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: Joseph Pareti who wrote (66832)	10/16/1998 8:30:00 AM
From: gnuman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Joseph Pareti, re:<I believe Intel cited high costs like SRAM. > COS on a Y/Y basis became a much higher percentage of revenues in Q3'98. And this is probably attributed in large part to the higher costs associated with PII, as Intel stated. But won't PII always have higher costs than Pentium due to the nature of the beast? The point I was trying to make is that a critical review of Q3 may lead to opinions not shared by the majority of this thread. This could partly explain the market reaction to Intel's quarter. As for Pfizer, I know nothing about them so I really can't comment.

To: Joseph Pareti who wrote (66832)	10/16/1998 11:25:00 AM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Joe, What Gene P. said: >with these outstanding shipments and >the record breaking Q3 >revenues we have lower earnings on a Y/Y basis. What you replied: wasn't this Kurlak's question at the con call ? I believe Intel cited high costs like SRAM. First, what Gene said is not true. Intel netted slightly more 3Q98 than they did in 3Q97. From Intel's press release page: Net income in the third quarter was $1.6 billion, essentially flat with the third quarter of 1997. That was 3Q98. Here's 3Q97: Net income in the third quarter was $1.57 billion, up 20 percent from third quarter 1996... Love companies that keep old earnings reports hanging around on their web pages. Re: "wasn't this Kurlak's question at the con call ? I believe Intel cited high costs like SRAM." You're right. Tom's question and Intel's (Paul Otellini) answer. I tossed in Tom's second Q&A also, in case anyone missed it. - Kurlak...if revenues were up so much YOY, why were profits only up a cent per share. Paul...SECC components cost reason again (SRAM). Bye Tom (ed). - Kurlak again (later)...how do 4Q orders look? Paul...continuing at very strong rate as exiting 3Q. I have some stuff on Pfizer's rebound. Look for another post. Tony

To: Joseph Pareti who wrote (66832)	10/16/1998 3:47:00 PM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Joe, >>>>This may be one reason the stock isn't taking off. what do you think the reason was for Pfizer to take off after missing<<< My Pfizer story (mostly OFF TOPIC). Pfizer. Nothing fundamental about them, just my take on some analysts' opinions that came out about their quarter. The guy next office to me owns some PFE (wife inherited), so I hear a lot about it. The other night he was lamenting as they tanked when their (missed) earnings came out. The next day, everything was all rosy again, as they recovered it all, and more. Office neighbor found a couple analysts articles on why their qtr came up short. Maybe the stock recovered as investors read those "reasons"? I kind of compared the way PFE's earnings were handled, to the way Intel's were, and concluded that one is the most "pampered" of stocks, and the other the most censored. Guess which is which? Pfizer article #1 excuse by analyst. Well, seems they hired 1,100 salespeople during the year to go out and peddle Viagra and all their other new drugs. These added headcount had to be paid, for some reason, and blew the marketing, G&A budget. My take on this (basically the same as for the next analyst's lame excuse): didn't they see this coming (need for more salesmen)? Obviously, Viagra was years in development. When they saw it getting close, probably last year, didn't they provide for many more sales folks when doing the 1998 budget, which got prepared in 1997? Didn't they then provide guidance to the analysts about the increased headcount costs and to the bottom line? Don't they do long range planning (LRP, 5 to 10 years or so)? No provision in the LRP for this? Finally, hardest to believe and most improbable in this story is: even a company the size of Pfizer would be hard pressed to bring on board 1,100 good sales people in less than one year. The hiring process, if you do it right, is extremely time consuming and taxing on existing employees. Resume gathering and sifting, phone screening, flying people out, having multiple employees interview each candidate, meeting with employee screening folks to review candidates' qualifications, etc., etc., and doing this for multiple candidates per opening (have to) takes tons of time and gets old fast. 1,100 sales people hired in 9 months. What a joke. Oh, also, the job market has been as tight this year as I can remember. IT IS HARD AS HELL TO FIND GOOD PEOPLE. 1,100? The second analysts "excuse" was about a big step up in R&D costs to develop and get the new products out. Again, why wasn't this budgeted for long before 3Q98? What if Intel missed their quarter by 9%, as Pfizer did? If the best excuses/reasons that a couple of "friendly" analysts could come with were anything like this, I dare say that Intel stock would be south of $70 right now. Tony