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 (70152)	12/23/1998 3:59:00 PM
From: xstuckey	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

I think Kurlak's "change of heart" will be more beneficial to holders of Intel on the bad days rather than the good. He frequently changed a 1 or 2 point decline into a 4 to 6 point decline with his negative comments. Say what you will about Kurlak, when holding a position opposite his viewpoint, he sure is a formidable opponent. Best Trading, X

To: GVTucker who wrote (70152)	12/24/1998 1:09:00 AM
From: TTOSBT	Respond to of 186894

Re: "Downgrade issued in Aug '97: INTC price--92 S&P--925" The only credit he should be given for that call was that he was just about the only analysts who downgraded them after the company pre-warned everyone else ignored the company's guidance. This time however he was the last to follow the company's guidance! No analysts needed with Intel they guide correctly, just listen to them and you will make the correct move eventually! TTOSBT

To: GVTucker who wrote (70152)	1/4/1999 11:39:00 AM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Respond to of 186894

GV, I'm sure Kurlak would appreciate your analysis; however, each time he releases a research report he is making a separate decision. Although his ratings opinion may be reiterated, the judgement is separate and distinct. As such, each report represents a new call. Kurlak's INTC rec.s aren't measured against the S&P; they're measured against INTC and the INTC rec.s of his peers. On both counts he's been pathetic. One example of Kurlak's scorecard based on the "what have you done for me lately" model: 9-11-98 Research Report INTC (79 1/16) - stock price may rally some, but not expected to be sustainable - expect no trend reversal in 1998 - we expect Intel's shares to remain in a trading range near term until the Q4 and 1999 outlook takes shape $SPX 9-10-98 close 980.19; 12-22-98 close 1203.56; change +22.78% INTC 9-10-98 close 79 1/16; 12-22-98 close 119 1/16; change +50.59% So, if you look at that call, INTC outperformed the S&P 122% over the period in question. However, I don't believe that's the right way to look at it. For example, what if INTC exactly mimicked the S&P? Assume INTC also gained exactly 22.78% (or conversely the S&P gained 50.59%) while Kurlak had near-term neutral/long-term neutral ratings on INTC. Would you then argue that that Tom Kurlak made an accurate call despite the fact that Kurlak's call in his own words was as follows: stock price may rally some, but not expected to be sustainable, b) expect no trend reversal in 1998, and c) we expect Intel's shares to remain in a trading range near term until the Q4 and 1999 outlook takes shape - statements which did not prove to be remotely accurate? Good trading, Tom