Someone please explain the logic in the following. In connection with their remarks about a company that --- "For 2000, net income for Intel was $10.54 billion, or $1.51 per share, on $33.73 billion in revenue. In the year-ago period, Intel earned $7.3 billion on revenue of $29.39 billion" --- you get these astute comments:
"PCs are not where you want to be making your money," Peck said. "But unfortunately, that's where 90 percent of Intel's revenues come from."
<SNIP>
"There's no question that Intel is having one of the worse near-term fundamentals because of their large exposure to the PC market," Edelstone said.
But the company "has no choice" but to build more PC manufacturing plants, Edelstone said. "They have to be a player, and that's why this will be a challenging year for them."
Added analyst Jonathan Joseph of Salomon Smith Barney: "The outlook is fairly somber. But it does tell us something we already know - that the PC market is fairly weak."
Someone, somewhere might think the PC business looks pretty damned good. The fact that there will be a temporary downturn is inconsequential when you have $13 Billion or whatever in cash to get through the "tough times". Further, this is a company that is NETTING 1/3 of revenues.
Today's so-called investors just can't think long-term, or even intermediate term. Everything is about next week. As for me, I'm putting all I can into INTC right now. And a few years down the road I'm going to have a big sackful... |
