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: GVTucker who wrote (67185)	10/22/1998 2:50:00 PM
From: Burt Masnick	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

I'm having trouble with one of your numbers. If there are only 18 million shares shorted, that would one days trading. I thought that Intel was recently the most heavily shorted stock on NASDAQ. I would guess that well over 100 million are short. Correct me if I am screwed up. One days trading short is trivial.

To: GVTucker who wrote (67185)	10/22/1998 3:05:00 PM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

GV, your post about whether hedge funds would gain or not in the event of large moves by Intel stock: Intel could move 50 points in the next year, an unprecedented move, and the AGGREGATE loss of every single short seller would be under $1 billion. Similarly, if Intel were to drop by 50% in the next year, this would barely make a dent in a large hedge fund's performance. One question...why in the he-two sticks do they bother then? That is, why do they bother shorting Intel, or whatever, if it makes no difference what the stock does? I mean, I care about every 4% or whatever that I have invested. It all adds up. Next question is, why is Kurlak so quiet now (in the wake of Intel's blowout quarter). Maybe he doesn't dare say anything good about them lest it become a career (or something else) limiting move, like is being implied? He hasn't always been anti-Intel. One other time in the past, he fell all over himself upgrading Intel, when they were actually about to head into some down quarters. Whatever is going on, Kurlak's position on Intel the last couple of quarters doesn't make any sense at all. Tony

To: GVTucker who wrote (67185)	10/23/1998 12:00:00 PM
From: greg s	Respond to of 186894

GVT, Excellent points. Please note that I wasn't convinced of the ML hypothesis, rather reposting the original comments from someone over at Motley Fool that got the discussion started (in fact, I'd rather prefer to believe that it wasn't true). You are correct ... this would have a small impact. Greg.

To: GVTucker who wrote (67185)	10/23/1998 1:10:00 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

GVTucker,>>>The postulation that somehow Merrill and Kurlak are negative on Intel in order to help out hedge funds that are short INTC is brain dead. .....anyone who believes that has no understanding at all of how Wall Street works. <<< You are right - I don't have a clue as to how Wall Street works. However, for LTCM to leverage several billion dollars into trillion dollar bets - I would think the equation they use is probably a little more complex than just to buy or sell stocks short and wait out the market. Similarly, the relationship between Merrill, Kurlak and their "clients" are probably a little more complex than any quid pro quo that you could take to the SEC. You must also factor into these "relationships" emotional components. Kurlak, if I have figured this out right, has worked very diligently to separate himself from other analysts. He probably view the other analysts as nothing more than external auditors basically doing due diligence on management's guidance. Tom has worked hard to differentiate himself and to become a "player" on Wall Street. He is viewed by many as someone that "moves" markets. Once that kind of stuff gets into your head (its pretty heady stuff - being king of the universe) - strange things happen. I admit, however, I don't know how Wall Street works. If I did, I wouldn't be here telling you or anyone else about it (ggggg). Mary