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: lanac who wrote (71143)	1/12/1999 8:08:00 PM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Respond to of 186894

lanac, I love seeing these advocacy pieces on Kumar. Bloomberg and thestreet.com should run a daily column on the guy. I mean, he's such an "unsung hero", and there are so few "heroes" left in the world, my god, if we've found one, isn't it only fair to give him his due? How downright irresponsible of Bloomberg and thestreet.com for not doing this already! Ashok Kumar said sales may be slowing at the No. 2 personal computer maker and that the stock could fall Well, if a Ph.D. in analytical philosophy looked at that statement, he or she could probably make a good case that it, like many of the statements contained in sell-side research, lacks any real meaning. <g> But seriously, the writer neglects to point out that Kumar's big "insight" on the call was his questionable use of unsustainable desktop unit shipment numbers for the industry - unsustainable, because if you annualized them, they would project to something like a 45% unit growth rate. Kumar has made something of a name for himself with unpopular but accurate calls... IMHO, a more accurate statement is "Kumar has played the media game better than any other analyst out there. The fact that Bloomberg is running yet another piece on Ashok Kumar that seems like a rehash of the 'Eric Loves Ashok' series sponsored by thestreet.com when Intel is reporting earnings is one example." They should do a piece on his media relations handlers at Piper. ''He's very plugged in,'' said portfolio manager Graham Tanaka of Tanaka Capital, who talks with Kumar about stocks he owns, including Dell and Intel Corp. ''He's been very accurate.'' The fact that this person thinks he's good is probably why he "talks with Kumar about stocks he owns." Would stating that AMD was "the last stock in the world you'd want to own" last fall be the type of accuracy Mr. Tanaka is referring to? Kumar has been kicked off conference calls by executives or barred from asking questions. I know he made those allegations. Where's the proof? Some companies have even said that they would fire employees who gave him information. And the reaction of a competent manager should be what exactly? Is the writer suggesting that employees who leak confidential firm information to outside third parties should be given a big thumbs up? Give me a break. Any employee who leaks confidential firm information to outside third parties should be terminated after appropriate review. OR doesn't the writer realize that some firms have people who make a living on gathering "competitive intelligence" and one source is sell-side research? By comparison, Kumar said in late August that Intel's third- quarter results could be higher than the forecasts of many of his counterparts. Kumar had talked to PC makers about demand and checked with dealers and distributors about sales and inventory Well, since the writer refers to Tom Kurlak and is making a comparison between Kumar and Kurlak it's seems surprising that the writer has chosen to omit the fact that the call in question occurred on a expiration Friday the day after Kurlak lowered his long-term rating on Intel. On April 28, he cut AMD to ''neutral'' from ''buy'' when the stock was at 28 1/6. And he initiated it when and why? Surely if the writer can research that call, the writer must be aware of the IBM investment that never occurred and that if my memory is correct it was Kumar who placed this rumor in his research initiating AMD as a "buy", correct? The stock trades now trades as about 32, after getting a lift from PC makers that are using AMD's cheap chips instead of costlier ones from Intel Corp. So, since the stock has appreciated roughly 145% and it was Kumar himself who said around that time that AMD was the "last stock in the world you'd want to own" - this would be another point of evidence arguing the case that Kumar has been "accurate"? No mention made of his keen sense of market-timing? I think the guy's more a great case study in "media, culture, and the creation of social knowledge". INTC's a great company irregardless of what Kurlak or Kumar say, positive or negative. Good trading, Tom

To: lanac who wrote (71143)	1/12/1999 8:18:00 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

That Kumar article you dug up is baloney, at least as far as his calls on AMD are concerned. I wouldn't trust him on Intel either. 1. Most recently after AMD's 3rd quarter conference call, Kumar said AMD was way too optimistic to forecast an increase from 3.7M chips (3Q) to a range of 4.2-4.7M chips (4Q). Now Kumar is estimating the top of this range, 4.7M, but he's still 3rd from the bottom of all estimates at Message 7246228 2.AMD, which makes chips that compete with Intel, was optimistic that its Austin, Texas, plant would be churning out chips at a fast clip and give a lift to sales. Kumar, however, thought that the yields, or number of usable chips on an eight-inch wafer, were lower than AMD expected. He also foresaw problems with the product designs. On April 28, he cut AMD to ''neutral'' from ''buy'' when the stock was at 28 1/6.[this WAS a good call, but not for the reasons mentioned] Lets compare what AMD expected for Q2'98 vs. what actually happened. From the AMD Q1'98 conference call just before Kumar's downgrade: a. they forecast 2.0M K6's vs. 1.55M in Q1 -- *actually,* they made 2.7M! Therefore, yield was WAY ABOVE what they expected. Kumar was wrong. The statement above that AMD was "optimistic" is total Maoist Revisionism! b. they hoped ASP's would go up from $109 in Q1. *Actually,* they went down to $86 or $82, depending on how you figure it. This, and implosion in AMD's other businesses was the cause of a substantial loss in Q2, not low yields. c. they expected expenses to rise so that the breakeven level for sales would be $700M, vs. $630M in Q1. They said that Q2 would have a loss for sure. *Actually,* expenses did not rise at all, completely contradicting Kumar and his "low yield" hypothesis. Specifically, cost of sales went down $33M (8%), while R&D and overhead rose $12M each. Again, Bloombergs assertion: "It turned out that AMD's costs also were too high because of the low yields" -- is totally contradicted by the facts. A better explanation would be "AMD's ASP's were too low because of Intel and a glut of CPU's." It was a pain to dig this stuff up, but when a jerk like Kumar gets praise from a "journalist," someone's got to speak up. Kumar is the worst analyst in the business. Beware of the 'K' analysts! Petz

To: lanac who wrote (71143)	1/13/1999 5:49:00 PM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Respond to of 186894

lanac, Ashok "no guts, no glory" Kumar was pretty accurate on that stock split today. thestreet.com Piper Jaffray analyst Ashok Kumar expects some other news from the company's earnings announcement today. He predicts the company will announce a 2-for-1 stock split, something that hasn't happened since July 1997. Also something that didn't happen today. "No guts, no glory" is a pretty easy mantra to live by when the reporters allegedly "covering" your work have "no follow-up, no memory" as their demonstrated journalistic practice. These guys are sacred cows. Look at Kurlak. The guy got about 5% of what was due to him. The financial press totally pussed out. As far as mainstream financial publications, Andrew Serwer and his cohorts at Fortune Street Life were the only ones showing any spirit. Everyone else just rolled over. Six months from now, you'll be seeing puff pieces on "the Kurlak comeback" or some crap like that. They don't care about the truth. All they care about is making a deadline. The truth doesn't follow a deadline. Good trading, Tom