To: Chip Anderson who wrote (56513 ) 6/1/1998 12:48:00 PM From: K.Ramesh Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 186894
>>From a support/resistance perspective, this morning INTC blew >>through its major support >> level near 70 thanks to the Merced announcement. Technically, >>this was a _very_ bearish >> development. This takes INTC back to the levels it was at in >>March and April of 1997(!). >> At that time, INTC received strong support at 65. Will this same >>thing happen this week? >> Any javelin catchers out there? Regarding the '97 support level at 65 , some thoughts. At that time, Intel was trading pre-split and I assume that the figure would have been around 130. The following factors have to be taken into account while comparing the mar-Apr'97 figures . 1.Fed had raised interest rates and Intel had come down from around 145-148 . This was the stock price after 1996 earnings were released. Hence, the downward movement of the stock was more in line with the general market downtrend. 2. At that time, there was no indication,officially from Intel, regarding a slow-down in earnings.In fact, the figures flying around for '97 and '98 earnings estimates,as I remember them, were around $9.00 and $10.00 respectively with some firms even going upto $10.50.It translates to post split $4.50 and $5.00 respectively for '97 and '98. However, later developments have proved completely different. No one is expecting more than $3.50-$3.70 even for '99 . The stock movements of early '97 are events that preceeded the start of any negative news from Intel and happened at a time when there was only positive news regarding the company. The question is, are these prices the right comparison now,given that the company's earnings are moving downward ? ($3.87 for '97 and based on current estimates there is no indication that Intel will improve on these figures even in '99). Of course, as these events themselves prove, even the current estimates for '98 and '99 are very much unreliable. Could anyone who has done more study on this provide some clarification ? Regards, Ramesh