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: Maverick who wrote (55376)	5/11/1998 3:34:00 PM
From: milan0	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

The following excerpt is dated April 27, post # 54625. Thomas Pittman answered Mary Cluney concerning the correct PE for Intel. 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. I tend to agree with Thomas Pittman and will offer that link: forbes.com click on "What free lunch?" In essence, it says that if the cost of employee stock options were accounted for in the calculation of earnings, those earnings would be much lower. Have a look at table 3; it states bluntly that Intel would have had a loss in 1996 if it had accounted for the cost of stock options as expenses in the profit and loss statement. I had previously noticed that Intel tries to repurchase as many shares as are exercised in order not to dilute the stock price. For example: 1995 1996 1997 Repurchases (in billion $) 1.03 1.30 3.37 Correct me if I am wrong, but for Q1 98, Intel repurchased stocks at a greater rate than it made 'profits'. Thus, it doesn't matter which of Kurlak's 2.99$ or Edelstone's 4.25$ 1999 earnings is closer to reality; Intel's earnings, if adjusted for stock options, would be much lower than either of those. Mike