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: Mary Cluney who wrote (73221)	2/9/1999 8:13:00 AM
From: t2	Respond to of 186894

Anybody who what Andy Bryant had to say yesterday? Intel presents today at 11:40---expecting a lot more news out of that. I am sure the stock price will reflect it by the end of the day.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (73221)	2/9/1999 9:08:00 AM
From: Joseph Pareti	Respond to of 186894

does anybody have details on the Acampura's call? I understand that he and McCabe predicted a short term correction in the high-tech area. IMO Mary Meeker's call was a long due act of common sense. Another chart analyst at CNBC concluded that the dow could go back to the 7500-8000 range. Declines outnumbering advances is one of the arguments they use to warrant an impending setback. Ron Insana asked if this correction is going to be more severe than last fall on the heels of rising rates and/or bias towards higher rates. All this could mean more choppy trading unless Intel preannounces again.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (73221)	2/9/1999 9:27:00 AM
From: GVTucker	Respond to of 186894

Mary, RE:<<My feelings also is that Intel has stayed undervalued these years, in part, for a lot of pathalogical reasons that I can't really seem to figure out. As an example and without really going into Kurlak's psyche (which I think is gothic - at this point)it is clearly evident that he has done great technical damage to Intel stock prices that will take some time to repair. >> Funny, when I was on the sell side in the 80's, Kurlak was lambasted for his consistently positive Intel ratings. Now he's being roasted for being consistently negative. In reality, the only thing that has changed is market psychology, not Kurlak. And as far as technical damage is concerned, Kurlak's effect on the price of Intel in less than one week. With any kind of reasonable time horizon, Kurlak's opinion is irrelevant to the price of Intel. This persistent 'undervaluation' that many on this board talk about is more due to the inconsistency in Intel's earnings rather than any analyst.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (73221)	2/9/1999 7:47:00 PM
From: Harry Landsiedel	Respond to of 186894

Mary Cluney. Re: "My feelings also is that Intel has stayed undervalued these years, in part, for a lot of pathalogical reasons that I can't really seem to figure out." I agree. Every once and awhile, a great company comes along and continues to sell well below the multiple that others who are growing as fast or even slower sell at. For example, Intel probably has one of the lowest PE/Growth rates in the top 50 large cap stocks. Yet they have a 92% share on a revenue basis. Who'd a thunk it. But undervalued stocks will catch up. When Buffett bought his large position in KO most of the analysts said KO was doomed to the slow growth track. He waited for the right CEO and then plunked down lots of cash. The rest is history. Here's an interesting article on overvaluation and undervaluation by Peter Lynch. worth.com Enjoy. HL