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: craig crawford who wrote (61298)	7/28/1998 9:58:00 AM
From: Darren	Respond to of 186894

Sorry but some of you guys/gals sound like your emotionally attached to this company. Kurlack didn't make INTC miss their earnings about 5 times in the last couple of years. Kurlack didn't make Intel's earnings DECLINE over the last few quaters. INTC has done nothing because their earnings have done nothing. I don't see what that has to do with Kurlack.[sic] And perhaps you are emotionally attached to Kurlak? He's an analyst. Analysts get paid whether they are right or not. He has no incentive to do the right thing. For 11 million shareholders, that's a problem. As you can see, his opinion is not reflected in the stock price...

To: craig crawford who wrote (61298)	7/28/1998 10:00:00 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Craig, >>>Kurlack didn't make INTC miss their earnings about 5 times in the last couple of years. Kurlack didn't make Intel's earnings DELINE over the last few quaters. INTC has done nothing because their earnings have done nothing. I don't see what that has to do with Kurlack. <<< True, true, true. But we (the investment community) do not need Kurlak to point that out to us. We can all see that by ourselves. We (I) believe that Kurlak has gone beyond pointing out the obvious. He has timed his observations and predictions (that are not backed up with rigorous analysis) and has reissued negative musings at times when he (Kurlak) could maximize their influence. We (I) do not believe he is just making calls based on solid anaylsis - he is at a point where he influences the stock price coincidentally(?) for his own benefit. Maybe that this rally is in part due to a correction caused by the stock being artificially depressed. There is a difference here. Regards, Mary

To: craig crawford who wrote (61298)	7/28/1998 10:01:00 AM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 186894

Craig, RE:"Sorry but some of you guys/gals sound like your emotionally attached to this company. Kurlack didn't make INTC miss their earnings about 5 times in the last couple of years. Kurlack didn't make Intel's earnings DECLINE over the last few quarters. INTC has done nothing because their earnings have done nothing. I don't see what that has to do with Kurlack." Are you not familiar with the church (cult) of Intel? This is the headquarters with Paul Engel the High Priest. Anything or anyone who questions the mighty Intel dogma is quickly banished into outer darkness. Kurlak is seen as apostate. Jim

To: craig crawford who wrote (61298)	7/28/1998 10:32:00 AM
From: Burt Masnick	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Perhaps Kurlack's defining moment was about 2 years ago when he advised his clients to SELL Intel at around 55 saying it was headed into the low 40s (this is all presplit) and then telling his clients to BUY Intel about 6 weeks later after it bounced off 49 and had hit 75. I think it zoomed all the way up to 130 before splitting. The teensy-weensy thing he got wrong was the direction that *FUNDAMENTALS* were taking the stock way up back then. This gaffe was mentioned as a point of derision on "Wall Street Week" by Louis Rukeyser as a sign that Wall Street analysts were wildly overpaid and too often dead wrong. If memory serves he had actually done worse, though in the opposite direction with Micron back then. He had predicted that the stock would earn $17 for a year and posted a target never even remotely approached. That year earnings plummeted and losing quarters followed each other with stunning regularity as the price of memory chips crashed. The job of a wall street analyst is unfortunately two-fold, predictions and traffic generation. One would hope that they would build a track record of consistently correct awareness of the fundamentals driving the business. They also should and do venture into the business of generating target prices out 6 months or a year so that the timeliness and resonable profit potential are understood by a prospective buyer or seller. But they also can build a reputation as an "ax" who moves security volume and price by their pronouncements. Joe Granville crashed the whole market temporarily with a chicken little story a couple decades ago. Kurlak has become the ax on Intel because he makes VERY strong stands. Taking a stand is good. Taking the wrong stand is bad. Tom's batting average, taken as a whole, over the last few years has been surprisingly spotty. But ML must love him because every time he speaks, a ton of stock moves and every transaction has an associated fee that enriches ML (and others). But just as Joe Granville can't move markets today, one day Kurlak may find that his track record has too low a percentage of timely and accurate calls to generate either traffic or attention. To be fair, he does back up his calls with reasons. But he is VERY selective in the weight that he gives to each factor, positive and negative, he times the announcements very carefully for maximum potential ability to move the stock price and he tends to substantially overstate his case. THAT'S WHY MANY ON THIS THREAD ARE HOSTILE TO HIM AND SUSPECT HIS MOTIVES. But in the short term it has been pure hell betting against him. Some have made a lot of money using him to get into Intel at very favorable prices.