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: Tony Viola who wrote (62910)	8/20/1998 4:40:00 PM
From: Sonki	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Tony, thankx for this post. too bad they don't have options on various anlysts. Any way, it's good to see differences in the opinion so we can at a later date know which one to listen to. I was very tempted to gamble w. intel call options at strike price of 100. any opinons?

To: Tony Viola who wrote (62910)	8/20/1998 7:07:00 PM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Tony, I love how Bloomberg, misses the "set-up" portion of his comments. Kurlak turned bearish on chip makers on Aug. 22, 1997, citing an oversupply of semiconductors that would drive chip prices lower. Bloomberg neglects to mention the fact that his name was on a ML research bulletin giving the opinion that "the best of all hoped for scenarios" was shaping up for the 4th quarter 1997 and that he was reported by Dow Jones to have called for a 20% upside in the chip group 8/6/97. So the guy gets credit for that late August call, but nobody actually bothers to read what he was saying 2 1/2 weeks earlier. If you read his predictions in that particular piece of work, it would be hard to imagine someone in early August 1997 coming up with a more backwards scenario for the chip industry over the 3 quarters. In March, Kurlak said chip companies were poised for a ''reality check,'' because of weak demand. The very next day, Intel warned that first-quarter earnings would fall short of forecasts because of reduced orders from PC makers. Of course that was good call. However, that was not the only call in between August 1997 and today was it? Briefing.com, which is usually pretty fair, appears to have joined the Tom Kurlak personality cult too. They ran a chart called "The Record" which blithely ignores much of their own reporting on Kurlak. If you looked at the chart at Briefing.com (http://www.briefing.com/sub/stocks/storystk.htm), you'd be led to believe that from August 1997 to the present Kurlak has only mentioned INTC 5 times. Sorry, but that's wrong. C'mon, today's comments are probably the 5th attempted Kurlaking within the last 3 months alone. Their editor should be embarassed for running such a half-assed, sloppy analysis. Briefing.com also asserts that: In August of 1997, Kurlak was the first to recognize the oversupply of semiconductor chips on the market. That's patently false, as a quick review of trade pubs like Semiconductor Business News over that period of time would show that there were some folks here and there ripping Kurlak a new one on the very issue of overcapacity well before he publicly "recognized" anything. Why is it that none of these news orgs. have bothered to pick up on the fact that Kurlak's most "successful" recent calls have come during expiration week? What is the statistical probability that analyst A would tend to make negative statements specifically targeted at stock B during an options expiration week X out of Z possible times? Good trading, Tom