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 : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JRI who wrote (117457)	4/14/1999 2:29:00 PM
From: W.B. Michaels	Respond to of 176387

RE:Niles-He is a little "card stacker" out to make a rep for himself-Card-stacking is when you ar conveniently remiss in deleting key information from statements in order to achieve your hidden agenda.wbm

To: JRI who wrote (117457)	4/14/1999 2:57:00 PM
From: David Harker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

>(2) Now, companies, even growth companies have to hit a revenue >estimate?? (Geez, it used to be just earnings, EPS) I agree. It is very arrogant for an analyst to claim: "I think Intel should have $xxx Billion in sales in the next Q" and than act as if Intel is "wrong" or "bad" when that does not happen. Niles is supposed to predict what the reality will be. He did not, his EPS was too low, and his revenue prediction was too high. By definition, the company is always correct, just like the weather is always correct, even if it differs from what the weather forecasters said...

To: JRI who wrote (117457)	4/14/1999 3:10:00 PM
From: Eggolas Moria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

<<...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...>> John, how do you know what I like to focus on? You haven't asked me my opinion on the matters you relate. You simply assume that because I didn't write anything about them in this message, that I don't focus on them? Sigh. 1. I always focus on quality of reported earnings. Sorry, that's a holdover from Thorton O'glove and fashionably out of date. Quality of reported earnings should always be part of one's analysis, IMO. A factor, not the determining one. By posting the Niles comments, I was simply saying that Intel may have hit it's earnings expectations (as the person to whom I wrote, said), but it did so with suspect quality, which Niles correctly pointed out. <<(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.>> Top line revenue growth has always been an important factor in growth stock investing. The literature on the subject is legion. I wrote as much in another message on this board in the last couple of days. Of course, as I said at that time, not all top line growth is a straight line. Since Intel has such strong barriers to entry and wide acceptance of its new processors, I wouldn't make much out of a single quarter of revenue shortfall. You would have known that if you had asked. <<3) Nowhere, nowhere does Niles mention that Q1 revenues are always sequentially down for Intel in recent years.....>> I can't answer for Niles on that issue, but it's been written about sufficiently that investors should already know the litany. Interestingly, when the issue first arose, before this quarter, there was only 1 data point that met the criteria (1Q98 vs. 4Q97). From 1Q93 through 1Q97, the first quarter revenues for Intel exceeded the prior 4Q number in each year. I could return the favor and ask why you didn't mention that? Perhaps you are agreeing with the notion that "in recent years" Q1 was "always" below Q4 in revenues. But, until this reported quarter, there was only a single data point supporting the notion. Hardly enough for statistical significance. Now perhaps something has changed. That's fine. Understanding how a business has changed is important and I love discussing such things. But please don't expect me to blindly agree that "it's always been this way" when there was only one data point to back it up prior to this release. More data, less politics please. Disclosure: Long Intel