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 (53661)	4/16/1998 5:07:00 PM
From: Joey Smith	Respond to of 186894

Jules, I agree totally. Albert K. posted an excerpt from his report last night and he lowered 1999 estimates to $2.90 a share!!! Even at $.72 X 4, Intel still makes that number. I don't know if that number is correct, but if it is, he has completely gone off his rocker. You're right that he hasn't given any explanations to his lowering estimates by so much. I think TK is selling his soul again to manipulate stock price. Oh well, i've learned how to play this game before. Joey

To: Jules B. Garfunkel who wrote (53661)	4/16/1998 6:29:00 PM
From: Doug M.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Jules, Do you know if Kurlak's estimate for Q1 included or did not include the 9 cent charge to earnings. His estimate was for Intel to make 67 cents in Q1. If he took this into account and he expected them to make 67 cents after the charge he was off by 5 cents (.72-.67), which isn't too good, but not horrendous. However, if he expected Intel to make 67 cents as opposed to the actual 81 cents from continuing operations (before the charge) he was off by 17% or off by $252,000,000 in net income (roughly). That would be absolutely horrendous! The guy should be laughed off the street!! I think this is an important distinction. Could you please elaborate if you have the data? Thanks, Doug

To: Jules B. Garfunkel who wrote (53661)	4/17/1998 1:10:00 AM
From: SisterMaryElephant	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Jules - I have seen Tom Kurlak's report. The most astonishing thing about it is that there was not a single mention of the transition to .25 micron process! Considering that for the past year the major theme for both Intel and AMD has been the transition and ramp of this process and the significance of this to both companies, you would think this topic would play a role in his assessment of Intel's business outlook. For all his research and effort, I consider this very sloppy work on his part. As long as he looked at all the facts, I have no problem with him coming to a bearish conclusion on Intel, that's his opinion. But not mentioning the positive impact of the .25 process is inexcusable, IMO. SK