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 (73731)	2/16/1999 9:47:00 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

GVTucker,>>>this wasn't naive speculation.<<< Okay, let me see if I can straighten this out: It was not naive speculation, but it is speculation from a very savvy investor. >>>Intel's performance has nothing to do with his departure<<< May not be the entire reason why he left but it did have something to do with it, including AMD performance and MU performance. NO? >>>if an analyst was fired for missing the boat on a stock, there would be no analysts.<<< True, but just like anybody else, you can live on past performance alone for only so long. Given his performance the past year (at least), there had to be a lot of negative pressures on him. As an analogy, even if Michael Jordan came back to the Bulls, how long would it take for the fans and the media to get on his case, if he didn't score? Even though, I have some confidence in you in that you aren't tell us all that you know about this situation, but I am also fairly certain that you are drawing the wrong conclusion from what you do know and not sharing with us. Mary

To: GVTucker who wrote (73731)	2/17/1999 6:34:00 PM
From: Fred Fahmy	Respond to of 186894

GVTucker, <Yes, that is correct, Intel's performance has nothing to do with his departure.> Intel wasn't the only factor but to think it had no bearing is naive, IMO. <Fred, if an analyst was fired for missing the boat on a stock, there would be no analysts.> A few points. There is is a difference between "missing the boat on a stock" and being the only analyst on WS to not see the obvious. There is also a difference between "missing the boat" and ignoring management's direct answers to his own questions. Toward the end, it was clear that Kurlak had lost all objectivity. When an analyst makes his job personal and gets emotional, he is in deep do-do. Intel would tell him one thing and he would issue a report contradicting what Intel had just told him. This is far more than "missing the boat". It's one thing to ignore Intel's guidance, but there were times when he ignored results that were reported as actuals. His last minute upgrade of Intel on the premiss that the internet and E-commerce would boost PC sales was a total embarrassment to Merrill. Is this the kind of forward thinking analysis/revelation a high paid analysts is expected to generate. Hell, my 3 year old could have told Kurlak that the internet and E-commerce were going to fuel demand a long long time ago. In addition, as has already been pointed out, he totally and utterly embarrassed himself with respect to his AMD calls. IMO, the clearest sign that Kurlak has lost his objectivity was when he downgraded Intel's LONG TERM rating. Regardless of what he might have thought about the current cycle....to downgrade Intel's long term rating, to virtually as low a rating as Merrill ever rates, was a sign that Kurlak was declaring a personal war on Intel. You are absolutely right that "if an analyst was fired for missing the boat on a stock, there would be no analysts". However, in Kurlak's case it was much much more then simply missing the boat. It was a loss of credibility when he let his emotions take over. Simply put, Kurlak became an embarrassment and liability to Merrill. FF