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: Paul Engel who wrote (61130)	7/25/1998 2:05:00 PM
From: VICTORIA GATE, MD	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul Engel re<Bug - Re: "intc still isn't a growth company. ;-)"> Oh ! yes , tell him Dr Panl vg BTW after last week market tell us inter is not overvalue Alan G... say intel is ok :-) Who really care about Tom k s* think

To: Paul Engel who wrote (61130)	7/25/1998 3:58:00 PM
From: Sam P.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul, Any thoughts on this article?http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~tnm/acm-future/rept.html Regards,Sam

To: Paul Engel who wrote (61130)	7/25/1998 4:44:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 186894

>>Oh yes it is<< what was intel's eps last year for this past q? (psst $0.92) what is their eps this year for the past q? (psst $0.66) perhaps you ought to defining what you mean by "growth..." one could go broke real quickly growing like this ;-) btw, revs were also down - though not nearly as much. are declining margins a good thing in your "growth" scenario? ;-) margins are shrinking, eps are shrinking, revs are shrinking, absolute earnings are shrinking and you say intc "is" a growth company. good thing you are lucky ;-) intc may BECOME a growth company again - especially if earnings keep cratering like this ;-) but they most assuredly are NOT a grow company NOW. btw, with regard to xlnx and altr, i never confuse stock price with value. at least i try very hard. however, you arggued that altr and xlnx were good values at $50+ while i argued they were over priced. just letting you know i haven't forgotten ;-) you also argued, and appear to be doing the same now, that it is technology that provides value. i argued supply and demand, pricing pressure and other financial issues were much more important. you said this was dumb. you're analysis has been dead wrong to date. not just from a stock price perspective - as you seem to imply from your response. from a fundamental business stand point, too. where is the bottom line growth? where? where? oh, you define growth as a reduction in eps, earnings, revenues and margins b/c you love the technology... ;-)