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: Andreas who wrote (82418)	6/1/1999 11:32:00 PM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Respond to of 186894

Andreas, thanks. In some ways the Niles "news" was "out" even before that, only the "interested parties" who oh so altruistically spoonfed the story to the press today either weren't feeling quite as altruistic two weeks ago or weren't as convincing spinning its importance. He was talking about the possibility of a 3-5% ASP decline (versus the 1% that he "modeled") against 1-2% more processor shipments back on 5-17-99 in a note entitled "Computer and SEmiconductor Industry Overview". Of course the "model" he attaches is dated 4-14-99 and has FY'99 EPS from continuing ops. at $2.25 and revs. @ $7.032 mil. Given that he makes reference to "the 1% we modeled" in the text of a 5-17-99 document and the document contains a model labelled "current version 4-14-99", it seems reasonable to assume that the more recent ASP assumptions were not incorporated in the 4-14-99 model even though they were voiced earlier on in the text. That's what I meant when I said the story was really how the story became the story. It didn't get the press coverage at the time. Why? INTC was rolling out the 550Mhz PIII, HWP just reported, and everyone was on pins and needles for DELL. But was it really just a crowded news cycle? Good trading, Tom

To: Andreas who wrote (82418)	6/2/1999 1:36:00 AM
From: Berney	Respond to of 186894

Andreas, I did note your post last week and really appreciated it! It is interesting that an anal-yst such as Niles can be on the low end of the mean earnings estimate for the quarter and, therefore, by definition, stating that the consensus will not be achieved, simply state his position that he thinks he is right and the vast majority are wrong and investment world buys it hook, line, and sinker. Further, as you note, he does it with a full month to go. I really hope this dude loses all his credibility on this one. However, you got to admire the idiot's sense of timing. Equally, with a full month to go, INTC is not in a position to pre-announce that they are not going to pre-announce. Then too, from a TA perspective the charts were at a critical point. His sense of timing surely served his interests well. Berney

To: Andreas who wrote (82418)	6/2/1999 2:12:00 AM
From: exhon2004	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Andreas: re >>Opinion is growing that Niles will continue to lose credibility as he makes outrageous opinions unsupported by substantiated and credible evidence.<< It seemed like it took forever for that loser Kurlak to fire himself. These guys, (and gals), seem to have nine lives when it comes to the process of losing credibility. Question is which one is Dan on? Regards, Greg