Hi PB, a few comments re: Peck, Kumar, and Niles
Here, I believe, Peck is showing his lack of understanding of what Intel has become and what it is transforming itself into.
I worked for 18 years in marketing, planning, and manufacturing at Intel. Yes, in physical reality, the ability to cut costs has some finite boundary. But no one can match Intel in it's manufacturing prowess ... the ability to reduce costs and rapidly respond to changes in overall demand and product mix. Mssr. Peck acts like the finite boundary will be hit in 2000. Bull!
Secondly, I believe that Intel's networking and communications businesses will contribute more to the bottom line faster than Mssr. Peck states. Of course the ramp of these new businesses will be incremental, just as the reduced profitability of the traditional uP business will move in increments. Intel management has done an excellent job of investing heavily and intelligently in such areas, well ahead of the curve, IMHO.
My thinking tends to align more with Charles Glavin, who upgraded Intel to "strong buy" and raised his 2000 target price to $150.
It really helps me weed out the "extraneous" analysts when they show such a complete lack of understanding of the company they cover.
No, I'm not a company shill and I don't work at Intel anymore. But Peck is ignoring what Intel has proven it can do vis a vis design, manufacturing. & operations. Further, he is missing the train as Intel "recreates" itself yet again. Maybe he should reread "Only The Paranoid Survive" <VBG>.
Greg. |
