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 : Gateway (GTW) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (6956)	1/1/1999 3:30:00 AM
From: Jet.Screamer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8002

Why is Intels business in worse shape than in 1996-jon

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (6956)	1/1/1999 9:35:00 AM
From: Kory	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8002

The most ridiculous statement I have ever read on SI (post by Skeeter): <what was their high q in 1995? 1996? if you take that q, assuming it isn't higher than this q, the growth rate is negligable. > That is absolutely brilliant. Skeeter - let me help you on basic math for a second. If you assume that that quarter is not higher than this quarter, the growth rate is negative by definition. You know, I just realized something. If I assume that Microsoft made less in 1998 than they did in 1993, they too have negative growth. WOW - this is enlightenment. Oops - just found the flaw in your theory. GTW will NOT have lower earnings in 1998 than in 1995 or 1996. For your benefit, here are the results: 1994 EPS: $0.61 1995 EPS: $1.09 1996 EPS: $1.60 1997 EPS: $0.70 1998 EPS: $1.37 + fourth quarter If you assume that GTW makes $.70 in the fourth quarter, they will have a compounded growth rate of 14% from 1996 levels or a 24% from 1995 levels. If you assume that GTW only makes $.65 in Q4, then they still have a 12% growth level from 1996 or a 23% growth level from 1995. The only way that GTW could possibly have "negligible growth" in 1998 is if they report less than $0.23 in 4th quarter earnings. If this is what you are counting on, feel free to short. Kory

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (6956)	1/9/1999 12:50:00 PM
From: Fred Fahmy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8002

Skeeter, <intc's business is in worse shape than 1996 > This is quantitatively false. 1998 EPS will be about 22% above 1996. I know you don't think that this justifies the current price (which obviously is based on future expectations not the past), but let's not play loose with the facts. Even more important, is that your statement is qualitatively absurd. Intel's "business" has never been in better shape. Margins are on the rise, Q4 record earnings, back to back record revenues (Q3 and Q4), strongest pipeline of new products in the company's history, tremendous yields, recent products being announced ahead of schedule, success at the high end (i.e. server space) beyond all expectations, and trouble keeping up with Xeon demand through Q1. You call this "worse shape than 1996"?? You've gotta be kidding. At any rate, you keep harping on the past. That's not how WS works. INTC is at a record high level precisely because WS believe that their prospects are better than ever. I happen to agree with that notion. If INTC doesn't meet 1999 expectations then the stock will come back down. This is exactly what happened when it hit 100 in the fall of 1997. When it became clear that they were not going to meet 1998 expections for the first part of the year the stock underperformed, declining from 100 to the mid 60's over a long period of time. If you assume that INTC is not going to deliver in 1999 then yes it is overvalued now. But if you assume that they are going to meet expectations then it is not overvalued. FF