Joe,
<re: AMD's PE, I think you have it backwards.>
I do not think so. A PE under 10 is low. A PE under 10 for AMD is historically high.
<AMD has been growing faster, earned more money per share, and is about to announce earnings that will likely again be higher than Intel's>
AMD's earnings are out. Do you still feel the same way? Yes they are higher per share than Intel's. Keep in mind that analyst projections of .55 cents used a much higher tax bracket than the 15% tax rate AMD used. Nothing wrong with that, except it should be taken into account when making comparisons.
<If based on this you call AMD overvalued, how do you value Intel?>
From another source:
"Intel reported year-end 2000 results, with fourth-quarter earnings of $0.38 per share (before charges), up 12%, on revenue of $8.7 billion, up 6% from 1999 and flat with the previous quarter. For the entire year, revenue rose 15% to a record $33.7 billion, while earnings per share soared 44% to $1.51. This heady growth arrives after net income rose 29% in 1999.
Eyeing the year, we're very happy with the performance. Gross margin remained above 60% despite lower chip prices, sales rose 15% despite lower demand than hoped, and earnings per share soared. The company ended 2000 with $13.8 billion in cash and equivalents, up from $11.8 billion the year prior -- and that's despite investing $6.7 billion in new capital equipment, $3.9 billion in research and development, and $4 billion in share repurchases in 2000." fool.com
Regards.
SK |
