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: Doug M. who wrote (53811)	4/18/1998 12:14:00 AM
From: TTOSBT	Respond to of 186894

Doug, Re: >"Thanks for recognizing the significance of this issue, one that was overlooked by many. It is important to know if Kurlak was 7% off with his estimates or 17%. Does anybody know??? His research report doesn't say a damn thing about it.<" I think his estimates had to have included the .08 or .09 cents. I remember sometime in November or December just before the Q497 report Intel had delayed the C&T (probably due to Grove's man o year thing) deal til Q198. Just after that Tom Kurlak up'd his Q497 estimates by about .08 cents and stated that it was due to C&T delay. So why would he have not had it included in Q198 IMO. I'm not sure who made mention of it on this thread but I remember that is what lead me to read it on one of the agency's news wires. TTOSBT

To: Doug M. who wrote (53811)	4/22/1998 11:56:00 AM
From: Jules B. Garfunkel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Doug and All, Yesterday, I attended the Intel's analysts meeting in New York. While there I meet with many "Buy side" analysts. Unfortunately I still can not give you an absolute definitive answer to your question, but several of these analysts were of the opinion that Tom Kurlak's $.67 estimate for Intel's Q1 earnings, prior to release, did not include the $.09 one-time charge for the acquisition of Chips and Tech. In other words, Intel's earnings of $.81 were $.14 above, (more than 20% above), Tom's original earnings expectations. Therefore, your statement below has great merit. There were absolutely no supported reasons for Kurlak to cut his recommendation to "long term hold" from "long term buy" based on Intel beating his Q1 number by more than 20%. "Of course if he was 17% off that should be brought out and scrutinized because that would be an indication that this guy is way off base and he shouldn't have the power to move Intel's stock the way he does." Unfortunately, for those of us who held April 80 Intel Calls, the damage has already been done. Kurlak, along with the unknowing help of CNBC, effectively killed Intel's rally, gave his customers who were short the time to cover and get out, and cost me thousands of dollars. Jules