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: Mary Cluney who wrote (36020)	11/12/1998 4:22:00 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

>>two year time frame to measure growth is at best not all that meaningful - at its worst it is deceitful.<< No investor simply looks at what happens over several years before deciding whether to buy, hold or sell an issue. If earnings momentum picks up in the negative direction or goes flat, there's going to be selling. Only looking at what is going on every couple of years would be a prescription for disaster. Looking at the overall margins, average selling prices, on a quarterly basis makes sense as does the trends for the market being supplied -- i.e. PC's. Perhaps you see corps buying boxes at ever-increasing rates and the prices going back up? Where does INTC get the lion's share of its revenues, mpcs that go into PC's?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (36020)	11/12/1998 5:57:00 PM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Mary, I'm very sorry. You are correct. Only data from 1972-1978 are appropriate to today's situation. Two years is way too short a time period to draw any conclusions because it is negative. However, one projected quarter of minimal growth is a lifetime and the only reason you ever posted your growth story. We all know that 3 months is a greater time period than 24 months. Mary, do you twist logic pretzels for a living? With reasoning like that, I can see why you fall for the Intel scam-a-rama. You are not the first person to tout Intel as a Y2K stock when, of course, it is really a victim. However, I think you are the only one who really believes it. The others were just trying to pump their positions. Sure, all these cos are going back to spend billions with the crooks who snookered them into buying faulty crap in the first place. And they will spend all that money they are making on their Asian sales to pay for new crap that will add zero to their productivity. Much better and cheaper to buy all new hardware than to write new code. The facts. Growth in business spending on boxes is still declining. They will decline and maybe even turn negative as Y2K approaches. Now, I am not sure if you realize this or not, but most of these chips that Intel is supposedly selling have certainly not been sold to end users. They are going into the distributors to stuff inventory. That is not Intel's fault. It is the IBMs and Compaqs who stuff the channel. But it is Intel's fault for misleading those who do not understand the business just so they can bull up the stock price and maximize their bonuses. MB