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: Jules B. Garfunkel who wrote (53426)	4/15/1998 5:33:00 PM
From: John Carragher	Respond to of 186894

Jules thanks for your quick response to this thread in panic. John

To: Jules B. Garfunkel who wrote (53426)	4/15/1998 6:10:00 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Respond to of 186894

Jules,>>>Jules, >>>The market has to stop letting Tom Kurlak get away with this irresponsible reporting. As you say Mary, "Kurlak is good" at manipulating Intel's stock for his own game, but good analysis which supports his reasons for lowered expectations, he does not provide. Just my opinion as an X "Sell Side" analyst. Jules<<< X programmer, systems analyst, Penn State, Wm & Mary - pretty good credentials. Out of curiosity anybody know Kurlak's academic credentials and technical background? Mary

To: Jules B. Garfunkel who wrote (53426)	4/15/1998 6:42:00 PM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

From what I recall of the preannouncement and the recent CC, INTC management said they weren't sure why there was a slowdown. Then, they added that it will surely be over soon. They didn't see it coming and don't know what it is, but they are positive when it will be over. Huh? Tom

To: Jules B. Garfunkel who wrote (53426)	4/15/1998 6:59:00 PM
From: Dom B.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Jules & Sir Paul...Gleaned from todays' Motley Fool- To be sure, all of this is cause for concern, as Intel seems destined to see EPS slide this year for the first time since 1989. On the other hand, the chipmaker has still given no clear evidence that end-user demand for PCs has actually slowed significantly. Grove blamed PC original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) for Intel's sales slowdown, saying they had built more product than end-customers purchased. Moreover, faster, more efficient Pentium IIs are hitting the desktop and the notebook markets today, with shipments of Pentium IIs surpassing Pentium shipments this week. Plus, Intel has now moved the bulk of its production lines to the 0.25 micron technology, which Micro Design Resources has figured will cut manufacturing costs by as much as 60%. Would appreciate your confirm on the 60% reduction in mfg costs... TIA...//dom btw, perhaps karnak got the $60 thingie WRONG!?

To: Jules B. Garfunkel who wrote (53426)	4/15/1998 7:48:00 PM
From: Mr. E	Respond to of 186894

Hypothetical situation: Company A has a significant market that has been in the tank for, oh six, maybe nine months. That market, like Company A's other markets, realizes that Company A's product line is best thing going, currently. That market doesn't appear to be recovering any time soon, but everyone agrees it's only a matter of time. In spite of the loss of that market, Company A reports that revenues are down fractionally (as opposed multiples or orders of magnitude). The company is still very profitable, leading its industry, with good margins and all the numbers are in order and make sense. It all sounds like Company A is handling the situation appropriately. Meanwhile, "experts", "analysts", and "speculators" air opinions geared to cause "public" confidence in Company A to vary to greater extremes than might ordinary be expected. The outcry is sufficient that Company A announces that it is taking steps (reducing staff) to reduce the cost of doing business. My question is in two parts: (1) (rhetorical) Is there more money to be made in an agitated stock market or a calm one? (2) Why should Company A eliminate the jobs of the people who are responsible for it's performance? To satisfy some pundits? Then again, without all this B.S., trying to come out ahead wouldn't be nearly so much fun, exciting or anxiety ridden.