence of calls by Louis Rukeyser on Wall Street Week, at the time. This is not an isolated case of error. He has been goofy about Micron too. That doesn't mean that he is right or wrong today (even a stopped watch is correct twice a day). It does mean that he is more than capable of error. I note that he has been somewhat better lately. His problem is that he uses one measure of current shipments very extensively (from article on him in Fortune a while back) which is simply blind to future events. He is also what I call a straight line analyst. He takes the last two data points, draws a straight line and extrapolates. In technical terms he uses the two most recent data points to predict the future. Unfortunately, such crude methods are essentially useless in volatile situations (as when Micron got whomped by Asian memory chip capacity coming on line or the Pentium became REAL popular). I always listen to what he says and then do my own analysis. In certain stable situations, his methods might be useful, but he has a fairly low batting average on certain stocks (Intel, a highly volatile issue, among them). IF, on the other hand, you are an Intel bear, than anything he says is gospel, destined to be 100% accurate. But you wouldn't be so foolish as to take Kurlak as gospel. If you were, you are poorer than you could have been. (I may be wrong but I think he was poor on AMD too). In baseball it's great when a .350 hitter is at the plate. In investing, it's less thrilling. If Kurlak has a weak reputation among Intel investors he has richly earned it. Not sour grapes, but wrong calls. By the way I have a damn big profit in Intel (50 times what I paid). I tend to take a long term view. I bought intel shortly after the first IBM PC came out (bought some more at key points along the way when some shrewd investment analysts convinced the market to lower the price to a screaming buy). Best regards and good investing, Burt