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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JRI who wrote (50419)	3/7/1999 8:15:00 PM
From: John Koligman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Earlie - I have to agree with John Rosser here. You seem to have forgotten the part about retail sales and the percentage that retail is of the overall PC market. Other than that, correct.... Regards, John

To: JRI who wrote (50419)	3/7/1999 8:38:00 PM
From: Earlie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

John: Your point is well taken. Still, I suspect that even Intel believers are shocked that such an unforeseen event could have occurred so quickly. What might have been added is that there has been a remarkable shift in Intel's fortunes during the past year. I doubt that anyone would have dreamed that any company could take serious market share away from INTC a year ago, never mind supercede Intel in the U.S. retail desktop sector. It is also rather remarkable that AMD is "production limited" (i.e. can sell everything that it can make), whereas that is not the case for Intel. I would point out that Intel is also losing former "loyalists" (GTW being the latest) and would have lost more if AMD had been able to deliver. Then there is the growing problem with Rambus. I still think that puts on Intel are a great way to make money over the next few months. If you peruse the last ten quarters, you will find a declining trend that does not support the current PE or stock price. Intel's market share loss has been nothing short of breathtaking, and this at exactly the wrong time,....just as the PC growth heads south. The global PC market will be fortunate if much more than 82-84 million units are sold this year, and it could be much worse if a recession hits. AMD will likely produce in excess of 5.0 million micros this quarter and the production is climbing. That suggests that AMD will own a quarter of the global market this year, and a smaller market at that. Cyrix isn't standing around either. Intel's problem this year will relate to excess production capacity, which can be a "bear" to deal with. Best, Earlie

To: JRI who wrote (50419)	3/7/1999 11:04:00 PM
From: Mike M2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

John, thanks for the clarification. Most of us are here to disseminate information sometimes we slip up . Factual attacks on bears and corrections are most welcome. we want to beat the market not each other. -g- Mike

To: JRI who wrote (50419)	3/8/1999 12:24:00 AM
From: Mike M2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

John, i checked some of my references and wanted to point out that Earlies comments to me indicate that he was aware of the fact that AMD overtook Intel in the desktop retail market only. He did neglect to put that in his post and we are glad you pointed that out. I just wanted to say that IMO he does excellent research and his efforts on the thread are appreciated. Earlie we are going to watching you a little more closely -g- Mike

To: JRI who wrote (50419)	3/8/1999 12:31:00 PM
From: Peter Singleton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

John, Earlie and Mike M both covered this, but thanks for the clarification on the facts. That's why I think a reasoned (though vigorous <g>) debate is so helpful. First, we may have our facts wrong, either because we're sloppy, or we make a simple mistake. Second, all of us are working off of mental models of the market and the economy, of varying levels of complexity and sophistication. But they're all abstractions of the underlying reality. Someone asked me the other day how bearish I was. My response was that I am probablistically bearish, as opposed to deterministically. Deterministically would be there's a mechanical response to current conditions - a significant bear market is inevitable, and likely soon due to a variety of technical and fundamental factors. Probabilistically bearish means that I recognize there are a variety of possible scenarios, each with associated probabilities. So, the art form if you feel this way, is to be able to identify said scenarios, weight their probabilities, and try to identify leading indicators that would tell you which way things are likely to go as things unfold. With all that said, I'm profoundly bearish. So wrap up this long note on a simple point <g>, this is why I find debate on points, and divergent views, so helpful. Both in identifying and evaluating scenarios, and also to help compensate for bias in my perceptual screening. When I'm bearish, I tend to look for and over-weight data that supports my outlook, and I do the same when I'm bullish. Of course, even screening for bias in my outlook, I think the facts indicate that sooner or later, probably sooner, we're looking at a hard down, possibly one with horrific consequences. Peter