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: Mary Cluney who wrote (54585)	4/27/1998 12:46:00 PM
From: dougjn	Respond to of 186894

Agree with you on Kurlack, what motivates him, etc. Re: Intel vs. Chrysler. C sells largely on its dividend, and prospects for dividend growth. If Intc stopped growing, and continuted to pay near zippo dividend, it would in fact trade way down. The argument would be future growth, still. To the extent that the market really believed it was zero, but with a lock on its market, there would be a big clamoring for either dividends, or enough stock buy backs to grow earnings that way. Like IBM. Doug

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (54585)	4/27/1998 12:48:00 PM
From: Jay	Respond to of 186894

Mary Re "Suppose in the worst case, Intel stops growing" If it stops growing then the PE would be related to interest rates. If interest rates were 5% then PE would be close to 20.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (54585)	4/27/1998 1:46:00 PM
From: Jules B. Garfunkel	Respond to of 186894

Mary, Your, 'It's like throwing out the baby with the bath water when you are getting paid to wash the bath tub - and no one is complaining." Some of us are complaining. Thanks Mary!!! Your recent posts, re Tom Kurlak and INTC, reflect my thoughts completely. Tom's finely timed releases of unsupported downgrades, I believe, have unfortunately increased Intel's stock volatility. This in turn has lowered INTC's P/E ratio...(what ever that should be). However, your remarks relative to Intel's bright future, and their dominance in the Information Processing Industry, ultimately will be realized by Global investors, over the long term. Jules

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (54585)	4/27/1998 5:10:00 PM
From: Thomas J Pittman	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Re:but when you do any kind of comparison - Intel P/E seems extraordinarily low. However, people with a vested interest in keeping Intel prices low will frequently cite historical P/E values to scare investors and keep Intel prices down. They rarely get into Intel Technology, Intel dominance in it's market, and the future of that technology going forward beyond 2 Qtrs. I had intend to stop, but some of the stuff above is just wrong. I recently shared several comparisons which showed at least some evidence that Intel's current PE MAY be high, not low. I am here because of Intel's technology and am much better off financially because of it. But, Mary, Intel has to spend 5 or 6 billion per year in research to keep that technology at the top of the heap. The PE that they are accorded by the market is reflective of that and other risks associated with the company. Many of us remember that for a long time DEC was king, Cray was king, and heaven only knows how many other companies ruled the road. I am not trying to scare anyone about anything. In fact, I think most people on the thread are probably beyond that (Bald Man from Mars, perhaps excluded, bless his heart) and there are plenty of people here that understand what I am saying. I dont doubt for a minute that TK is doing his level best to make money by saying whatever he wants whenever he wants, but no matter what he says, the market is not going to grant Intel a PE like Pfizer's. They dont deserve it. J