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: Tony Viola who wrote (79169)	4/15/1999 12:07:00 AM
From: Fred Fahmy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Tony, <..a company that buys two big over the hill companies in the same year.> I think it is clear that CPQ's purchase of DEC was to mask some of their own problems. After the channel stuffing incident of late 1997 early 1998 the company new they had problems for the better part of 1998. DEC was a diversion from the real problem which was/is falling market share. Since they were one of the big advocates of low end PC's, it is safe to say that they experienced more cannibalization of higher end machines than your average box maker. In other words, their mix was less favorable. GTW, DELL and others have put the hurt on CPQ in a big way over the last several years. Their response is to make excuses for three quarters of the year and then make a huge push in the retail channel in Q4 to make things look like they have turned around significantly. I think CPQ has seen its best days. Intel and Dell are first tier. AMD and CPQ are definitely the B team. FF

To: Tony Viola who wrote (79169)	4/15/1999 12:12:00 AM
From: Process Boy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Tony - Danny N. Over on the AMD thread some of the folks that heard the AMD CC are saying that Sanders III treated Niles "condecendingly", indicating something like Niles "doesn't understand the industry at all". This is leading to speculation that Niles will be P.O.'d at AMD now. Waiting for more detail to leak out on the exact nature of the exchange was. Heck, may even dial in to the replay to hear it if I find some time. If Sanders III really did do something like this, for once I'm behind him 100% :-)). PB

To: Tony Viola who wrote (79169)	4/15/1999 3:56:00 AM
From: Jill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: Niles...cpq buy...intl sell... Maybe I'm weaving things too tight, but they seem related to me. I feel by spinning INTC earnings as negative, he could keep the impression that tech sector in trouble, and buffer CPQ's/5fers trouble, buy him time. I don't feel it was a coincidence he was on then 5fer, one-two punch. I think the whole thing is slanted news, reporters in bed w/ analysts in bed w/ specific companies. Am I going nuts? Wonder if Apple earnings will make any difference; they should indicate strength of sector; if they are ignored, well...

To: Tony Viola who wrote (79169)	4/15/1999 12:22:00 PM
From: Ram Seetharaman	Respond to of 186894

Today INTC is up and saying "Who the f.... is Dan Niles?". My message 79144 is below: From: Ram Seetharaman Wednesday, Apr 14 1999 8:20PM E While Intel's profit margins may be squeezed in the PC business, Dan Niles is wrong if thinks INTC is going to go down. INTC has 85 % market share and it is going to take some awesome kind of competition to wipe them out (if all its competitors band together and wipe'em out, which is highly unlikely! - when they themselves will have a hard time to survive in a price war). Like anything else in the long run, even the sub $ 700 PC market will only have 3 or 4 players in six or seven years (IBM's Panjandrum Gestner's quote "The PC era is over" is hard to even imagine, when new markets are spawning every day due to infusion of the internet!) INTC will still be around making chips. AMD will probably disappear before INTC, because they can't turn a consistently decent profit margin. AMD stock price is living proof - staying about the same for 15 years! I am also perplexed that Niles thinks CPQ is a "buy" (when it bought the fat "Digital" last year and expected it to help its bottom line - what a goof!), while INTC is a sell on CNBC for beating the estimates (and telling the truth that next quarter may be bland). He was wrong on CPQ, when he predicted it to reach $ 60! He is wrong on a INTC sell! Hold may be a better rating! INTC won't even go below $ 54 in the near term and may jump back with a vengeance towards $ 80 in a matter of days! The PC industry is too dependent on INTC to let it down. Too many small outfits will get hurt if INTC gets hurt and I don't see that happening.