Gary- Niles overstates the case...While it is true that growth stock companies need to aggressively growth the top-line, a few things are true (in Intel's case) which Niles (and you, apparently) don't like to focus on...
(1) Analysts are paid to make estimates on company's quarterly reports...For them to come out, after the fact, after they are short with their estimate and to say, "oh, that .02 didn't count, because it was this...or that"...is not totally bogus, but it is a bit of covering-the-back...Niles should have had this included in his original estimate, and, in fact, probably did, but he harps on it now because it gives him "Spielraum" (room to play) with the number...Had he hit the number on the head...he would have said "Thank you very much" and not said, "oh, by the way, I was 2 cents high because of the .02 of blah, blah, blah....
(2) Now, companies, even growth companies have to hit a revenue estimate?? (Geez, it used to be just earnings, EPS)...I don't think it is appropriate to consider missing revenue in the same way one would consider missing EPS or earnings...think about the implications of that...it is extremely difficult for multi-billion dollar companies to hit exact revenue target...some variance should be allowed..they are not magicians, after all...what should be observed is the long(er)-term trend....I agree that "missing" revenue should be a concern, and even impact the stock, but I struggle to see a 1 quarter "miss" as as big a issue as missing earnings/EPS for a quarter..Niles is treating it as the same thing.
(3) Nowhere, nowhere does Niles mention that Q1 revenues are always sequentially down for Intel in recent years.....it is largely seasonal.......in fact, last year, sequential revenues, on a % basis, were down less this year than last..... Also, Intel's forecast "Q2 revs. flat-to-down" is a typical conservative Q2 forecast for Intel...it is extremely normal (Bryant, "business as usual", "seasonal")...for Kumar to shade it, as if there is a problem, is analyst-I-just-downgraded-and-I-can-move-the-market-if-I-am-negative-speak and is a bit disingenuous...
(4) Nowhere does Niles mention that PIII introduction introduction price points came in lower than PII (launched in previous year quarter)
I don't have a problem with Niles being pessimistic, as long as he is complete. He has been telling partial truths, and has not been complete on this issue. Neither has Pfeiffer.
Neff, Kumar, Kwantinez, Dell, IDC, Dataquest, Intel, Platt, J-man <g>: (For the most part) Normal seasonality
I think Niles is abusing (just a bit) his recently-won power, which has been made on some good calls (and probably a Dell leak), but he should be more careful, complete in his analysis. More data, less politics... |
