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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (30632)	8/5/1998 7:25:00 PM
From: Michael Bakunin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Writedowns may help reported EPS, but don't help business. I used to think companies liked noncash charges that cut taxes. Speaking of reported EPS, you might want to look at this nifty encapsulation of why the budget "surplus" means nothing: clev.frb.org mb

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (30632)	8/5/1998 7:50:00 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Mike, NEM now has leaps. what do you think of ZIEADs at this point in time? (jan 2001 20s) TIA

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (30632)	8/6/1998 8:56:00 AM
From: Earlie	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 132070

MB: Just caught up with Mona Eraiba's recent "upgrade" of INTC. The lady is Gruntal's esteemed analyst who is just returning from a lengthy vacation on planet Mars. I need some help on this one. According to Mona, "The worst is behind the company". Of course. (Sounds exactly like the last two year"s worth of commentary with respect to the memory producers.) I loved her reasons for this gushy tout (provided word for word I'm sure by an Intel investor relations V.P.), to wit: - Intel "is escalating its drive to stimulate market demand for PCs, as well as reclaiming its market share at the low end." Sure it is Mona, much as I'm personally escalating a drive to become both a billionaire and an Olympic athlete by year end. Talk is cheap. If one were to become aware of the fact that Intel was developing a wondrous new application, this comment might make some sense, but that is not INTC's business. Applications drive PC sales, (especially in a glut).and there are no new applications on the horizon. Intel's ability to stimulate market demand is currently limited to price reduction of its micros, which is a weak and distant end product sales stimulus. So far, end product (PC) price cuts of over 50% have produced a lousy 5% increase in household penetration, which suggests that whatever price cuts Intel provides, they are unlikely to create a "barn-burner" atmosphere. I also suspect that AMD's stunning theft of a huge piece of Intel's former fiefdom has provided most of the price-cutting motivation, rather than any desire to "stimulate market demand". Mona, please drop into a local PC store and count up the number of PC's that have a "K6 inside". While on the topic of price cutting, perhaps Mona could outline how multiple price cuts will assist INTC's bottom line. Currently, revenues, margins and operating profits are all falling. Am I missing something here? The company sure as heck is not going to make it up in increased volumes. - "Escalating its drive" to "reclaim its market share at the low end". Is the lass serious? In early 1997, Intel owned the micro market. It was a recognized monopoly. In less than a year, it allowed two much smaller competitors to grab most of the growth end of its market. Its response was slow, sloppy and ineffective. The Celeron is a non-selling joke, so please spare us the pure drivel with respect to its "lukewarm reception" (lukewarm as in Lake Ontario's mid winter temperature), its "performance hampered by the lack of cache in the package" (it wasn't the tooth fairy who swiped the cache) and its "ahead of schedule" debut in its reincarnated form (now only 18 months late,....sort of like closing the barn door just after the cows wander onto the freeway). The fact of the matter is that Intel hasn't a hope in hell of "reclaiming" low end market share in the foreseeable future. A company doesn't come off this kind of marketing/engineering botch-up without serious damage absorbed, and if Mona ever ventured into a retail store, it would be self evident. A simple question,.....how does Intel displace these interlopers? Their products are lower priced, and they perform admirably. Meantime, Intel's supposed competitive product was late to market, and didn't perform. Mona, I'm all ears on this one. _ "Yesterday's round of price cuts on the Pentium ll (the fourth this year) solidify Intel's aggressive attack on the market for PCs and are particularly aimed at those that sell for less than $1,000." How I love this lady's use of the English language. A "price cut solidifies an aggressive attack". Wow. I'd also suggest that she check out Intel's Pentium II inventories, both in house and in the field, before suggesting that this round of price cuts was anything other than a frightened response to bulging warehouses. The PII price cuts are aimed at the $1,000 PC market? Wow again,..... I look forward to P II price cuts that are of a magnitude to accomplish this goal. Mona expects gross margins to bottom at 49% in the second quarter. So what magic gets applied to raise margins as the multiple price cuts are phased in? Intel's own people quietly hint that the current shrink will be the last for some time and that it simply can't offset the price cutting. Mona suggests that "Unit volume will accelerate in the second half". Shall we bet on this expectation? Is AMD planning to close its plants to help out its old pal Intel? Is there anything out there to suggest that overall demand is going to take off? This is plain ludicrous, given the current evidence. No wonder we're in a mania when this kind of rubbish passes as research. Best, Earlie

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (30632)	8/6/1998 11:48:00 AM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

To All, Quarterdeck had the distinction of being the first company sued for selling junk that wasn't Y2K compliant. Methinks somebody believed they'd better hit Qdek while they were still in business. In the meantime, the insurance companies are seeking rulings from the state insurance commissions that they will not have to cover Y2K awards. Gee, think they would do that if the amount was small? <G> BTW, good old Texas is one of four holdouts who is saying, pay up you scoundrels. Maybe we will see the cash flow at some insurance companies take a bit of a hickey in the next couple of years. MB